Both positive and negative aspects characterize the emergency management system in the United State in its attempts towards the realization of evolutionary changes that are disaster-oriented and driven. Previously, the relevant institutions and authorities within the United States that were ensuring security and managing instances of disaster were on the forefront in providing a convenient framework for making evolutionary changes. One such authority is the department of Homeland Security, which played a critical role in facilitating emergency operations in response to various instances of disaster that befell The United States (Haddow, Bullock, and Coppola, 2014). The effectiveness of a system of emergency management is an essential requirement that should not be overlooked by any responsible government. The United States government, just like most governments across the globe, has a constitutional mandate and obligation to ensure the provision of public safety and well-being. This nature of emergency management obligation presents a fundamental philosophy that offers continual guidance to the government with regard to coming up with evolutionary changes that are efficient and effective in responding and management of disasters. The natural and catastrophic disasters that were evident during the 1960s through to the 1970s led to the evolution witnessed in the structures and functions of the emergency management system in the United States. In addition, this evolution was responsible for overseeing the introduction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA which took place in the year 1979. To that extent, this agency tasked with the management of emergencies has become the center and emphasis of administrative and organizational decisions in various aspects ( United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1984). Notably, one of the negative aspects associated with the kind of disaster-driven evolutionary changes adopted by the United States in managing emergencies and disasters is the slow response in handling and addressing issues of organizational policies. The operations of emergency management systems are largely defined and influenced by policy formulations and implementations. There has been an escalation in the economic and social costs of disaster management over more than the last three decades. Furthermore, some of the recent catastrophic incidences in the United States since the September 2001 terrorist attack have significantly increased the level of attention accorded to some of the evolutionary changes in the areas of disaster management. Relatively few researchers and public administrators playing an active role in policy design and management of the emergency system have characterized the disaster-driven evolution. This is contrary to experts and researchers involved in several other social disciplines. It is worth noting that policy formulation challenges have negatively influenced the concerted efforts that were aimed at the management of natural disasters in a manner that demonstrates effectiveness (Haddow, Bullock and Coppola, 2014). Additionally, slow development has marred the efforts directed towards realizing evolutionary changes in handling disasters as well as systems put in place to manage emergencies. The primary role of emergency management systems is more than just stopping instances of terrorist attacks. The establishment of such systems happens with the objective of ensuring that the results of catastrophic events and natural disasters such as terrorist attacks and earthquakes are effectively managed. In this regard, the effective management process would be expected to reduce injuries, prevent losses lives and reduce economic instability or disruption as we well as prevent the damage of properties. Another negative aspect of the evolutionary changes concerned with the emergency operation in addressing disaster is the failure experienced in the responsive mechanisms put in place. For instance, the management of the Hurricane Katrina was considerably affected by failed responses where extensive operations were expected to revolve around rescue and recovery activities. However, such activities were adversely affected by the low efficiency that was experienced in the entire process ( United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1984). Nonetheless, positive attributes and aspects can also be identified with the evolutionary changes affecting the emergency management system in the United States. Such includes a steady increase in the number of organizations and institutions whose major responsibilities involves enhancing and facilitating the process of disaster response whenever there is a need. The existence and increase in the number of these organizations are attributable to the underlying concern that successive federal governments failed in the effective management of response and rescue operations in the event of a disaster. The views by (Haddow, Bullock and Coppola, 2014) seem to point to some of the positivity that has been put forth by the dramatic evolution of energy management towards the end 1960s with a focus on disaster occurrences and incidences. Among such positive instances was the establishment of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, OEP, to ease and facilitate the management of emergencies around the country. The management of emergency systems within the United States may not be in a position to ensure the elimination of all risks and disasters. However, prudent management of the emergency response and rescue processes is capable of bringing reliable solutions to the challenges facing Homeland Security. Essentially, the management of incidences of emergency and disaster calls for effectiveness in the processes of risk analysis as well as the implementation of the procedures and policies that are aimed at driving evolutionary challenges further down to a minimal level. Further, the negativity in relation to the evolutionary changes affecting emergency operations and processes is evident in the inevitability of a lack of preparedness in handling future incidences that may be disastrous. It is expected that the procedures and the process of planning should not undergo improvisations in situations that require emergency responses. In that regard, the outcomes of unwarranted improvisations come out through the inefficiencies that characterize emergency responses that could be associated with tragic or adverse consequences (Kapucu and Özerdem, 2013). The level of uniqueness associated with every disaster that occurs is an indication that improvisation has to be adopted even though it may not be the best option. Furthermore, emergency rescue missions during disasters have considerably failed to provide the relevant experiences that are appropriate in coming up with ways of addressing improvisations, inefficiencies, and mistakes that have always characterized previous incidences. The Coast Guard in the United States is seen to play a critical role in the operation of the Homeland Security Department even though it is not one of the final agencies that are tasked with overseeing disaster management systems and operations. In addition, the Coast Guard has previously been at the center of influencing emergency services, especially with the American ports. Such a position has majorly represented revolutionary changes whose emphasis and focus are to address challenges and issues arising from disasters and emergency incidences. The Coast Guard has been able to step up its responsibilities and efforts by ensuring the effective handling of emergency response and rescue services at the ports within the United States (Kapucu and Özerdem, 2013). In summing up, the evolution of emergency management within the United States has experienced a considerable number of challenges that are evident in its negative aspects. However, the same evolution is also associated with some positive aspects, which have gone to the extent of emphasizing its relevance and importance. Clearly, there have been historical challenges that contributed to the introduction and commencement of disaster-driven evolutionary changes such as those experienced during disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes witnessed in the early nineteenth century.
References
Haddow, G. D., Bullock, J. A., & Coppola, D. P. (2014). Introduction to emergency
Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Kapucu, N., & Özerdem, A. (2013). Managing emergencies and crises . Burlington, Mass:
management .
United States Federal Emergency Management Agency. (1984). NEMS, National emergency management system. Washington, D.C: The Agency.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
