Strategic Planning in Emergency Management: Highlighting the Critical Role (and Impacts) of the Planning Process

Scott Robert Manning

doi:10.1515/jhsem-2022-0011

Article

Strategic Planning in Emergency Management: Highlighting the Critical Role (and Impacts) of the Planning Process

Scott Robert Manning

Published/Copyright: June 12, 2023

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Volume 20 Issue 3

Abstract

Strategic planning is a critical element in the strategic management of any public organization, including local emergency management agencies (EMAs). However, while the importance of strategic planning in emergency management is well founded, even codified in the national standards, little is known empirically about its actual use, and even less is known about the impacts of the planning process on local programs. As such, this study examined the strategic planning practices of county-level EMAs throughout the United States, focusing on the strategic planning process and its underlying dimensions. A composite index for strategic planning comprehensiveness was developed, based on five planning process dimensions, and then analyzed to gauge its relative impacts on local program quality. The findings revealed that the strategic planning process had a direct and significant impact on the quality of local emergency management programs, with the regression model explaining about 60 % of the variance in the local program quality index scores.

Keywords: emergency management; strategic planning; strategic management; planning process; program management; public administration

Corresponding author: Scott Robert Manning, Department of Emergency Management and Public Administration, Jacksonville State University, 700 Pelham Road North, Jacksonville, AL, 36265-2796, USA, E-mail: srmanning@jsu.edu

Appendix A: Group Comparisons (Strategic Planning Level)

Table A1:

Group comparisons for program management.^a

Variable description	Group^b	N	Mean	Delta^c	Effect size^d	E.S. Δ^e	OR
Program is guided by a meaningful vision statement	NP	88	2.23	0.71ⁱ	0.811	+0.230	4.34
Program is guided by a meaningful vision statement	HLSP	98	2.94	0.71ⁱ	0.811	+0.230	4.34
Program is guided by a clear and well-focused mission statement	NP	88	2.31	0.74ⁱ	0.879	+0.294	5.36
	HLSP	98	3.05	0.74ⁱ	0.879	+0.294	5.36
Realistic program goals have been established across all functions	NP	88	2.24	0.84ⁱ	1.058	+0.505	6.57
	HLSP	98	3.08	0.84ⁱ	1.058	+0.505	6.57
Performance objectives established for all program goals	NP	88	2.16	0.80ⁱ	1.092	+0.626	6.11
Performance objectives established for all program goals	HLSP	98	2.96	0.80ⁱ	1.092	+0.626	6.11
Performance objectives used to identify problems/monitor goal attainment	NP	88	2.16	0.77ⁱ	1.045	+0.625	5.23
	HLSP	98	2.93	0.77ⁱ	1.045	+0.625	5.23
Program manager has unrestricted access to key officials	NP	88	2.95	0.40^h	0.467	+0.395	2.91
Program manager has unrestricted access to key officials	HLSP	98	3.35	0.40^h	0.467	+0.395	2.91
Program manager is respected and has strong voice in the community	NP	88	2.86	0.41^h	0.517	+0.427	3.71
	HLSP	98	3.27	0.41^h	0.517	+0.427	3.71
Program committee is composed of local leaders/key decision makers	NP	88	2.48	0.28^g	0.322	+0.405	1.80
	HLSP	98	2.76	0.28^g	0.322	+0.405	1.80
Program committee is very active in supporting the program manager	NP	88	2.33	0.66ⁱ	0.807	+0.459	5.61
	HLSP	98	2.99	0.66ⁱ	0.807	+0.459	5.61
Governing officials are routinely focused on hazard/disaster problems	NP	88	2.03	0.63ⁱ	0.620	+0.438	2.74
	HLSP	98	2.66	0.63ⁱ	0.620	+0.438	2.74
Governing officials are committed to and fully support the program	NP	88	2.35	0.61ⁱ	0.697	+0.510	3.31
	HLSP	98	2.96	0.61ⁱ	0.697	+0.510	3.31
Governing officials always support actions to improve the program	NP	88	2.24	0.45ⁱ	0.532	+0.446	2.85
	HLSP	98	2.69	0.45ⁱ	0.532	+0.446	2.85
Program has the resources necessary to be successful	NP	88	1.63	0.86ⁱ	0.939	+0.579	5.74
Program has the resources necessary to be successful	HLSP	98	2.49	0.86ⁱ	0.939	+0.579	5.74
Program routinely meets/exceeds its stated goals and objectives	NP	88	2.27	0.46ⁱ	0.567	+0.338	2.48
	HLSP	98	2.73	0.46ⁱ	0.567	+0.338	2.48
Status of program budget over the past five years	NP	88	1.88	0.22^g	0.299	+0.178	2.31
Status of program budget over the past five years	HLSP	98	2.10	0.22^g	0.299	+0.178	2.31
Status of program grant funding over the past five years	NP	88	1.64	0.15	0.206	+0.243	–
Status of program grant funding over the past five years	HLSP	98	1.79	0.15	0.206	+0.243	–
Accreditation status of the program	NP	88	0.32	0.76ⁱ	0.616	+0.176	8.39
Accreditation status of the program	HLSP	98	1.08	0.76ⁱ	0.616	+0.176	8.39

