America unprepared…

After more than five years, the responsibilities, strategies and mission of the US Department of Homeland Security are still not all clearly defined according to the majority of state homeland security officials.

In a report prepared by the Western Carolina University Institute for the Economy and the Future, state homeland security and emergency management officials from across the United States express serious concerns about key aspects of domestic security, including communications, immigration, critical infrastructure, shipping and cargo transport, and funding allocations.

“These results tell me that we have a way to go before our state officials are willing to say ‘mission accomplished,’” said Daniel Ostergaard, a senior policy fellow at WCU’s Institute for the Economy and the Future and a former executive director of the federal Homeland Security Advisory Council. “These dedicated public servants are not holding back their real concerns. They are telling it like it is. Strides must be taken to address components of national security that are still falling short of goals.”

Key findings from the results include:

* After more than five years, the responsibilities, strategies and mission of the US Department of Homeland Security are still not all clearly defined according to the majority of state homeland security officials.

* Department of Homeland Security directives are not being effectively implemented at the state level, according to the majority of officials surveyed.

* Efforts taken to reduce communication difficulties among federal, state, and local authorities are considered effective. The overwhelming majority of state homeland security officials cite that progress has been made.

* Over 90 percent of state officials recognize that rural areas could
be vital to supporting the critical infrastructure needs of urban areas during times of national emergency; however, more than half agree with the current distribution of federal resources primarily to non-rural areas.

* Homeland security officials lack confidence in the ability of states to respond to a nuclear or biological attack.

* More than 4 out of 10 officials are uncertain or unconfident in the resiliency of critical infrastructure in their state.

* More than half of state officials either do not think antiterrorism measures aimed at protecting the nation’s ports and transport systems have been effective or they are uncertain about the effectiveness.

* Although funding has been increased over the last several years, officials report financial constraints still limit the ability of states to protect, prevent, and prepare against possible emergencies.

Read the full report at http://ief.wcu.edu/pdf/HSReport.pdf

•Date: 23rd May 2006• Region: US • Type: Article •Topic: Emergency management
Rate this article or make a comment - click here