In this paper we address a question fundamental to understanding the potential effectiveness of homeland security policy across the U.S. federal system: what explains homeland security preparedness efforts at the municipal government level? Using data gathered from a nationwide survey of municipal officials, we examine the effects of city governments’ financial and administrative resources, along with measures of broader policy context, on several attitudinal and behavioral indicators of homeland security preparedness. We find that administrative resources have consistent and relatively robust explanatory power and we lay out several policy implications from the analyses presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association for Public Opinion Research.2004. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Lenexa, KS: Author.
AveryGeorge2002. “Bioterrorism, Fear, and Public Health Reform: Matching a Policy Solution to the Wrong Window.” Public Administration Review 62: 275–88.
5.
BurbyRaymond J., editor. 1998. Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
6.
BurbyRaymond J. and Peter J. May. 1997. “Intergovernmental Environmental Planning: Addressing the Commitment Conundrum.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management41: 95–110.
7.
CarrollJohn2001. “Emergency management on a grand scale: A bureaucrat's analysis.” in Ali Farazmand, ed., Handbook of crisis and emergency management, 463–480. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
8.
CarusonKiki2004. “Mission Impossible? the Challenge of Implementing an Integrated Homeland Security Strategy.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management: Vol. 1: No. 4, Article 407. http://www.bepress.com/jhsem/vol1/iss4/407.
9.
CoggburnJerrell D. and Saundra K. Schneider. 2003. “The Quality of Management and Government Performance: An Empirical Analysis of the American States.” Public Administration Review63 (2): 206–213.
10.
CohenDavid B., CookAlethia H., and David J. Louscher. 2004. “The Needs of the Many: Biological Terrorism, Disease Containment, and Civil Liberties.” in David B. Cohen and John W. Wells, eds., American National Security and Civil Liberties in an Era of Terrorism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
ComfortLouise K.2002. “Rethinking Security: Organizational Fragility in Extreme Events.” Public Administration Review 62: 98–107.
ConlonTimothy J. and James D. Riggle. 2000 “New Opportunities, Nagging Questions: The Politics of State Policymaking in the 1990s” in Max Sawicky, ed., The End of Welfare?, the Economic Policy Institute.
14.
DayChristine L. and Marc R. Rosenblum. 2006. “The Politics of Katrina in New Orleans: A View from Ground Zero.” The Forum. Vol. 3. No. 4. Article 1. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss4/art1.
15.
EisingerPeter2004. “The American City in the Age of Terror: A Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of September 11.” Urban Affairs Review40 (1): 115–130.
16.
GerberBrian J., CohenDavid B., CannonBrian, PattersonDennis, & StewartKendra B.2005. “On the Frontline: American Cities and the Challenge of Homeland Security Preparedness.” Urban Affairs Review. Vol. 41. #2. November. Pp. 182–210.
17.
Gilmore Commission. 1999. “First Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Threat.” December15. (Arlington, VA: Rand). http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel.
18.
Gilmore Commission.2000. “Second Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction: Toward a National Strategy for Combating Terrorism.” December15. (Arlington, VA: Rand). http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel.
19.
Gilmore Commission.2001. “Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction: for Ray Downey.” December15. (Arlington, VA: Rand). http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel.
20.
Gilmore Commission.2002. “Fourth Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction: Implementing the National Strategy.” December15. (Arlington, VA: Rand). http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel.
21.
Gilmore Commission.2003. “Fifth Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction: Forging America's New Normalcy.” December15. (Arlington, VA: Rand). http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel.
22.
JenningsEdward T. Jr. and Jo AnnG. Ewalt. 2003. “Does the Black Box Make a Difference? the Quality of Management and the Success of Welfare Reform.” Conference paper for the National Public Management Research Conference, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
23.
KaldmäeMadis. 1999. Development Solutions for Increasing the Administrative Capacity of the Estonian Local Government System. the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Department of Local Government, Estonia.
24.
KleinWilliam R.2000. “Building consensus.” In Charles J. Hoch, Linda C. Dalton and Rank S. So, eds., The Practice of Local Government Planning, 423–438. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
25.
KettlDonald F.2004. System Under Stress: Homeland Security and American Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
26.
