Emergency Management Schneider Case Study 3 Term Paper

Schneider Case Study #3Hurricane Katrina in LouisianaOne of the most devastating catastrophes to strike America was Hurricane Katrina that hit Louisianas shore on 29th August 2005. This hurricane led to significant havoc and claimed over 1,800 lives (Schneider, 2011). One especially vulnerable city was New Orleans, since it already lies below sea level, although it did have protective measures in levees and floodwalls. But after the storm struck land, the above protective measures were unable to endure its impact, resulting in deadly flooding that swept the entire city. Before this massive hurricanes arrival, domestic officials urged the city residents to evacuate their homes while simultaneously establishing shelters to accommodate residents who dwelt in high-risk places where the hazard was to be expected. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) moved its human and material resources into the city for effective, timely response in affected regions (Schneider, 2011). Federal, state, and local governmental authorities seemed to be well-prepared, equipped, and aware of their responsibilities. After the onset of the storm, the process of milling commenced swiftly. Residents impacted by the calamity displayed pro-social and positive conduct. In other words, they were cognizant of the destruction wrought by it and were enthusiastic in their efforts to assist each other (Schneider, 2011). They led their respective search parties to aid their fellow city residents in locating their kith and kin who were missing in the storms aftermath. But a few residents did not display such favorable conduct and instead, as has been recorded by Schneider, took to burglary, shoplifting, and mugging in several areas throughout the city of New Orleans (Schneider, 2011).Furthermore, violent offenses were being perpetrated, with even law enforcement officials (shockingly) engaging in such illegal conduct. Emergency response endeavored to adopt a bottom-up approach to implementation, but this pattern was not meant to be utilized in case of a massive scale calamity. Ineffective communication between governmental authorities resulted in increased expenses and delays concerning the delivery of aid. Concerned authorities swiftly tried to adopt a top-down approach to a response that resulted in a greater amount of delay in delivering aid, as well as a confusing pattern of implementation. Authorities at the local, state and federal levels failed to fully comprehend their respective responsibilities through the emergency response process. Owing to local authorities and the governments delayed actions, Hurricane Katrinas response was perceived as a failure (Schneider, 2011).Hurricane Katrina in MississippiThe devastation that Hurricane Katrina wreaked was not limited only to Louisiana. Later that very same day, it made its way to the boundary of Mississippi and Louisiana. When this Category 3 hurricane swept across Mississippi State, it left a whopping eight percent of its residents devoid of power, in addition to destroying several thousand edifices (Schneider, 2011). It claimed as many as 231 lives, besides costing several billion dollars in property damage (Schneider, 2011). The government moved in to respond to this disaster even before it left the Gulf. Residents were alerted regarding the approaching…

Some parts of this document are missing

Click here to view full document

…former, staying off the streets, which started flooding (Schneider, 2011). But after floodwaters started rising, local authorities instructed residents to evacuate, a directive it should have issued earlier, as several had no option but to remain wherever they were. Structures were destroyed, power outages occurred, and transport and communication systems were affected (Schneider, 2011). Some residents attempting to evacuate drowned in their vehicles; others trapped at home also lost their lives (Schneider, 2011). However, milling came to a rather swift end following the storm (Schneider, 2011). Citizens and emergency response personnel worked in unison to rescue stranded individuals.A bottom-up pattern of response was adopted as local-level political leaders, and emergency management officials kept close tabs on the situation (Schneider, 2011). The approach worked rather well for the disaster. Public authorities filled sandbags for mitigating the floods impacts, while National Guard members aided search efforts and distributed drinking water to residents (Schneider, 2011). The disaster response functioned methodically and smoothly. The lone issue arose with the National Weather Services failure to promptly alert emergency authorities about actions (Schneider, 2011). State officials were quick to activate the states emergency operations, closely collaborating with FEMA for granting relief to a larger number of counties. While some complained of the lacking national coverage, this may have proved beneficial to response efforts (Schneider, 2011). Authorities were free to focus on their responsibilities systematically, without any scorn or fanfare. Hence, in the publics view, the Tennessee governments response to flooding in the state proved successful…