 |
Mandates and Management Challenges in the Trenches: An Intergovernmental Perspective of Homeland Security
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
3
HOMELAND SECURITY:
AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL POLICY ARENA
Three years have passed since the terrorist attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon. Much has happened from an intergovernmental perspective—the formation of a new federal Department of Homeland Security, passage of acts providing funding for first responders, the updating or revision of state emergency management plans, and the reassignment of emergency management responsib ilities. Practitioners and scholars alike see homeland security as a key testing ground for the principles of federalism.
An initial flurry of research regarding the intergovernmental dimensions of homeland security
was conducted in the year following the catastrophe. Most studies concluded that intergovernmental relations had either improved or were expected to improve by mandate and/or necessity (cf. articles in Public Administration Review, Special Issue, September 2002).
Our question is whether this finding still holds true three years after 9/11. After all, public
policy research tells us that evaluations of success or failure often change over the course of policy implementation. This is particularly the case among local level officials who are made responsible for action following policy decisions of federal and state officials—and wary of anything resembling an unfunded mandate (Posner, 1998; Falcone and Lan, 1997; Ray and Conlan, 1996; Kelly, 1995; Bolick, 1993; Dye, 1990; Hanson, 1998; Walters, 2002; Nice and Fredericksen, 1995; Peterson, 1995; Peterson, Rabe, and Wong, 1986; MacManus, 1991; Rosen, 1988; Walker, 2000; Wright, 1998; Anton, 1989; O’Toole, 2000; Cho and Wright, 2001) or a preemption of their authority (Zimmerman, 1991,1995; Waltenburg and Swinford, 1999).
Local governments play an especially important role in the homeland security policy arena (see
articles in Kemp, 2003b; various issues of Public Administration Review post 9/11; Canada, 2003; Carter, 2001; Cleare, 2004, Elliott, 2003; First Response Coalition, 2004; GAO, 2001; ICMA, 2003a,b; Kayyen and Pangi 2003; Kemp, 2003a; McEntire and Myers, 2003; McVey, 2003; NACO, 2004; NGA, 2002; Rabinowitz, 2002; Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2003; Waugh and Sylves, 2002; Zaworski, 2004; Wise, 2002). Local officials in general management posts must oversee many critical duties associated with emergency preparedness while the nation’s first responders, the specialists—emergency personnel, fire fighters, law enforcement officials, and local health care workers—must provide the first line of defense in the event of a terrorist attack. Federal and state legislation generally dictate their responsibilities…and spell out their accountability.
FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH: MEASURING POLICY IMPACT
In this research, we tap the views of those in the trenches—local government officials in
Florida—to test a number of propositions related to intergovernmental relations in the homeland security policy area.
Specifically, we evaluate the degree to which city and county officials believe
intergovernmental relations at the local level have changed as a consequence of homeland security demands:
•
Are they more cooperative or conflictual or has there been little change?
|
| | Authors: MacManus, Susan. and Caruson, Kiki. |
|
| |
|
|
3
HOMELAND SECURITY:
AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL POLICY ARENA
Three years have passed since the terrorist attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon. Much has happened from an intergovernmental perspective—the formation
of a new federal Department of Homeland Security, passage of acts providing funding for first
responders, the updating or revision of state emergency management plans, and the reassignment of
emergency management responsib ilities. Practitioners and scholars alike see homeland security as a
key testing ground for the principles of federalism.
An initial flurry of research regarding the intergovernmental dimensions of homeland security
was conducted in the year following the catastrophe. Most studies concluded that intergovernmental
relations had either improved or were expected to improve by mandate and/or necessity (cf. articles in
Public Administration Review, Special Issue, September 2002).
Our question is whether this finding still holds true three years after 9/11. After all, public
policy research tells us that evaluations of success or failure often change over the course of policy
implementation. This is particularly the case among local level officials who are made responsible for
action following policy decisions of federal and state officials—and wary of anything resembling an
unfunded mandate (Posner, 1998; Falcone and Lan, 1997; Ray and Conlan, 1996; Kelly, 1995; Bolick,
1993; Dye, 1990; Hanson, 1998; Walters, 2002; Nice and Fredericksen, 1995; Peterson, 1995;
Peterson, Rabe, and Wong, 1986; MacManus, 1991; Rosen, 1988; Walker, 2000; Wright, 1998; Anton,
1989; O’Toole, 2000; Cho and Wright, 2001) or a preemption of their authority (Zimmerman,
1991,1995; Waltenburg and Swinford, 1999).
Local governments play an especially important role in the homeland security policy arena (see
articles in Kemp, 2003b; various issues of Public Administration Review post 9/11; Canada, 2003;
Carter, 2001; Cleare, 2004, Elliott, 2003; First Response Coalition, 2004; GAO, 2001; ICMA, 2003a,b;
Kayyen and Pangi 2003; Kemp, 2003a; McEntire and Myers, 2003; McVey, 2003; NACO, 2004;
NGA, 2002; Rabinowitz, 2002; Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2003; Waugh and Sylves, 2002;
Zaworski, 2004; Wise, 2002). Local officials in general management posts must oversee many critical
duties associated with emergency preparedness while the nation’s first responders, the specialists—
emergency personnel, fire fighters, law enforcement officials, and local health care workers—must
provide the first line of defense in the event of a terrorist attack. Federal and state legislation generally
dictate their responsibilities…and spell out their accountability.
FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH: MEASURING POLICY IMPACT
In this research, we tap the views of those in the trenches—local government officials in
Florida—to test a number of propositions related to intergovernmental relations in the homeland
security policy area.
Specifically, we evaluate the degree to which city and county officials believe
intergovernmental relations at the local level have changed as a consequence of homeland security
demands:
•
Are they more cooperative or conflictual or has there been little change?
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
