Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 155Disaster Management and ResilienceSafety and Risk ManagementDisaster Response and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Regionalizing Emergency Management: Counties as State and Local Government

Waugh, William L.·1994·Public Administration Review
DOI 10.2307/976728
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Hurricanes Hugo, Andrew, and Iniki and the Loma Prieta earthquake are still having profound impacts on the national emergency management system. The failures to prepare and respond adequately to these emergencies may well lead to fundamental reform of the system. The U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs has been holding hearings on the reauthorization of the Emergency Management Agency, which has borne much of the criticism for the recent failures. In 1992, Congress commissioned a National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) study of the national emergency management system and a General Accounting Office (GAO) study of the Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Both studies focused on improving federal executive leadership, transferring resources from FEMA's national security and civil defense programs to its natural disaster programs, and building state and local capacities to manage their own emergency management systems better. States and communities, too, are reexamining their emergency management organizations and capabilities. This analysis examines the emergency management function in terms of its fit within the emerging roles of county government in the United States. The thesis is that county governments may in fact be the most logical and hospitable hosts for emergency management agencies because of their unique roles in state and local governance. Indeed, county governments are the most appropriate and effective vehicles for regionalizing policy making and program administration in a variety of functional areas, as well as emergency management. In fact, the NAPA report recognized the crucial roles of county governments in implementing and maintaining emergency management programs and pointed out the uneven state and local government commitment to emergency management and limited capacity to design and administer programs (1993; pp. 82-88). GAO (1993) focused on the problem of bringing federal resources to bear when state and local government and volunteer agency capacities are overwhelmed. GAO recommended improvements in the damage assessment process and in state and local capacities (pp. 6-12), as well as in the structure and function of FEMA. Both NAPA and GAO recognized the need for sustained federal action to build state and local capacities to handle such events. In response to the NAPA and GAO studies and recent congressional hearings, the sponsors of S.995, the Federal Disaster Preparedness and Response Act of 1993, sought to reorganize FEMA and to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131) to (1) authorize federal agencies to be more proactive in preparing for anticipated disasters; (2) clarify federal, state, and local government and private organization roles in disaster preparedness and response; (3) create an accessible inventory of disaster response resources; (4) manage private agency and volunteer participation; (5) assist state and local officials in assessing damage and requesting federal aid; and (6) improve state and local government capacities (including financial incentives for state compliance). The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs scheduled hearings on S.995 for the fall of 1993 (Glenn, 1993). The principal goal was to designate a lead agency with the capacity to ensure communication between the President and governors and effective interaction among emergency management agencies at all levels. The major question was whether a reformed Emergency Management Agency can fulfill those responsibilities. The logical next question was whether similar reforms could encourage better communication and interaction among state and load emergency management agencies, including governors' offices. That is the question addressed here. Brief overviews of emergency management and county government will provide the context for the managements for central roles for counties in state and local emergency management. …

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/976728

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Waugh, W. L.
Corresponding author
Waugh, William L.
ORCID
Waugh, William L.
Venue
Public Administration Review
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1994-05
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
253
ISSN
0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/976728
OpenAlex
W2161957828
Cited by
155
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Public Administration Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Safety and Risk Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Disaster Response and Management
Keywords
emergency management, county government, regionalization, disaster preparedness, disaster response, Hurricane Hugo, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Iniki, Loma Prieta earthquake, Stafford Act, intergovernmental relations, natural disasters

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.