This research focused on the interorganizational and intergovernmental response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. The study used the concepts from the network and partnerships literature and used current techniques of network analysis. The study found that the use of intergovernmental and interorganizational response to coordinate complex operations in multiorganizational environments of catastrophic disasters was not successful in responding to both Hurricane Katrina and Rita in 2005. The research suggests that more investment should be made in community capacity building at the local and state levels for successful and effective partnerships in responding to catastrophic disasters. In this research, the local and state levels are shown to be faster in response and future research should focus on local, state, and federal resources coordination in response to catastrophic disasters.
AgranoffR. (2004). Leveraging networks: A guide for public managers working across organizations. In KamenskyJ.BurlinT. (Eds.), Collaboration using partnerships and networks (pp. 61-102). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
2.
Auf der HeideE. (1989). Disaster response: Principles and preparation and coordination. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
3.
BardachE. (1998). Getting agencies to work together. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
4.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET 6.0 version for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
5.
BowmanA. O’M. (2004). Horizontal federalism: Exploring interstate interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 335-546.
6.
BushJ. (2005, October19). Federalism and disaster response: Examining the roles and responsibilities of local, state, and federal agencies (Testimony of Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida, before the House Committee on Homeland Security). Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives.
7.
CameronD. (2001). The Structures of Intergovernmental Relations. International Social Science Journal, 53(167), 121-127.
8.
CiglerB. (2007). Hurricane Katrina: Two intergovernmental challenges. The Public Manager, 35(4), 3-7.
9.
ClarkeS. E.ChenowethE. (2006). The politics of vulnerability: Constructing local performance regimes for homeland security. Review of Policy Research, 23, 95-114.
10.
ComfortL. K. (1988). Managing disaster: Strategies and policy perspectives. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11.
ComfortL. K. (1999). Shared risk: Complex systems in seismic response. New York, NY: Pergamon.
12.
ComfortL. K. (2002). Rethinking security: Organizational fragility in extreme events. Public Administration Review, 62, 98-107.
13.
ComfortL. K.HaaseT. W. (2006). Communication, coherence, and collective action: The impact of Hurricane Katrina on communications infrastructure. Public Works Management and Policy, 10, 328-343.
14.
ComfortL. K.KapucuN. (2006). Inter-organizational coordination in extreme events: The world trade center attack, September 11, 2001. Natural Hazards, 39, 309-327.
15.
ConlanT. (1998). From new federalism to devolution: Twenty-five years of intergovernmental reform. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
16.
ConlanT. (2006). From cooperative to opportunistic federalism: Reflections on the half-century anniversary of the commission on intergovernmental relations. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 5), 663-676.
17.
Department of Homeland Security. (2004). National Response Plan (NRP). Washington, DC: Author.
18.
DonahueA.JoyceP. (2001). A framework for analyzing emergency management with an application to federal budgeting. Public Administration Review, 61, 728-740.
19.
DrabekT. E. (2003). Strategies for coordinating disaster responses. Boulder, CO: Natural Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado.
20.
DynesR. R.TierneyK. J. (1994). Disasters, collective behavior, and social organization. Newark, NJ: University of Delaware Press.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2006). FEMA National Situation Reports. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
FerejohnJ.WeingastB. R. (1997). The new federalism: Can the states be trusted?Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
24.
GouldR. V.FernandezR. M. (1989). Structure of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89-126.
25.
Government Accountability Office. (2002). Homeland security: Intergovernmental coordination and partnership will be critical to success (GAO Report GAO-02-899T). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-899T
26.
Government Accountability Office. (2005). Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Preliminary observations on contracting for response and recovery efforts (GAO Report GAO-66-246T). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06246t.pdf
HardenbrookB. (2005). The need for a policy framework to develop disaster resilient regions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2(3), 1-23.
29.
International City/County Management Association. (2006). A network approach to improvements in emergency management. Available from http://admin.icma.org
30.
JohnsC. M.O’reillyP. L.InwoodG. J. (2006). Intergovernmental innovation and the administrative state in Canada. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 19, 627-649.