^aCronbach’s Alpha = 0.876. ^bNP = non-strategic planning EMAs; HLSP = high level strategic planning EMAs. ^cDelta (Δ) = HLSP mean score – NP mean score. ^dBased on Cohen (1988): 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = moderate effect, 0.8 = large effect. ^eE.S. Δ = differences between the current effect sizes and those found in Manning (2020a). ^fOR = odds ratios (calculated for significant results only). ^g p < 0.05, ^h p < 0.01, ⁱ p < 0.001.

Table A2:

Group comparisons for preparedness variables (assessment/planning).^a

Variable description	Group^b	N	Mean	Delta^c	Effect size^d	E.S. Δ^e	OR
All local hazards have been identified, assessed, and documented	NP	86	3.09	0.17	0.250	+0.163	–
	HLSP	98	3.26	0.17	0.250	+0.163	–
All local vulnerabilities have been identified, assessed, and documented	NP	86	2.74	0.41^h	0.518	+0.235	3.11
	HLSP	98	3.15	0.41^h	0.518	+0.235	3.11
Event probabilities and estimated losses determined by risk analysis	NP	86	2.00	0.72ⁱ	0.793	+0.319	4.46
	HLSP	98	2.72	0.72ⁱ	0.793	+0.319	4.46
Risk assessment considers the impacts of regional, national, and global events	NP	86	2.23	0.58ⁱ	0.639	+0.201	3.26
	HLSP	98	2.81	0.58ⁱ	0.639	+0.201	3.26
Scenarios have been developed to identify program needs	NP	86	2.27	0.69ⁱ	0.841	+0.319	4.14
Scenarios have been developed to identify program needs	HLSP	98	2.96	0.69ⁱ	0.841	+0.319	4.14
A comprehensive assessment of local capabilities has been conducted	NP	86	2.35	0.67ⁱ	0.828	+0.414	4.46
	HLSP	98	3.02	0.67ⁱ	0.828	+0.414	4.46
Strategies have been developed to acquire necessary resources	NP	86	2.09	0.73ⁱ	0.860	+0.374	4.69
	HLSP	98	2.82	0.73ⁱ	0.860	+0.374	4.69
Mutual aid agreements established with local private sector organizations	NP	86	2.10	0.74ⁱ	0.733	+0.265	3.83
	HLSP	98	2.84	0.74ⁱ	0.733	+0.265	3.83
Mutual aid agreements established with local nonprofit organizations	NP	86	2.49	0.52ⁱ	0.600	+0.169	3.35
	HLSP	98	3.01	0.52ⁱ	0.600	+0.169	3.35
Mutual aid agreements established with entities outside the jurisdiction	NP	86	2.57	0.65ⁱ	0.818	+0.279	5.30
	HLSP	98	3.22	0.65ⁱ	0.818	+0.279	5.30
Emergency response plan developed in accordance with federal guidelines	NP	86	3.12	−0.02	−0.019	+0.085	–
	HLSP	98	3.10	−0.02	−0.019	+0.085	–
Emergency response plan addresses special needs/vulnerable populations	NP	86	2.73	0.35^h	0.412	+0.225	2.60
	HLSP	98	3.08	0.35^h	0.412	+0.225	2.60
Risk communication plan developed in accordance with federal guidelines	NP	86	2.35	0.46^h	0.505	+0.157	3.79
	HLSP	98	2.81	0.46^h	0.505	+0.157	3.79
Jurisdiction has accurate/accessible inventory of response/recovery assets	NP	86	2.35	0.35^h	0.395	+0.223	1.97
	HLSP	98	2.70	0.35^h	0.395	+0.223	1.97
Frequency of local hazard-vulnerability assessments	NP	86	1.38	0.79^h	0.523	+0.197	2.79
Frequency of local hazard-vulnerability assessments	HLSP	98	2.17	0.79^h	0.523	+0.197	2.79
Frequency of updates/revisions for existing operational plans	NP	86	2.51	0.54^g	0.371	+0.207	1.56
	HLSP	98	3.05	0.54^g	0.371	+0.207	1.56

^aCronbach’s Alpha = 0.880. ^bNP = non-strategic planning EMAs; HLSP = high level strategic planning EMAs. ^cDelta (Δ) = HLSP mean score – NP mean score. ^dBased on Cohen (1988): 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = moderate effect, 0.8 = large effect. ^e E.S. Δ = differences between the current effect sizes and those found in Manning (2020a). ^fOR = odds ratios (calculated for significant results only). ^g p < 0.05, ^h p < 0.01, ⁱ p < 0.001.

Table A3:

Group comparisons for preparedness variables (training/exercising).^a

Variable description	Group^b	N	Mean	Delta^c	Effect size^d	E.S. Δ^e	OR
An assessment of training needs is conducted on an annual basis	NP	86	2.56	0.53ⁱ	0.646	+0.368	5.17
	HLSP	98	3.09	0.53ⁱ	0.646	+0.368	5.17
Response personnel have been properly trained on their roles/responsibilities	NP	86	2.38	0.41^h	0.517	+0.321	3.39
	HLSP	98	2.79	0.41^h	0.517	+0.321	3.39
Elected officials have been properly trained on their roles/responsibilities	NP	86	1.71	0.32^g	0.325	+0.254	2.18
	HLSP	98	2.03	0.32^g	0.325	+0.254	2.18
Administrators have been properly trained on their roles/responsibilities	NP	86	2.02	0.38^h	0.420	+0.358	2.23
	HLSP	98	2.40	0.38^h	0.420	+0.358	2.23
Training has been provided for all volunteers and auxiliary personnel	NP	86	2.41	0.38^h	0.506	+0.240	3.15
	HLSP	98	2.79	0.38^h	0.506	+0.240	3.15
Warning systems have been developed and are tested on a regular basis	NP	86	3.03	0.10	0.135	+0.110	–
	HLSP	98	3.13	0.10	0.135	+0.110	–
Communication systems are inter-operable and tested on a regular basis	NP	86	2.94	0.32^h	0.419	+0.217	4.92
	HLSP	98	3.26	0.32^h	0.419	+0.217	4.92
A multi-year training/exercise plan has been developed with clear priorities	NP	86	2.49	0.58ⁱ	0.634	+0.195	2.72
	HLSP	98	3.07	0.58ⁱ	0.634	+0.195	2.72
Evaluation is used to measure performance against exercise objectives	NP	86	2.84	0.45ⁱ	0.673	+0.230	5.64
	HLSP	98	3.29	0.45ⁱ	0.673	+0.230	5.64
Corrective actions identified during exercises are tracked to completion	NP	86	2.24	0.66ⁱ	0.785	+0.317	4.36
	HLSP	98	2.90	0.66ⁱ	0.785	+0.317	4.36
Number of local training seminars conducted in the past year	NP	86	1.51	0.87ⁱ	0.578	+0.071	2.74
	HLSP	98	2.38	0.87ⁱ	0.578	+0.071	2.74
Number of local training workshops conducted in the past year	NP	86	1.24	0.91ⁱ	0.607	+0.021	2.92
	HLSP	98	2.15	0.91ⁱ	0.607	+0.021	2.92
Number of tabletop exercises in the past 3 years	NP	86	2.06	0.53^g	0.375	+0.086	2.09
Number of tabletop exercises in the past 3 years	HLSP	98	2.59	0.53^g	0.375	+0.086	2.09
Number of local drills in the past 3 years	NP	86	1.73	0.41^g	0.273	+0.108	1.59
Number of local drills in the past 3 years	HLSP	98	2.14	0.41^g	0.273	+0.108	1.59
Number of functional exercises in the past 3 years	NP	86	1.19	0.44^g	0.331	+0.130	1.92
Number of functional exercises in the past 3 years	HLSP	98	1.63	0.44^g	0.331	+0.130	1.92
Number of full-scale exercises in the past 3 years	NP	86	0.95	0.16	0.130	+0.138	–
Number of full-scale exercises in the past 3 years	HLSP	98	1.11	0.16	0.130	+0.138	–

^aCronbach’s Alpha = 0.880. ^bNP = non-strategic planning EMAs; HLSP = high level strategic planning EMAs. ^cDelta (Δ) = HLSP mean score – NP mean score. ^dBased on Cohen (1988): 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = moderate effect, 0.8 = large effect. ^eE.S. Δ = differences between the current effect sizes and those found in Manning (2020a). ^fOR = odds ratios (calculated for significant results only). ^g p < 0.05, ^h p < 0.01, ⁱ p < 0.001.

