MAJ 7000 Hurricane Katrina case studies

Posted by Winnie Melda on October 19th, 2018

Hurricane Katrina was a natural and extraordinary act that spawned a human tragedy.  In the history of America, this hurricane has been said to be the most destructive, laying waste about 90,000 sq. Miles of land equal to the size of the UK. In Mississippi State, the storm event obliterated coastal communities leaving thousands destitute as from the case studies in question. For instance, in New Orleans, the response teams were overwhelmed by flooding. As a result, more than 1500 people lost their lives. Furthermore, along with the Gulf Coast, several thousands of people suffered without the provision of essentials almost a week. However, the suffering that extended for several days and weeks after the storm had passed did not just happen in a vacuum; it extended longer than it should have due to the failure to adequately respond to it (Davis, 2006).
That prolonged suffering was exacerbated by the failure of all levels of the government to effectively plan, prepare for and also respond aggressively to that storm. These failures were pervasive and conspicuous. Among the several factors responsible for these failures included
•    Long-term warnings were not heeded besides the government officials neglecting their duties to prepare for the prior warning about the catastrophe
•    The government officials also took inadequate actions or made poor  decisions the days before and those immediately following the landfall
•    The systems on which the states of Orleans and Louisiana relied on to help them effectively respond to the disaster failed, and
•    There was a lack of effective leadership provided by all levels of leadership. Those individual failures happened against a backdrop of failure, with time, to develop the capacity for a cooperative, national response to the catastrophic event, whether human-made or natural.
Steps that Would have been taken for Improvement
The first thing that should have been done in light of this disaster in question was carrying out the proper investigations to validate the warnings that were earlier given. From the case studies in this week’s assignment, it is clear that there was enough prior information regarding the devastating potential of the Katrina, and the uncertain capabilities of the levees as well as the floodwalls protecting New Orleans, plus the likely needs of the survivors (Davis, 2006). The top officials at all levels of the government should have heeded the advisories from the National Hurricane Center as well as the personal warnings from Max Mayfield, the NHC Director (Murphy & Jennex, 2006). The thorough investigation based on the warnings would have helped to grasp the Katrina’s potential for destruction before it could make a landfall so that effectively mechanisms would be put in place to contain it and reduce the causalities.
The other thing that was at stake was concerning the way officials prepared for the Katrina. They did not adequately prepare for it as if it was a major disaster (Gheytanchi et al., 2007). Some coastal towns in Mississippi made substantial efforts by sending people who went door-to-door trying to convince and cajole the people along the coast to move out of the way of the harm. Also, the State of Louisiana activated like three times the National Guard troops that helped to evacuate the threatened population. Also, the City of New Orleans issued a mandatory evacuation that was the first ever in history. But however vigorous those preparations seemed to be, there was witnessed poor prior planning and unwillingness to dedicate sufficient resources to the disaster management over a long term, and this doomed them to fail in handling the (Lawhorn, 2007).  
 After assessing the situation, carrying out the proper investigations and addressing the issue of required resources, communication, and proper cooperation before and during the disaster was mandatory.  That should have been directed by the leadership at all levels. Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin knew very well the limitations of their emergency response resources, but they failed to specify those needs sufficiently to the federal government ahead of the landfall. For instance, Government Blanco wrote a letter to President Bush concerning the inadequacy of the resources, but she failed to specify the required assistance from the federal government. Also, the transportation secretary in the New Orleans ignored his responsibilities of informing the relevant arms of the government about the additional transportation required to evacuate the tens of thousands of people. Based on the long-standing role of requests that should have triggered action by higher levels of government, local governments of Louisiana and New Orleans bears responsibility for not signaling their needs to the federal government in a more clear and specific manner (Murphy & Jennex, 2006).
Lastly, government involvement would have been helpful. The state of Louisiana stated clearly how the government should get involved in a major disaster like the Katrina. It states that, during a catastrophe that exceeds the state and its local resources, and substantially disrupts the government operations as well as the disaster services, the roles of the federal government is crucial, meaning that the government should play a more significant role in the emergence response compared to the ordinary disasters.  However, the government left the local governments to struggle on their own as it just took the disaster juts like the normal disasters (Gheytanchi et al., 2007). It should have supported these local governments with resources that should have helped them to address the disaster effectively.  The government should have also worked closely with the local governments in ensuring that the entire response process is well-supported instead of waiting until things get out of control like it was witnessed (Murphy & Jennex, 2006).
Recommendation
Hurricane Katrina exposed many flaws in the structure of the DHS and FEMA that are too significant to mend. The fact that FEMA was ineffective in most areas of their preparedness, it needs to be eliminated and replaced with an agency that would act as a national preparedness and response authority.  The new authority should work within the DHS so as to take advantage of its range of resources. To make sure that the new authority has the proper capabilities to handle any kind of disaster, capable and qualified leadership officials would be chosen from the ranks of professionals that have experience in crisis management (Wise, 2006).  The agency should also be endowed with endow with the full range of responsibilities necessary to preparing for as well as responding to disasters. Those will include the four primary responsibilities of comprehensive disaster management, that is, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
Conclusion
This paper cannot do any justice to the human suffering that was endured during and after the Katrina and also to the dimensions of emergency response. Concerning the latter, the successes, and many failures have been identified including the steps that were in requirement; there is no doubt that number requirements have been missed in both categories.  Avoiding the last mistakes is not enough. Our leadership and the systems ought to get prepared for such catastrophes, whether resulting from terrorism or natural causes.  The areas of weakness that have been identified in this paper should be thoroughly examined, and appropriate mechanisms are put in place to ensure that future responses are efficient and timely.
 
References
Davis, T. (2006). Select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. Final Report. US House of Representatives, February, 15.
Gheytanchi, A., Joseph, L., Gierlach, E., Kimpara, S., Housley, J., Franco, Z. E., & Beutler, L. E. (2007). The dirty dozen: Twelve failures of the Hurricane Katrina response and how psychology can help. American psychologist, 62(2), 118.
Lawhorn, M. S. N. (2007). Disaster preparedness: occupational and environmental health professionals' response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Workplace Health & Safety, 55(5), 197.
Murphy, T., & Jennex, M. E. (2006). Knowledge management, emergency response, and Hurricane Katrina. International Journal of Intelligent Control Systems, 11(4), 199-208.
Wise, C. R. (2006). Organizing for homeland security after Katrina: is adaptive management what’s missing?. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 302-318.

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at Melda Research in legitimate research paper writing services if you need a similar paper you can place your order for buy narrative essay.