Showing papers on "Disaster recovery published in 1985"

Disaster Recovery and Hazard Mitigation: Bridging the Intergovernmental Gap

Abstract: Significant progress has been made in the last few decades in the United States in terms of local capability to deal with and recover from major disasters. In the United States, communities do recover, even if slowly and painfully in some instances. Although no communities have been lost involuntarily, occasionally public officials decide to relocate all or part of a community to avoid the likelihood of a repeat disaster. As recently as 15 years ago, Allen Barton summarized what little research existed at that time about the disaster recovery process. One pattern he noted was that "Local government is unable to cope with the overload of problems and is replaced by an improvised emergency government such as a Citizens' Committee, or by authorities from state or national agencies." No longer are local governments rendered ineffective, nor are they

The Evolution and Structure of Natural Hazard Policies

Abstract: Crises have always played a role in policy formation,' but the entire structure of disaster response was crisisdriven. When a disaster struck, people acted. Society's attitude toward natural disasters was fatalistic: they were part of nature's order, something that had to be accepted as part of life. Consequently, management of such events was not seen as part of the proper role for government. Until 1950, the Red Cross, a largely volunteer organization operating under federal charter, was the primary disaster relief agency. It was also the major source of funds for disaster recovery. Today, a very different system of disaster policy exists. With the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936, Congress embarked upan a path of natural hazard control that has extended to the present, attempting to use the latest developments in science, engineering, and planning to prevent disasters or lessen their impact should they occur. The Disaster Relief Act of 1950 set in motion the first comprehensive, nationwide system of disaster response and relief. Yet, nearly one-half century after the first permanent disaster legislation was enacted, many basic policy questions remain to be answered:

Human Resource Development for Emergency Management.

Abstract: The subject of emergency management is complex for a variety of reasons. Obviously, there are many kinds of disasters. Rational handling of each kind requires different understandings about cause-effect nexuses, appropriate technology, planning approaches, changes of key actors and actions-all depending on whether it is before, during, or after the disaster. United States federalism and interest group politics further complicate the situation. They support a division of governmental authority and responsibility, while disasters frequently confound such a pattern through impacts which cross political and organizational boundaries. Preparedness planning and disaster recovery activities parallel this pattern. This complexity extends to planning for human resource requirements as well. Human resources are humans capable of performing formally and informally prescribed roles in governmental, private, and thirdsector organizations, and also as citizens. However, there are two groups of requisites for estimation of human resources requirements such as is done for various industries, employment sectors, and other domains. First, it must be possible to predict overall demand for outputs and future estimates of labor productivity. Second, it is necessary to develop production functions for either known occupational specialties or required skill mixes-i.e., knowledges, skills, and abilities, abbreviated below as KSAs. Thus, there is need for a data base and models which, unfortunately, do not exist for disaster management.' In order to satisfy these requisites, it would be necessary to conduct a hazard analysis for each community or problem shed. Later in this article, a synoptic view of a rational model of emergency management is presented including hazards analysis. Even though it is not feasible to estimate the set of occupational specialties and number of human resources required for future time horizons, it is possible to infer the KSAs needed for key emergency management roles -emphasis being on management. The general title of emergency management specialist (EMS) will be used to refer to the relevant cluster of KSAs. KSAs are human attributes required to carry out organizational tasks and functions. Once derived, they provide the basis for development of personnel selection and assignment procedures, training or learning objectives, and position design or redesign variables. Relevant KSAs are to be inferred from three sources of information and ultimately clustered under the phases of emergency management. The first source of information is provided by a brief review of the literature on human behavior in disasters. It gives insights about what people do with and without training, organization, and control; it also clearly points to the need for such preparations. Next, the nature of the milieu in which emergency management must take place is examined. The force field of emergency management is intergovernmental, intersectoral, interorganizational, and interphenomenal. In looking around for conceptual tools to deal with this complexity, the approach of intergovernmental management may prove helpful. Intergovernmental management is an emerging perspective on public administration which is reviewed through experience in the human services field. The third source from which KSAs are derived is a rational model of emergency management which itself is based on a synopsis of the technical processes discussed in the emergency management literature. This greatly abbreviated model is discussed in the context of crossorganizational participation and networking. Finally, KSAs which comprise the new roles of emergency management specialist (EMS) are related to the phases of emergency management, and some observations about appropriate education and training are made.

Disaster Recovery Planning

Abstract: 6.1 Business Continuity Planning Business Continuity Planning (BCP) is the creation and validation of a practical logistical plan for how an organization will recover and restore partially or completely interrupted critical (urgent) functions within a predetermined time after a disaster or extended disruption. The logistical plan is called a business continuity plan. When a risk manifests itself through disruptive events, the business continuity plan is a guiding document that allows the management team to continue operations and running the business under stressful and time compressed situations. The plan lays out steps to be initiated on occurrence of a disaster, combating it and returning to normal operations Business continuity covers the following areas: Business resumption planning : The operation’s piece of business continuity planning. Disaster recovery planning : The technological aspect of business continuity planning necessary to minimise losses and ensure continuity of critical business functions of the organisation in the event of disaster. Crisis management : The overall co-ordination of an organisation’s response with the goal of avoiding or minimising damage to the organisation’s profitability, reputation or ability to operate.

Disaster Recovery Planning Inside General Electric

Abstract: In diversified companies, differences in products and information processing systems are justification for making each profit center carry full operational and investment responsibility for its own disaster recovery program. At General Electric, commonalities in facilities and equipment led to a centralized, internal approach that conserved investments and vitalized each profit center's recovery plan.