Hurricane Andrew

Paper Summary:

This paper discusses the impact that Hurricane Andrew had on Florida when it struck in the early hours of August 24, 1992. The paper first discusses the the early warning system and the resulting evacuation in Florida. The paper then argues that the impact of Hurricane Andrew in Florida was exacerbated by the confused, disorderly and uncoordinated response of the government and the disaster management organizations in the United States.

Table of Contents:
The Impact Hurricane Andrew Made on Florida
Gathering of the Storm
The Relative Success of the Early Warning System
Impact of Hurricane Andrew & the Inadequate Disaster Management
Conclusion

From the Paper:

"Despite there being a "Federal Response Plan" in place, the bureaucratic machinery took a long time to activate. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was supposed to implement the Federal Response Plan, was hardly in a state to respond adequately to the situation. The Agency was still geared to respond primarily to a massive nuclear attack and saw its main responsibility as distributing federal loans and grants to help rebuild an area after a disaster. It would not issue direct aid to a state until it was given a specific request by the governor, and the state was unable to issue specific requests for aid because it had no one was available to assess the damage (Franklin). Federal help was so slow in arriving that a frustrated director of Dade County's Emergency Office made the famous remark, " . . . Where the hell is the cavalry on this one?" (Quoted by Lerbinger, 61) The quote captured the overall sense of frustration and helplessness that disaster victims felt. Stung by the criticism of the federal response to the emergency, President Bush created a presidential task force headed by Transportation Secretary Andrew H. Card, Jr. for jump-starting the entire disaster response process. Although Card took important measures that helped expedite the delivery of governmental assistance; but by bypassing existing policies and processes, these measures ultimately proved disruptive and expensive and caused greater confusion and hindered a coordinated response to the disaster (Schneider, 100)."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Franklin, Daniel. "The FEMA phoenix - reform of the Federal Emergency Management Agency." Washington Monthly, July-August, 1995. September 21, 2008.<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_/ai_17263136>
• Lerbinger, Otto. The Crisis Manager: Facing Risk and Responsibility. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.
• "Preliminary Report--Hurricane Andrew." National Hurricane Center. Updated December 10, 1993. September 21, 2008. <http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1992andrew.html#FOOT1>
• Schneider, Saundra K. Flirting with Disaster: Public Management in Crisis Situations. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1995

More papers on Hurricane Andrew:

• Cause and Effect Essay # 4152 : "Hurricane Andrew"
• Essay # 57173 : "Hurricane Andrew"
• Essay # 107816 : "Hurricane Andrew"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: