|
Homeland Security: Evaluating With Management System Standards
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Sharon Caudle, Texas A&M University, scaudle@bushschool.tamu.edu
|
| Abstract:
Almost ten years after the 2001 terrorist attacks, difficulty remains in setting homeland security preparedness goals. Evaluators charged with systematically assessing homeland security actions and results face difficulties in gathering evidence, demonstrating results, and posing recommendations for further improvement.
Drawing on relevant evaluation literature, this AEA paper presents an evaluative framework based on management system standards covering homeland security, societal security, disaster management, and business continuity. Standards are generally defined as a uniform set of measures, agreements, conditions, or specifications that establish benchmarks for performance, such the ISO 9000 quality management standard. The paper would specifically illustrate such an evaluation approach and its strengths and weaknesses. It draws on examples from mission areas such as transportation security, border control, counter-terrorism, and emergency management.
|
|
Tribal Disaster Preparedness Assessment: Assessing the Competency, Capacity, and Capability Needs of American Indian Nations
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Lisle Hites, University of Arizona, lhites@uab.edu
|
| Jessica Wakelee, University of Arizona, wakeleej@email.arizona.edu
|
| Abstract:
While disaster emergency preparedness needs assessments are periodically conducted for most regions, counties, and communities within the United States, it is much less common for such assessments to be focused on Tribal Nations. This session will present a needs assessment tool that was developed specifically for assessing the needs of American Indian communities, discuss the development, implementation, and results of the assessment, and share lessons learned.
|
|
How Smarter Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Can Improve Disaster Recovery: A Critical Examination of Performance Accountability Frameworks
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Margaret Stansberry, American Red Cross, margaret.stansberry@ifrc.org
|
| Abstract:
International as well as domestic aid agencies are rightly being pressured to demonstrate the difference they make with donated resources in disaster relief and development work. Due, in part, to this pressure, performance accountability frameworks are becoming more widely used. However, in attempting to apply such frameworks many organizations focus only on common indicators and reporting results to donors which can straight jacket critical thinking and innovation; such narrow a focus misses opportunities for downward accountability and learning. If properly designed, performance accountability frameworks can encourage greater coordination, reduce project level M&E costs and help ensure accountability both downwards and sideways. This paper examines the lessons learned from 3 disparate accountability frameworks: TRIAMS by IFRC/WHO/UNDP, Katrina Aid Today by UMCOR, and Tsunami Recovery Program by American Red Cross. It then makes recommendations for donors and implementers alike on necessary conditions and components of a successful system.
|
| | |