Table A4:

Group comparisons for hazard mitigation variables.^a

Variable description	Group^b	N	Mean	Delta^c	Effect size^d	E.S. Δ^e	OR
Hazard mitigation plan developed in accordance with federal guidelines	NP	86	3.37	0.24^g	0.333	+0.087	3.25
	HLSP	98	3.61	0.24^g	0.333	+0.087	3.25
Jurisdiction has adopted risk-based land use planning	NP	86	2.26	0.71ⁱ	0.721	+0.251	3.15
Jurisdiction has adopted risk-based land use planning	HLSP	98	2.97	0.71ⁱ	0.721	+0.251	3.15
Jurisdiction addresses hazard-related issues in its comprehensive planning	NP	86	2.45	0.69ⁱ	0.831	+0.285	5.95
	HLSP	98	3.14	0.69ⁱ	0.831	+0.285	5.95
Jurisdiction consistently tracks repetitive loss properties	NP	86	2.24	0.58ⁱ	0.603	+0.254	3.15
Jurisdiction consistently tracks repetitive loss properties	HLSP	98	2.82	0.58ⁱ	0.603	+0.254	3.15
Jurisdiction targets repetitive loss properties for acquisition or relocation	NP	86	1.95	0.61ⁱ	0.611	+0.232	3.04
	HLSP	98	2.56	0.61ⁱ	0.611	+0.232	3.04
Program has a well-developed public education curriculum	NP	86	2.21	0.51ⁱ	0.597	+0.239	2.65
Program has a well-developed public education curriculum	HLSP	98	2.72	0.51ⁱ	0.597	+0.239	2.65
Public education focuses on hazards, preparedness, and mitigation	NP	86	2.43	0.50ⁱ	0.629	+0.183	3.72
	HLSP	98	2.93	0.50ⁱ	0.629	+0.183	3.72
Public education is routinely delivered via meetings, workshops, and seminars	NP	86	2.42	0.55ⁱ	0.598	+0.252	3.09
	HLSP	98	2.97	0.55ⁱ	0.598	+0.252	3.09
Preparedness, mitigation, and recovery information on program website	NP	86	2.30	0.44^h	0.460	+0.152	1.63
	HLSP	98	2.74	0.44^h	0.460	+0.152	1.63
Outreach strategy has been developed to ensure access to program education	NP	86	1.93	0.73ⁱ	0.877	+0.222	5.48
	HLSP	98	2.66	0.73ⁱ	0.877	+0.222	5.48
Jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan has been approved by FEMA	NP	86	3.40	0.33^g	0.333	+0.100	2.53
	HLSP	97	3.73	0.33^g	0.333	+0.100	2.53
Jurisdiction participates in the national flood insurance program	NP	86	3.72	0.16	0.194	+0.173	–
	HLSP	97	3.88	0.16	0.194	+0.173	–
Jurisdiction participates in the community rating system	NP	86	1.72	0.82^h	0.451	+0.070	2.32
Jurisdiction participates in the community rating system	HLSP	97	2.54	0.82^h	0.451	+0.070	2.32
Jurisdiction is recognized as a storm-ready community	NP	86	2.49	0.64^g	0.385	+0.149	2.05
Jurisdiction is recognized as a storm-ready community	HLSP	97	3.13	0.64^g	0.385	+0.149	2.05

^aCronbach’s Alpha = 0.784. ^bNP = non-strategic planning EMAs; HLSP = high level strategic planning EMAs. ^cDelta (Δ) = HLSP mean score – NP mean score. ^dBased on Cohen (1988): 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = moderate effect, 0.8 = large effect. ^eE.S. Δ = differences between the current effect sizes and those found in Manning (2020a). ^fOR = odds ratios (calculated for significant results only). ^g p < 0.05, ^h p < 0.01, ⁱ p < 0.001.

