Changes in Emergency Management Doctrine in The United States after Hurricane Katrina
Purpose: The main aim of this article is to discuss the crisis management system in the United States, as well as to explain the terms ‘emergency management’ and ‘disaster management’. Introduction: The article discusses the transformation in the functioning of the crisis management system in the United States after terrorist attacks and natural disasters (particularly the attack on the World Trade Center and hurricane Katrina). The authors define the scope of needs, which the U.S. authorities had to challenge in the face of disasters. Moreover, the authors describe how responsibilities for the various stages of helping the people in need are divided. Furthermore, the article illustrates the five stages of a disaster, which are helpful in making appropriate decisions after its occurrence. The five stages are discussed in detail in accordance with the guidelines set out in standards related to the emergency management, such as NFPA 1600 and Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). Presented were also general concepts of management in emergency and crisis management, taking into account changes in the phrase ‘Nine-one-one. What’s your emergency?’. Due to the fact that once Americans perceived emergencies as so-called natural disasters caused unintentionally by the forces of nature or technical failures (including human errors), the article describes emergencies caused intentionally by man (human factor) - especially terrorism, which became a regular feature in the perception of the world by an average American (especially after the attacks on WTC). Methods: The authors carried out an analysis of the literature on the subject. A special attention was drawn to the books related to disaster management practices in the USA and the influence of catastrophes on the emergency response system. Conslusions: In conclusion, the authors draw attention to the fact that constantly increasing number of disasters as well as threat awareness force the U.S. authorities to constantly review the doctrine regarding civil protection. In consequence the response plan is continually modified. Therefore, the U.S. authorities apply measures and rescue methods adequate to current threats, what in practice means that the developed action plans or programmes are living documents. The U.S. authorities draw conclusions from already occurred situations, from gaps and imperfections, which lead to the continuous adaptation and improvement of crisis management. In the summary the authors suggest that such practices and measures may also be applied to improve and change the national solutions applied in Poland.