Government Response to Hurricane Katrina

National strategy for homeland security requires collaborative efforts by both the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) and National Response Framework (NRF) to prepare for and provide a unified national response to disasters. Effective incident management of catastrophic events requires coordination of relevant stakeholders. Both the NIMS and NRP, the Federal and State agencies have responsibility for addressing any disaster and emergencies through pooling resources together. However, the framework faces myriad of challenges including meagre resources and malfunctioning local governments. These challenges effective response to disasters such as Katrina (Walsh, Christen Jr, Lord, & Miller, 2011).

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

We can write
your paper for you

100% original

24/7 service

50+ subjects

Order Now

Impacts of the changes on the programs in response to Katrina. The changes are necessary in providing guidelines on the response by the both the State and Federal governments in the event on major disasters such as Katrina. NIMS provides proactive approach for the response team in preparation, prevention and mitigation of the effects of Katrina. On the other hand, NRF details national disaster response principle, responsibilities and structures which lead to a coordinated response to disaster. Therefore, these changes make response to disasters more efficient and effective (Walsh, Christen Jr, Lord, & Miller, 2011).
Necessities of changing in the existing National Response Plan (NRP) to the current National Response Framework(NRF). Unlike NRP, the NRF puts in place a single, robust approach to domestic disaster management. NRF outlines effective ways of preventing, preparing for, response to Hurricane Katrina when it occurs in any state especially in the vulnerable areas. Moreover, NRF is an all-hazards plan within the framework of National Incident Management System (NIMS). Nevertheless, establishment of NRF was mandated by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to integrates the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and other national-level contingency plans in responding to Hurricane Katrina. Therefore, it establishes the structure and mechanisms for national-level policy and operational direction for domestic disaster management (Wise, 2006).
Response to hurricane Katrina dictated by the today’s NRF and NIMS. The all-hazards approach is cost effective due coordination among organizations involved in the four parts of emergency management: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery in achieving common goal, that is, Hurricane Katrina. The response allows sharing of costs by the organizations involved thus reducing the cost borne by each state in mounting response to Hurricane Katrina (Walsh, Christen Jr, Lord, & Miller, 2011).
Emergency management at the local level and implementation of the NRF in response to Katrina. Local jurisdictions are responsible for ensuring the public safety and welfare of their residents during emergencies by mobilizing resources for the same. The NRF implementation does not therefore, usurps state responsibility and jurisdiction when responding to a disaster but provide framework for such response (Walsh, Christen Jr, Lord, & Miller, 2011).
It is therefore, imperative to note that National strategy for homeland security requires collaborative efforts by both the National Management Systems and National Response Framework (NRF) to prepare for and provide a unified national response to disasters. The all-hazards approach is cost effective and efficient in emergency response during Hurricane Katrina (Wise, 2006).
References
Walsh, D., Christen Jr, T. H., Lord, G., & Miller, G. (2011). National incident management system: Principles and practice. . New York: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Wise, R. C. (2006). Organizing for homeland security after Katrina: Is adaptive management what’s missing? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 302-318.