Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management
WINTER 2004

CSS News Home       Previous | Contents | Next

Q and A with Dr. Arnold Howitt

Preparedness in Advance of the Moment

What precisely is meant by "preparedness in advance of the moment," and why has it become an issue today?

Dr. Arnold Howitt in discussion with student Andréa Claudette Spence

I'm concerned with what government agencies and private institutions can do to be prepared for disasters or other serious emergencies. To save lives, protect property, maintain social and economic relationships, and protect the environment, we need to be ready for such events. Terrorism has heightened the focus on this issue immensely. The shock of September 11 and the anthrax letters that followed shortly thereafter was enormous--and it showed that as a country we were not ready for such events. Certainly the threat of further terrorism, particularly with an infectious biological agent or a nuclear device, is frightening--frightening not in the sense of "scary scenarios" but as realistic possibilities for which we need to be ready. These would be truly catastrophic events that raise profound questions for our society--and for other nations. But this issue goes beyond terrorism. It applies to natural disasters including earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, and floods; to industrial disasters like a chemical plant explosion; and to severe transportation accidents such as a plane crash that occurs because of equipment malfunction or pilot error, not terrorism. These emergencies occur regularly and have serious consequences for society.

What is it in your academic background that drew you to this emerging field?

A Kennedy School colleague, Richard Falkenrath, who is now deputy director of the staff of the White House Homeland Security Council, recruited me into this field about five years ago. He is a specialist in national security, and I had expertise on federalism. With funds from the US Department of Justice, we started a research program in 1999 that looked at what states and localities should be doing to prepare for the threat of terrorist attacks in the United States. We also convened a task force of senior officials from federal agencies, states, and cities. Ultimately, this same group met seven times for multi-day conferences.

I had long studied intergovernmental relations in the United States, looking at how public policies are developed and implemented across the levels of the federal system--from national to state to local and regional institutions. I'd also been keenly interested in policies that require collaboration across policy fields, for example, transportation and environmental policy, where I've done a lot of previous work.

Both of these features are extremely important for emergency preparedness. So I both had knowledge and skills that were useful, and I found the topic extremely interesting.

Falkenrath went into the Bush Administration in early 2001, and I continued to lead the program at the Kennedy School. The program prepared a substantial number of papers and extensive curriculum materials, and we had two books, Countering Terrorism: Dimensions of Preparedness and First to Arrive: State and Local Responses to Terrorism, which were both published by MIT Press and come out this September. Others will follow.

I know you have been invited to talk about this topic quite widely. What are some of the groups you have addressed recently?

The Kennedy School now has an annual training program in crisis management for senior executives from all levels of government, which I co-chair with my colleague, Professor Dutch Leonard. In addition, I recently spoke to a group of newly elected city mayors at a symposium on homeland security, federalism, and civil liberties at Brooklyn Law School, to senior administrators from the People's Republic of China, to the American Bar Association, and at a summit meeting of Great Lakes states and provinces in Toronto.

In your opinion, is the United States better prepared for terrorism than it was before September 11?

Attention naturally focuses on the federal government, where the new Department of Homeland Security is at the center of sweeping government reorganization. Less noticed, however, is the front line of domestic preparedness: state and local governments.

Most states, large cities, and transportation agencies have made important strides in little more than two years. They have integrated terrorism into overall emergency management plans by assessing facility vulnerabilities, tightening procedures, and improving protection of buildings, terminals, and key infrastructure. First responders are better trained and better equipped for responding to chemical and biological weapons attacks. Public health surveillance systems and emergency medical capacity are being bolstered. There is a good deal of cross-agency dialogue and collaboration, better linking police, fire service, and public health and hospital systems.

Progress is not equal everywhere, nor are preparations as extensive as would be ideal; but real change has occurred, particularly in high-risk locales like Washington DC, New York City, and Chicago.

Notwithstanding this improvement, however, states and localities now must build deeper, more integrated, interoperable emergency response capabilities. Training for first response personnel, for example, must go beyond awareness instruction to include more specialized skill development. Improved integration and interoperability should go beyond the public sector to include major private corporations and nonprofit organizations, which could be targets of attacks or provide important resources in the wake of such an attack. Many other needs remain. There are important obstacles to preparedness on the government side, however. With a majority of states and many large cities in the United States experiencing severe budget shortfalls, officials are increasingly asking how much terrorism or other emergency preparedness they can afford. These expenditures compete directly with other service demands, such as education, medical care, and routine public safety. And at the state and local level, preparedness activities have fewer organized advocates than, say, education expenditures promoted by parent and teacher groups or higher taxes fought by business-backed groups.

There are legitimate questions about priorities, and it would be foolish for every jurisdiction to replicate the full range of capacity needed. We have to develop better ways of sharing capacity across jurisdictions and creating regional capacity that could be mobilized effectively and rapidly in case of emergency.

It would seem that the question of preparedness in advance of the moment will remain an important topic for years to come. Do you see it that way?

Yes. Preparedness for natural and technological disasters is a necessary element of public service in any developed country. And, unfortunately, the threat of terrorism is not going to go away as much as we may wish it to.

The technological means for some forms of terrorism are becoming more accessible to terrorist groups or even individuals. That is particularly the case as legitimate and important developments in biotechnology occur and more people are trained in this field. They will help provide better medical care and improve our food supply, for example, but the skills learned in one venue could be applied for evil purposes like developing infectious bio-weapons. It is hard to have the former without creating the possibility of the latter.

As a society we have to be ready to deal with the consequences of such actions, but we have to be prepared in a way that also preserves and protects such national values as our civil liberties instead of risks making them casualties of a battle against terrorism.

CSS News Home       Previous | Contents | Next