Unit 7 Assignment 2: Research PowerPoint Responding To Terra ✓ Solved

Unit 7 Assignment 2: Research PowerPoint: Responding to Terr

Unit 7 Assignment 2: Research PowerPoint: Responding to Terrorism. For this assignment, research a law enforcement agency and a non-law enforcement agency that have responded to an incident or disaster. Examples of non-law enforcement agencies include FEMA, Red Cross, and fire departments. Create an 8–10 slide PowerPoint presentation that:

Compare the responsibilities of each agency when responding to an incident.

Compare the actions taken by each agency to fulfill those responsibilities.

Compare and contrast each agency’s respective roles.

Identify areas where their respective roles might overlap and cause conflict between the agencies.

Explain how these conflicts have been addressed in specific situations.

Submitting Your Assignment: Compose your assignment in PowerPoint and save your document in the following format: Last name First name Assignment. (Example: SmithJohn Unit 7 Assignment). Submit your assignment by selecting the Unit 7: Assignment 2 Dropbox by the end of Unit 7.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and framework. Responding to terrorism requires careful coordination across both law enforcement and non-law enforcement entities. Law enforcement agencies, such as a local police department or federal partners, are primarily responsible for emergency scene security, threat assessment, evidence collection, and investigative follow-up. Non-law-enforcement agencies, such as FEMA or the Red Cross, bring capabilities in incident management, mass care, logistics, public information, and recovery planning. The National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS) provide the structure for this collaboration, emphasizing unified command, clear roles, standardized reporting, and joint information sharing (DHS, 2017). This paper uses a law enforcement agency (local police department) and a non-law enforcement agency (FEMA) to illustrate how responsibilities compare, how actions are taken to fulfill them, where overlaps can create tensions, and how those tensions have been addressed in practice (DHS, 2017; FEMA, 2017).

Agency selection and scope. Law enforcement agencies, such as a municipal police department, primarily focus on scene security, threat assessment, immediate safety, crime scene management, and the preservation of evidence for prosecution. They also lead initial incident command at the local level and coordinate with other agencies through established liaison structures. Non-law enforcement agencies, such as FEMA, contribute to incident management through regional and national coordination, resource mobilization, mass care (shelter and feeding), logistical support, public communications, and long-term recovery planning. FEMA often establishes or supports an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and coordinates with state and local authorities to ensure continuity of operations across response and recovery phases (DHS, 2017; FEMA, 2017).

Responsibilities: law enforcement vs. non-law enforcement. Law enforcement responsibilities center on scene security, rapid threat assessment, apprehension of perpetrators, preservation of evidence, and the protection of the public during and after an incident. In terrorism-related events, investigators gather information, conduct interviews, and coordinate with intelligence partners while ensuring constitutional rights are observed. Non-law enforcement responsibilities include the whole-system management of the incident from an operational, logistical, and humanitarian perspective: establishing a unified command, coordinating medical and shelter needs, managing supplies and transportation, distributing accurate public information, and supporting long-term recovery. The two sets of responsibilities are designed to complement each other, with NIMS/ICS providing the framework for coordination across agencies (DHS, 2017; FEMA, 2017).

Actions taken to fulfill responsibilities. Law enforcement actions typically begin with incident command at the local level, perimeter control, and protective actions for the public, followed by evidence collection and interagency intelligence sharing through established channels. Investigative operations are conducted in parallel with public safety actions to prevent further harm and to identify perpetrators. Non-law enforcement actions focus on establishing the EOC, mobilizing resources (shelters, cots, food, medical support), coordinating transportation and communications, and delivering public information to reduce panic and misinformation. In many cases, joint information centers (JICs) and liaison officers bridge the information gap between police and emergency management teams, ensuring a coherent public message (DHS, 2017; Kapucu, 2008; Waugh & Streib, 2006).

Roles, similarities, and differences. Both agencies share the goal of reducing harm to the public, but their primary responsibilities diverge: law enforcement emphasizes immediate protective actions and investigative outcomes, while FEMA-led agencies focus on operational management, humanitarian support, and recovery planning. Despite differences, both roles require rapid decision-making, resource allocation, and transparent communication with the public. The two domains converge in areas such as casualty management, evacuation decisions, and critical infrastructure protection, which can create overlapping obligations and potential conflicts if not managed under a unified command structure (Comfort et al., 2004; Alexander, 2002).

Overlap and potential conflicts. Conflicts often arise around command authority, information sharing, and jurisdictional boundaries. For example, law enforcement may wish to restrict access to a site for investigative reasons, while disaster-response partners may need access for triage or shelter operations. Differences in priorities—crime investigation versus life-safety and humanitarian needs—can impede timely decision-making. Additionally, information-sharing policies may constrain the dissemination of operational details that could assist responders or the public, leading to miscommunication and delays (Waugh & Streib, 2006; Kapucu, 2008).

Addressing conflicts in practice. Conflicts are mitigated through formalized frameworks: Unified Command and Joint Information Systems, common operating procedures, and pre-established Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between agencies. Training and exercises at the local, state, and federal levels build familiarity with roles and workflows, enabling smoother integration during real events. The NIMS/ICS framework provides the bedrock for joint operations, standardized reporting, and shared terminology, thereby reducing ambiguities in command and control (DHS, 2017; FEMA, 2017). Case studies from past terrorism incidents show that well-coordinated interagency response hinges on designated liaison officers, interoperable communications, and clear escalation procedures when overlapping duties occur (GAO, 2007; Waugh & Streib, 2006).

Conclusion. Effective response to terrorism depends on disciplined collaboration between law enforcement and non-law enforcement agencies. By aligning on roles, responsibilities, and communications through NIMS/ICS, agencies can minimize conflicts and optimize life-saving actions, rapid incident stabilization, and efficient recovery. Ongoing training, interagency exercises, and robust MOUs remain essential to sustaining this coordination under the pressures of a real-world terrorist event (DHS, 2017; Kapucu, 2008; Alexander, 2002).

References

  • Alexander, D. (2002). Principles of Emergency Planning and Management. Oxford University Press.
  • Comfort, L. K., Ko, K., & Zagore, A. (2004). Interorganizational coordination in disaster response: The case of the 9/11 aftermath. Journal of Homeland Security Education, 2, 31-46.
  • Department of Homeland Security. (2017). National Incident Management System (NIMS). Washington, DC: DHS.
  • Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2017). Incident Command System (ICS) and NIMS integration. Washington, DC: FEMA.
  • GAO. (2007). Homeland Security: DHS's progress in implementing the National Incident Management System. GAO-07-590.
  • Kapucu, N. (2008). Interagency coordination in disaster response: A practice of governance. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 432-444.
  • Kapucu, N. (2012). Interagency coordination in disaster response: A framework for governance. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 350-360.
  • Waugh, W. L., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 309-319.
  • American Red Cross. (2019). Disaster Response: The Red Cross Mission and Operations. American Red Cross.
  • Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2020). National Disaster Recovery Framework. Washington, DC: FEMA.

Related Assignments