Local Government Inquiry. 2006 Independent Inquiry into the Financial Sustainability of Local Government. Available at: http://www.lgi.org.au/. Accessed January 30, 2006.
27.
MaggiLaura2005. “Lack of Communication Proved Crippling.” New Orleans Times-Picayune. September 12.
28.
MayPeter J. and WalterWilliams1986. Disaster Policy Implementation: Managing Programs under Shared Governance. New York: Plenum Press.
29.
National Academy of Public Administration.2003. “Protecting the Homeland: Lessons from Prior Government Reorganizations.” Summer.http://www.napawash.org/si/HS-BLUE.pdf.
30.
National Association of Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria.2003. Start of the Fiscal Decentralization Process in Bulgaria. Available at: http://www.namrb.org/english/contents.php?id=149. Accessed January 30, 2006.
PelfreyWilliam V.2005. “The Cycle of Preparedness: Establishing a Framework to Prepare for Terrorist Threats.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Vol. 2. No.1. Article 5. http://www.bepress.com/jhsem/vol2/iss1/5
33.
PerryTony2006. “Loss of Security Funding Blasted.” Los Angeles Times. January 6.
34.
ReeseShawn2005. CRS Report RL33050 Risk-Based Funding in Homeland Security Grant Legislation: Analysis of Issues for the 109th Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
35.
RidgeTom2004. “Remarks by Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge at the National Association of Counties Annual Legislative Conference.” March1. http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=3278.
RudmanWarren B., ClarkeRichard A., and Jamie F. Metzel. 2003. “Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.” Report of an Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders.New York: Council on Foreign Relations.http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Responders_TF.pdf.
38.
SavitchH.V. 2003. “Does 9–11 Portend a New Paradigm for Cities?” Urban Affairs Review39 (1): 103–127.
39.
SchneiderSaundra K.1995. Flirting with Disaster: Public Management in Crisis Situations. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
40.
SteinbergTed2000. Acts of God: the Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
United States Conference of Mayors Homeland Security Monitoring Center.2003. “First Mayors’ Report to the Nation: Tracking Federal Homeland Security Funds Sent to the 50 State Governments.” September. Washington, DC: City Policy Associates.http://www.usmayors.org.
42.
United States Conference of Mayors Homeland Security Monitoring Center.2004a. “Second Mayors’ Report to the Nation: Tracking Federal Homeland Security Funds Sent to the 50 State Governments.” January. Washington, DC: City Policy Associates.http://www.usmayors.org.
43.
United States Conference of Mayors Homeland Security Monitoring Center.2004b. “Third Mayors’ Report to the Nation: Tracking Federal Homeland Security Funds Sent to the 50 State Governments.” June. Washington, DC: SentryPoints.http://www.usmayors.org.
44.
United States General Accounting Office (GAO).2003a. “Homeland Security: Efforts to Improve Information Sharing Need to Be Strengthened.” August.Washington, DC: Report # GAO-03-760.
45.
United States General Accounting Office (GAO).2003b. “Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications for First Responders.” November6. Washington, DC: Report # GAO-04-231T.
46.
United States General Accounting Office.2003c. “Bioterrorism: Preparedness Varied across State and Local Jurisdictions.” April. Washington, DC: Report # GAO-03-373.
47.
United States Government Accountability Office.2005. “Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grant Programs and Efforts to Improve Accountability Continue to Evolve.” April12. Washington, DC: Report # GAO-05-530T.
48.
WarrickJoby2005. “Crisis Communications Remain Flawed.” Washington Post. December 10.
49.
WaughWilliam L. Jr. and SylvesRichard T.2002. “Organizing the War on Terrorism.” Public Administration Review62: 145–53.
50.
WeberRonald E. and PaulBrace1999. American State and Local Politics: Directions for the 21st Century. New York: Chatham House Publishers.
51.
WiseCharles R.2002. “Organizing for Homeland Security.” Public Administration Review62: 131–44.
52.
WiseCharles R. and Rania Nader 2002. “Organizing the Federal System for Homeland Security: Problems, Issues, and Dilemmas.” Public Administration Review 62 (special issue): 44–57.