Table A5:

Group comparisons for emergency response variables.^a

Variable description	Group^b	N	Mean	Delta^c	Effect size^d	E.S. Δ^e	OR
Permanent and fully functional EOC has been established	NP	86	3.00	0.48^h	0.458	+0.163	3.57
Permanent and fully functional EOC has been established	HLSP	97	3.48	0.48^h	0.458	+0.163	3.57
Dedicated, fully functional location identified for alternate EOC	NP	86	2.48	0.66ⁱ	0.616	+0.219	4.02
	HLSP	97	3.14	0.66ⁱ	0.616	+0.219	4.02
Jurisdiction is fully capable of implementing ICS/NIMS	NP	86	2.91	0.57ⁱ	0.733	+0.329	7.05
Jurisdiction is fully capable of implementing ICS/NIMS	HLSP	97	3.48	0.57ⁱ	0.733	+0.329	7.05
Procedures, templates, and scripts have been established for issuing warnings	NP	86	2.77	0.54ⁱ	0.742	+0.264	7.54
	HLSP	97	3.31	0.54ⁱ	0.742	+0.264	7.54
Jurisdiction has a current policy/plan for managing volunteers	NP	86	2.49	0.46^h	0.492	+0.248	3.74
	HLSP	97	2.95	0.46^h	0.492	+0.248	3.74
Jurisdiction has a current policy/plan for managing donated goods/services	NP	86	2.16	0.62ⁱ	0.637	+0.251	3.77
	HLSP	97	2.78	0.62ⁱ	0.637	+0.251	3.77
Formal agreements established for sheltering and mass care	NP	86	2.95	0.37^h	0.518	+0.319	3.40
Formal agreements established for sheltering and mass care	HLSP	97	3.32	0.37^h	0.518	+0.319	3.40
Staging areas and points of distribution have been pre-identified/documented	NP	86	2.85	0.41ⁱ	0.558	+0.384	6.54
	HLSP	97	3.26	0.41ⁱ	0.558	+0.384	6.54
Jurisdiction has a well-developed and fully tested evacuation plan	NP	86	1.97	0.47^h	0.464	+0.258	3.30
	HLSP	97	2.44	0.47^h	0.464	+0.258	3.30
GIS and other advanced software and applications used to manage response	NP	86	2.51	0.57ⁱ	0.555	+0.292	2.77
	HLSP	97	3.08	0.57ⁱ	0.555	+0.292	2.77
EOC has been upgraded and/or renovated in the last two years	NP	86	2.26	0.11	0.075	+0.007	–
	HLSP	97	2.37	0.11	0.075	+0.007	–
Jurisdiction has an active CERT program	NP	86	1.53	1.01ⁱ	0.565	+0.160	2.74
Jurisdiction has an active CERT program	HLSP	97	2.54	1.01ⁱ	0.565	+0.160	2.74

^aCronbach’s Alpha = 0.802. ^bNP = non-strategic planning EMAs; HLSP = high level strategic planning EMAs. ^cDelta (Δ) = HLSP mean score – NP mean score. ^dBased on Cohen (1988): 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = moderate effect, 0.8 = large effect. ^eE.S. Δ = differences between the current effect sizes and those found in Manning (2020a). ^fOR = odds ratios (calculated for significant results only). ^g p < 0.05, ^h p < 0.01, ⁱ p < 0.001.

Table A6:

Group comparisons for disaster recovery variables.^a

Variable description	Group^b	N	Mean	Delta^c	Effect size^d	E.S. Δ^e	OR
Disaster recovery plan developed in accordance with federal guidelines	NP	86	2.27	0.46^h	0.481	+0.247	2.45
	HLSP	97	2.73	0.46^h	0.481	+0.247	2.45
COOP plan developed in accordance with federal guidelines	NP	86	2.47	0.63ⁱ	0.703	+0.467	4.98
COOP plan developed in accordance with federal guidelines	HLSP	97	3.10	0.63ⁱ	0.703	+0.467	4.98
COG plan developed in accordance with federal guidelines	NP	86	2.36	0.60ⁱ	0.649	+0.396	3.79
COG plan developed in accordance with federal guidelines	HLSP	97	2.96	0.60ⁱ	0.649	+0.396	3.79
Local ordinance to support disaster recovery and reconstruction	NP	86	1.97	0.60ⁱ	0.625	+0.323	2.83
	HLSP	97	2.57	0.60ⁱ	0.625	+0.323	2.83
Uniform policies/procedures developed for conducting damage assessments	NP	86	2.53	0.42^h	0.518	+0.237	2.16
	HLSP	97	2.95	0.42^h	0.518	+0.237	2.16
Inventory of state/federal post-disaster assistance and related grant programs	NP	86	2.16	0.62ⁱ	0.711	+0.219	3.26
	HLSP	97	2.78	0.62ⁱ	0.711	+0.219	3.26
Pre-designated locations have been established for a DRC	NP	86	2.20	0.46ⁱ	0.533	+0.299	2.70
Pre-designated locations have been established for a DRC	HLSP	97	2.66	0.46ⁱ	0.533	+0.299	2.70
Strategy/policies developed to support long-term sheltering and housing	NP	86	1.90	0.51ⁱ	0.564	+0.260	4.05
	HLSP	97	2.41	0.51ⁱ	0.564	+0.260	4.05
Jurisdiction has trained personnel to track expenses for disaster recovery	NP	86	2.26	0.64ⁱ	0.705	+0.269	4.64
	HLSP	97	2.90	0.64ⁱ	0.705	+0.269	4.64
Development of assistance and support mechanisms for recovery workers	NP	86	1.87	0.53ⁱ	0.595	+0.251	3.23
	HLSP	97	2.40	0.53ⁱ	0.595	+0.251	3.23

