Now showing 1 - 5 of 8
- ItemDisaster and Organizational Change: A Study of the Long-term Consequences in Anchorage of the 1964 Alaska Earthquake(Disaster Research Center, 1969-09) Anderson, William A.Some of the monographs in the series published by the Disaster Research Center (DRC) present theoretical discussions of short-run organizational responses to community crises. Others of the monographs deal with general topics such as warning problems in large-scale emergencies. Still others in the series are primarily descriptive accounts of specific disasters. This particular monograph reports yet another kind of research undertaking. It is a longitudinal study of organizational change over an eighteen-month period. The monograph examines, within a sociological framework, the changes that occurred as a result of the Alaskan earthquake in the structure and functions of twenty-three organizations in Anchorage, Alaska. It attempts to answer the question of what were the long-run modifications that could be attributed to the experiences of these organizations in the disaster. In one respect, it asks what kind of “organizational learning” took place. The author also makes an effort to account for the conditions and contexts that led some of the groups to alter themselves significantly whereas others remained as they were before the earthquake. In the main, what is impressive is the relative lack of organizational change that took place. Such long-run modifications in structure and functions that occurred were highly selective, and often the continuation of already existing trends. The following account is a testimony to the remarkable stability of social life and suggests that while change is ever present it is not likely to be significantly accelerated or drastically reoriented in different directions even by a major disaster. Whether this general observation stems from some unique or particular constellation of factors in the Alaskan earthquake, or whether it is a more universal finding, will have to await examination of other disaster situations. At this point, the author has provided a very good starting point for future studies.
- ItemInventory of the Disaster Field Studies in the Social and Behavioral Sciences 1919-1979(Disaster Research Center, 1984) Quarantelli, E. L.In 1961 the Disaster Research Group of the National Academy of Sciences issued a monograph entitled Field Studies of Disaster Behavior: An Inventory. That monograph was an attempt to provide in one source “a relatively complete list of the field studies on human behavior in disasters that have been conducted by behavioral scientists” (1961:1). The list included 114 field studies of 103 events which had produced 121 reports. In the two decades since that monograph there has been an acceleration in the number of field studies which have been undertaken. This reflects the flourishing of disaster research generally. The Academy inventory therefore is considerably out of date. Annotated bibliographies produced in the ensuing years have not had the same objective as an inventory; a gap in the disaster literature consequently exists. Researchers, planners, and others interested in research findings do not have one source which lists all field studies and identifies and locates pertinent publications for specific disaster situations. While this report builds on the old Academy inventory, it is not merely an extension of that publication. It differs somewhat in both coverage and format. The end product is a result of a series of decisions we had to make in developing our new inventory. It lists and provides relevant information on disaster field studies in the social and behavioral sciences in English language sources and references for more than a sixty year period. The work on our inventory was accomplished as a part of a larger effort at the Disaster Research Center (DRC) which included the production of a companion volume, Inventory of the Japanese Disaster Research Literature in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
- ItemInvestigating the Benefits and Drawbacks of Realigning the National Guard under the Department of Homeland Security(United States Army War College Press, 2016-08) Burke, Ryan; McNeil, SueThe 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) designates homeland defense (HD) as one of the three core pillars of the nation’s current and future defense strategy. Defending the homeland from external threats and aggression requires a robust military capability. In this sense, both the federal Armed Forces (active and reserve components), as well as state National Guard forces play important roles in the defense of the nation. Further, HD often overlaps with civil support (CS) and homeland security to form a triad of domestic military operational domains. Where the roles, responsibilities, and limitations of the active and reserve components of the Armed Forces are relatively clear in this triad, the National Guard is a unique military entity capable of serving in either a state-controlled or federally controlled status during domestic operations. Whether the Guard operates in a state-funded, state-controlled status (State Active Duty [SAD]); a federally funded, state-controlled status (Title 32); or a federally funded and controlled status (Title 10) is a topic of ongoing debate during CS missions. Regardless of their duty status in such situations, the National Guard contributes to the security, protection, and well-being of the population. As such, it is important to continually assess the roles, responsibilities, and organizational orientation of the National Guard during domestic operations in support of civil authorities, and to ensure the states and federal government maximize the utility of this unique military capability when it matters most. As part of the ongoing effort to improve domestic mission capabilities in support of civil authorities, the Department of Defense (DoD) continually evaluates new and different approaches to achieving enhanced civil-military coordination. In this context, the unique position of the Guard as either a state or federal military forcedepending on duty status designationbrings added complexity to the already difficult task of ensuring a well-coordinated state and federal military response effort. As such, there has been continued debate over whether the National Guardor specific elements thereofshould serve in a permanent federal capacity to better support the nation’s security and disaster response mission. As a result of that ongoing discussion, the 2014-2015 Army War College’s Key Strategic Issues List (KSIL) asks: “what would be the benefits and drawbacks of realigning the [National] Guard under the [Department] of Homeland Security to enhance domestic security and disaster response, while retaining utility for overseas missions in support of the Department of Defense?” This monograph details our efforts to research and evaluate the perceived benefits and drawbacks of realigning the National Guard under the DHS, as per the KSIL topic noted above. We begin with a brief review of the relevant literature shaping the current policy and doctrinal approach to military CS operations, including a summary of laws and strategic guidance relevant to the discussion. We then note the important distinctions between homeland security (HS) and HD and the military role in each context. The seam between HS and HD provides a conceptual basis for discussing the roles and responsibilities of the National Guard, the DHS, and the DoD within domestic security and disaster response operations. After evaluating the National Guard’s role in each of the above contexts, we briefly discuss the realignment of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) within the DHS as a proxy for comparison of a similar realignment of a military-style entity under the DHS. Then, drawing from interviews with relevant subject matter experts, we present several potential benefits and drawbacks of a Guard realignment to the DHS as noted by those interviewed for this monograph. Interview subjects represented a broad range of backgrounds, including officers from both the Army and Air National Guard; the Maryland and Delaware state emergency management agencies; active and retired U.S. Coast Guard officers; the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM); current and former senior DoD officials with experience in homeland defense and CS operations; as well as representatives from academia with specific interests in military-involved state and federal operations. The study concludes with five short recommendations in summary of the research effort.
