.

As the world evolves, the nature of emergencies and disasters evolve with it. In recent times, the scale and nature of catastrophes has expanded due to the greater interaction between manmade and natural elements. Modern emergency managers need to be prepared on more than one front to deal with emergencies and disasters whether natural or manmade. Though emergency managers need to concentrate on multiple fronts at the same time, but the areas discussed below warrant their attention more than others.

The primary area of concern is risk mitigation. This begins far before the actual risk has surfaced or caused any damage at all. In most cases, the emergency manager has to be prepared for any possible circumstances without knowing much about the actual danger. The greatest risk mitigation scheme available to emergency managers is to procure resources before any disaster occurs. Historically, the funding available to local emergency managers was low which caused a multitude of problems when it came to handling active emergencies and disasters (Fagel, 2011). Emergency managers need to emphasise primarily on political strength in order to procure the required resources before a disaster strikes.

The second area for focus is planning that result from vulnerability assessments. The emergency manager has to keep an eye out for what kind of situations his team might have to face. Some threats may be common such as the risk of terrorist attacks but other risks may be confined to a particular geographical region. For example, emergency managers in Alaska would have to be prepared against snow storms while emergency managers in Louisiana would have to look out for hurricanes. The emergency manager must possess the necessary vision to demarcate what risks his team might have to face and how these threats would be handled on a planning basis (Canton, 2006).

The third area for focus is the response made available when a disaster situation arises. Given the fact that emergency managers are adequately equipped and supplied does not mean that they would be able to handle emergencies just as well too. A proper appraisal of the response system must exist such that the response system is dynamic so that it can adapt quickly to situations. Moreover, any disaster situation will entail by-products that are not wanted but are nonetheless outcomes of the situation. For example, emergency workers in the field would be subject to hazards as well as stress that they must know how to deal with. The emergency manager has to ensure that these response tactics are not only in place but are operational so that when a situation arises, there is little room for wasted efforts. Additionally, if responders are unable to deal with their own situations during a disaster, there is little hope that they would be able to deal with the disaster effectively enough (McCreight, 2011).

The fourth area for focus is avoiding legal imbroglios. Since the emergency manager cannot be present in every situation personally, the emergency team needs to understand exactly what their roles and responsibilities are. The responders to a situation may be subject to litigation on what they did and what they did not do. In order to deal with this dilemma effectively, the responders need to know their exact functions from a legal perspective. This would ensure that responders do not commit actions or commit actions that are in line with legal principles on the matter (Miller & Rivera, 2011).

The fifth area for focus is recovery efforts that could also be taken as the sustainability of emergency relief efforts. In case that an emergency management program goes well, there is no guarantee that the affected area or its residents would return to their original state of inhabitation. The case of Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans’ residents is a clear example. The residents of the affected region failed to return years after the hurricane had occurred although immediate emergency efforts had been carried out. The lack of sustainability offered by the emergency management team such as unresolved debris problems dissuaded the residents from returning. This can be seen as a failure on the part of emergency services in the longer run that could have been avoided (Fagel, 2011).

References

Canton, L. G. (2006). Emergency Management: Concepts and Strategies for Effective Programs. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Fagel, M. J. (2011). Principles of Emergency Management and Emergency Operations Centers (EOC). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

McCreight, R. (2011). An Introduction to Emergency Exercise Design and Evaluation. Government Institutes.

Miller, D. S., & Rivera, J. D. (2011). An Introduction to Emergency Exercise Design and Evaluation. CRC Press.