^aCronbach’s Alpha = 0.882. ^bNP = non-strategic planning EMAs; HLSP = high level strategic planning EMAs. ^cDelta (Δ) = HLSP mean score – NP mean score. ^dBased on Cohen (1988): 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = moderate effect, 0.8 = large effect. ^eE.S. Δ = differences between the current effect sizes and those found in Manning (2020a). ^fOR = odds ratios (calculated for significant results only). ^g p < 0.05, ^h p < 0.01, ⁱ p < 0.001.

Appendix B: Correlation Matrix (Strategic Planning/Program Quality)

Table B1:

Correlation matrix for county, program, and program quality variables.

	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11
01 = County population	1.00
02 = Geographic land area	0.134^a	1.000
03 = Population density	0.784^c	−0.108^a	1.000
04 = Full-time employees	0.802^c	−0.005	0.788^c	1.000
05 = Part-time employees	0.019	−0.078	−0.011	0.072	1.000
06 = Budget funding	0.661^b	0.029	0.627^c	0.874^c	−0.016	1.000
07 = Grant funding	0.488^c	0.147^b	0.288^c	0.688^c	−0.025	0.783^c	1.000
08 = Hazard related events	0.304^c	−0.045	0.243^c	0.215^c	0.024	0.260^c	0.372^c	1.000
09 = Education level	0.200^b	−0.021	0.174^b	0.158^a	−0.046	0.150^a	0.230^c	0.048	1.000
10 = Strategic planning index	0.203^b	−0.250	0.231^b	0.160^a	0.153	0.153^a	0.135	0.148	0.041	1.00
11 = Program quality index	0.286^c	−0.146^a	0.251^c	0.234^c	0.201^b	0.234^c	0.229^c	0.238^c	0.006	0.777^c	1.000

^aSignificance (p < 0.05). ^bSignificance (p < 0.01). ^cSignificance (p < 0.001).

References

Andrews, R., G. Boyne, J. Law, and R. Walker. 2009. “Strategy Formulation, Strategy Content and Performance: An Empirical Analysis.” Public Management Review 11 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802489989.Search in Google Scholar

Berry, F., and B. Wechsler. 1995. “State Agencies’ Experience with Strategic Planning.” Public Administration Review 55 (2): 159–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/977181.Search in Google Scholar

Birkland, T. 2010. “Federal Disaster Policy: Learning, Priorities, and Prospects for Resilience.” In Designing Resilience: Preparing for Extreme Events, edited by L. Comfort, A. Boin, and C. Demchak, 106–28. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctt5hjq0c.10Search in Google Scholar

Boyne, G. 2001. “Planning, Performance and Public Service.” Public Administration 79 (1): 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00246.Search in Google Scholar

Boyne, G. 2003. “Sources of Public Service Improvement: A Critical Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (3): 367–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mug027.Search in Google Scholar

Boyne, G., and J. Gould-Williams. 2003. “Planning and Performance in Public Organizations: An Empirical Analysis.” Public Management Review 5 (1): 115–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/146166702200002889.Search in Google Scholar

Boyne, G., and R. Walker. 2010. “Strategic Management and Public Sector Performance: The Way Ahead.” Public Administration Review 70 (S1): S185–S192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02271.x.Search in Google Scholar