- ItemMaturing Defense Support of Civil Authorities and the Dual Status Commander Arrangement Through the Lens of Process Improvement(U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA, 2015-04) Burke, Ryan; McNeil, SueThe role of the military during homeland defense and civil support operations has significant strategic implications for U.S. national security efforts. Considerations for the future employment of Active Component forces during missions in the homeland have evolved into a major topic of conversation among policymakers and military strategists alike. In this context, there is a philosophical conflict between federalism and state sovereignty that continues to present itself as an impediment to success. Balancing the institutionally divergent approaches to achieve a unified, efficient, and effective response continues to prove problematic. The dual status commander (DSC) initiative offers a coordination mechanism intended to address the challenges of unity of effort between state and federal military response activities. However, there are numerous gaps in the available DSC guidance, which leads to increased complexity and confusion during domestic disaster response. This monograph introduces process improvement strategies focusing on the DSC construct in New York during Hurricane Sandy. It builds on our previous Strategic Studies Institute monograph documenting the DSC-led response to Hurricane Sandy in New York. Using the data collected during the Sandy case study as a basis for analysis, the monograph discusses the potential role of process improvement techniques as a method for improving unity of effort between state and federal military forces under the DSC construct for no-notice/limited-notice incident response. As part of our argument, we assess the application and utility of various process improvement methods and present examples of how such methods can be used to improve civil support issions. Based on the recommendations from the Sandy case study, we conclude by presenting a brief description of three conceptual process models mapped to specific challenges of a DSC-led joint task force. These process models identify essential tasks and key requirements specific to a key process during a DSC operation. In doing so, the models provide examples—not fully developed models—of alternative methods to guide the progression of operational maturity during domestic disaster response. As such, organizations like the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Army North, and U.S. Northern Command should consider integrating process improvement concepts and techniques into future DSC doctrine, policies, guidance, and operational tactics, techniques, and procedures. Using the concepts presented here as a method for improvement, we argue, will provide a practical tool for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of this critical coordination mechanism well into the future.
- ItemToward a Unified Military Response: Hurricane Sandy and the Dual Status Commander(U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA, 2015-04) Burke, Ryan; McNeil, SueU.S. military forces have played a role in supporting civil authorities in varying locations and capacities from the Whiskey Rebellion to Hurricane Sandy. In a large-scale incident response scenario requiring combined support from the National Guard and federal military, effective management and coordination continues to challenge all involved. There are issues of constitutionality, legality, policy, financial considerations, and even politics, all uniquely situated between individual states’ interests and those of the Federal Government. In this context, there is a philosophical conflict between federalism and state sovereignty during military civil support missions that continues to present itself as an impediment to success. Balancing these institutionally divergent approaches to achieve a unified, efficient, coordinated, and effective military response has, and will continue to be, a strategic and political imperative. Despite the challenges, military forces are frequently involved in domestic response missions, often in a very public manner. As such, military force allocation and management have evolved into major topics of conversation among policymakers, academics, emergency managers, and military strategists alike. Owing to these issues, State and Federal Government lawmakers adopted policy and law authorizing a single military commander, referred to as a dual status commander, to legally assume simultaneous but mutually exclusive command and control over both Title 32 and Title 10 forces during domestic operations. As a proposed solution to the notable coordination challenges plaguing domestic civil support operations, the dual status commander initiative has been used successfully during planned events since 2004. The coordinated military response to Hurricane Sandy in the fall of 2012 was the first time in U.S. history dual status commanders assumed command of both Title 10 and Title 32 forces during a no-notice/ limited-notice incident. As such, this event provides a relevant and timely opportunity to study the military response to the storm and offer objective recommendations for improving future no-notice/limited-notice defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) operations under the dual status commander arrangement. The purpose of this monograph, therefore, is to offer an objective and systematic documentation and evaluation of the military response to Hurricane Sandy as a basis for assessing the efficacy of the dual status commander arrangement for no-notice/limited-notice incidents in the homeland. To complete this effort, we employed a rigorous case study investigation emphasizing the combined state and federal response to Hurricane Sandy in the New York City metropolitan area from October 22-November 15, 2012. The research examines the events of the storm response under the command of Brigadier General Michael Swezey, the designated dual status commander for the storm response in New York. We combined interviews with Department of Defense officials, National Guard commanders, and Active Duty military officers involved in the Sandy response with extensive document and content analysis of various Sandy-specific reports to generate our findings. Through this research, we intend to present a detailed and objective analysis of the response in order to provide military and defense officials with a greater understanding of the benefits and limitations of the dual status commander arrangement during a no-notice/limited-notice civil support incident. We conclude by offering a series of recommendations likely to improve policy, procedures, and training, among other things.