Britton, N. 2001. “A New Emergency Management for the New Mellennium?” Australian Journal of Emergency Management 16 (4): 44–54.Search in Google Scholar

Bryson, J. 2004. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide for Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

Bryson, J., and W. Roering. 1988. “Initiation of Strategic Planning by Governments.” Public Administration Review 48 (6): 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.2307/976996.Search in Google Scholar

Bryson, J., F. Berry, and K. Yang. 2010. “The State of Public Strategic Management Research: A Selective Literature Review and Set of Future Directions.” The American Review of Public Administration 40 (5): 495–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010370361.Search in Google Scholar

Burby, R. 2003. “Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action.” Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (1): 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976292.Search in Google Scholar

Canton, L. 2020. Emergency Management: Concepts and Strategies for Effective Programs. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Choi, S. 2008. “Emergency Management: Implications from a Strategic Management Perspective.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 5 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1372.Search in Google Scholar

Chrislip, D. 2002. The Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook: A Guide for Citizens and Civic Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale: Laurence Earlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Drabek, T. 2003. Strategies for Coordinating Disaster Responses. Boulder: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado.Search in Google Scholar

Drabek, T., and Hoetmer, G., eds. 1991. Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. Washinton: International City/County Management Association.Search in Google Scholar

Dynes, R. 1994. “Community Emergency Planning: False Assumptions and Inappropriate Analogies.” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 12 (2): 141–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/028072709401200201.Search in Google Scholar

Eadie, D. 1983. “Putting a Powerful Tool to Practical Use: The Application of Strategic Planning in the Public Sector.” Public Administration Review 43 (5): 447–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/975852.Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, L. 2012. Strategic Planning in Local Government: Is the Promise of Performance a Reality? Georgia State University. Atlanta: Public Management and Policy Dissertations, Paper 36.Search in Google Scholar

FEMA. 2007. Principles of Emergency Management Supplement. Washington: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Retrieved from Federal Emergency Management Agency: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1822-25045-7625/principles_of_emergency_management.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Fredrickson, J. 1984. “The Comprehensiveness of Strategic Decision Processes: Extensions, Observations, Future Directions.” Academy of Management Journal 27 (3): 445–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/256039.Search in Google Scholar

Godschalk, D., T. Beatley, P. Berke, D. Brower, and E. Kaiser. 1999. Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning. Washington: Island Press.Search in Google Scholar

Heath, R. 1995. “The Kobe Earthquake: Some Realities of Strategic Management of Crises and Disasters.” Disaster Prevention and Management 4 (5): 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653569510100965.Search in Google Scholar

Hendrick, R. 2003. “Strategic Planning Environment, Process, and Performance in Public Agencies: A Comparative Study of Departments in Milwaukee.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (4): 491–519. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mug031.Search in Google Scholar

Hendrick, R. 2010. “What Is Wrong with Advice on Strategic Planning?” Public Administration Review 70 (S1): S222–S223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02279.x.Search in Google Scholar

Joyce, P. 1999. Strategic Management for the Public Services. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kapucu, N. 2008. “Collaborative Emergency Management: Better Community Organising, Better Public Preparedness and Response.” Disasters 32 (2): 239–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01037.x.Search in Google Scholar

Koteen, J. 1997. Strategic Management in Public and Nonprofit Organizations: Managing Public Concerns in an Era of Limits. Westport: Praeger Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Lindell, M., C. Prater, and R. Perry. 2007. Introduction to Emergency Management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Manning, S. 2020a. “Strategic Planning in Emergency Management: Evaluating the Impacts on Local Program Quality.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 17 (2): 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2019-0051.Search in Google Scholar

Manning, S. 2020b. “Exploring the Process of Strategic Planning in Emergency Management.” International Journal of Emergency Management 16: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijem.2020.112300.Search in Google Scholar

McEntire, D., C. Fuller, C. Johnston, and R. Weber. 2002. “A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide.” Public Administration Review 62 (3): 267–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00178.Search in Google Scholar

McGuire, M., and D. Schneck. 2010. “What if Hurricane Katrina Hit in 2020? The Need for Strategic Management of Disasters.” Public Administration Review 70 (S1): S201–S207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02273.x.Search in Google Scholar

Meier, K., and L. O’Toole. 2002. “Public Management and Organizational Performance: The Impact of Managerial Quality.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21 (4): 629–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.10078.Search in Google Scholar

Mileti, D. 1999. Disaster by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington: Joseph Henry press.Search in Google Scholar

Mintzberg, H. 1994. “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning.” Harvard Business Review 72 (1): 107–14.Search in Google Scholar

Mitchell, M., and J. Jolley. 2010. Research Design Explained. Belmont: Wadsworth.Search in Google Scholar

National Research Council. 2006. Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions. Washington: National Academies Press.Search in Google Scholar

Nutt, P., and R. Backoff. 1992. Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector Organizations: A Handbook for Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

Nutt, P., and R. Backoff. 1995. “Strategy for Public and Third-Sector Organizations.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5 (2): 189–211.Search in Google Scholar

O’Sullivan, E., G. Rassel, and M. Berner. 2003. Research Methods for Public Administrators. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Perry, R., and M. Lindell. 2003. “Preparedness for Emergency Response: Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process.” Disasters 27 (4): 336–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0361-3666.2003.00237.x.Search in Google Scholar

Perry, R., and M. Lindell. 2007. Emergency Planning. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Pine, J. 2015. Hazards Analysis: Reducing the Impacts of Disasters. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Search in Google Scholar

Poister, T., and G. Streib. 1990. “Strategic Planning in U.S. Cities: Patterns of Use, Perceptions of Effectiveness, and an Assessment of Strategic Capacity.” The American Review of Public Administration 20 (1): 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507409002000103.Search in Google Scholar

Poister, T., and G. Streib. 1999. “Strategic Management in the Public Sector: Concepts, Models, and Processes.” Public Productivity and Management Review 22 (3): 308–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/3380706.Search in Google Scholar

Poister, T., and G. Streib. 2005. “Elements of Strategic Planning and Management in Municipal Government: Status after Two Decades.” Public Administration Review 65 (1): 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00429.x.Search in Google Scholar

Poister, T., D. Pitts, and L. Edwards. 2010. “Strategic Management Research in the Public Sector: A Review, Synthesis, and Future Directions.” The American Review of Public Administration 40 (5): 522–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010370617.Search in Google Scholar

Prater, C., and M. Lindell. 2000. “Politics of Hazard Mitigation.” Natural Hazards Review 1 (2): 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1527-6988(2000)1:2(73).10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2000)1:2(73)Search in Google Scholar

Quarantelli, E. 1988. Local Emergency Management Agencies: Research Findings on Their Progress and Problems in the Last Two Decades. Newark: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.Search in Google Scholar

Rubin, C., ed. 2012. Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900–2010. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group.Search in Google Scholar

Schneider, R. 2003. A Strategic Overview of the “New” Emergency Management. Washington: Federal Emergency Management Agency.Search in Google Scholar

Schwab, J. (Ed.). 2014. Planning for Post-disaster Recovery: Next Generation. Washington: American Planning Assication.Search in Google Scholar

Steiss, A. 2003. Strategic Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Sylves, R. 2008. Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security. Washington: CQ Press.10.4135/9781483330761Search in Google Scholar

Tierney, K. 1993. Disaster Preparedness and Response: Research Findings and Guidance from the Social Science Literature. Newark: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.Search in Google Scholar

Tierney, K., M. Lindell, and R. Perry. 2001. Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States. Washington: Joseph Henry Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ugboro, I., K. Obeng, and O. Spann. 2011. “Strategic Planning as an Effective Tool of Strategic Management in Public Sector Organizations: Evidence from Public Transit Organizations.” Administration & Society 43 (1): 87–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710386315.Search in Google Scholar

Vinzant, D., and J. Vinzant. 1996. “Strategy and Organizational Capacity: Finding a Fit.” Public Productivity and Management Review 20 (2): 139–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/3380482.Search in Google Scholar

Walker, R., R. Andrews, G. Boyne, K. Meier, and L. O’Toole. 2010. “Wakeup Call: Strategic Management, Network Alarms, and Performance.” Public Administration Review 70 (5): 731–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02201.x.Search in Google Scholar

Waugh, W. 2000. Living with Hazards, Dealing with Disasters: An Introduction to Emergency Management. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Waugh, W., and G. Streib. 2006. “Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emergency Management.” Public Administration Review 66 (S1): 131–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00673.x.Search in Google Scholar

Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203974575Search in Google Scholar

Wolf, C., and S. Floyd. 2017. “Strategic Planning Research: Toward a Theory-Driven Agenda.” Journal of Management 43 (6): 1754–88, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478185.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-03-02

Accepted: 2023-05-15

Published Online: 2023-06-12

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2022-0011

Keywords for this article

emergency management; strategic planning; strategic management; planning process; program management; public administration