31.
KamenskyJ.BurlinT.AbramsonM. (2004). Networks and partnerships: Collaborating to achieve results no one can achieve alone. In KamenskyJ.BurlinT. (Eds.), Collaboration using partnerships and networks (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
32.
KapucuN. (2005). Interorganizational coordination in dynamic context: Networks in emergency response management. Connections, 26(2), 33-48.
33.
KapucuN. (2006). Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary spanners in multi-agency coordination. American Review of Public Administration, 36, 207-225.
34.
KapucuN.AugustinM.GarayevV. (2009). Interstate partnerships in emergency management: Emergency management assistance compact (EMAC) in response to catastrophic disasters. Public Administration Review, 69, 297-313.
35.
KapucuN.Van WartM. (2006). The emerging role of the public sector in managing extreme events: Lessons learned. Administration & Society, 38, 279-308.
36.
KapucuN.Van WartM. (2008). Making matters worse: Anatomy of leadership failures in catastrophic events. Administration & Society, 40, 711-740.
37.
KettlD. (2004). System under stress: Homeland security and American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
38.
KlitgaardR.TrevertonG. (2004). Assessing partnerships: New forms of collaboration. In KamenskyJ.BurlinT. (Eds.), Collaboration using partnerships and networks (pp. 21-60). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
39.
MandellM. (2001). Getting results through collaboration. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
40.
MayP. J.WilliamsW. (1986). Disaster policy implementation: Managing programs under shared governance. New York, NY: Plenum.
41.
McEntireD. A. (2002). Coordinating multi-organizational responses to disaster: Lessons from the March 28, 2000, Fort Worth Tornado. Disaster Prevention and Management, 11, 369-379.
42.
McLoughlinD. (1985). A framework for integrated emergency management. Public Administration Review, 45, 165-172.
43.
MitchellJ. K. (2006). The primacy of partnership: Scoping a new national disaster recovery policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 228-255.
44.
MorganB. B.Jr.SalasE.GlickmanA. S. (1994). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 120, 277-291.
45.
MushkatelA. H.WescherL. F. (1985). Emergency management and the Intergovernmental System. Public Administration Review, 45, 49-56.
46.
National Academy of Public Administration. (2003). Powering the Future: High-performance partnerships. Washington, DC: Author.
47.
National Academy of Public Administration. (2004). Advancing the management of homeland security: Managing intergovernmental relations for homeland security. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.napawash.org/si/HS-WHITE.pdf.
48.
National Academy of Public Administration. (2006). National Agenda for the Support of Intergovernmental Research 2006. Washington, DC: Author.
49.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
O’TooleL. (2003). Interorganizational relations in implementation. In PetersG.PierreJ. (Eds.), The handbook of public administration (pp. 234-243). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
PetersB. G. (1998). Managing horizontal government: The politics of co-ordination. Public Administration, 76, 295-311.
53.
PetersB. G.PierreJ. (2001). Developments in intergovernmental relations: Towards multi-level governance. Policy and Politics, 29, 131-135.
54.
RodríguezC.LangleyA.BélandF.DenisJ. (2007). Governance, power, and mandated collaboration in an interorganizational network. Administration & Society, 39, 150-193.
55.
RosenthalU.KouzminA. (1997). Crises and crisis management: Toward comprehensive government decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 277-305.
56.
SchneiderS. (1992). Governmental response to disasters: The conflict between bureaucratic procedures and emergent norms. Public Administration Review, 52, 135-145.
57.
SchneiderS. (1995). Flirting with disaster: Public management in crisis situations. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
58.
SchneiderS. (2005). Administrative breakdowns in the governmental response to Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review, 65, 515-516.
59.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
SmithA. (2003). Multi-level governance: What it is and how it can be studied. In PetersG.PierreJ. (Eds.), The handbook of public administration (pp. 619-628). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
SylvesR. T. (1984). Nuclear power plants and emergency planning: An intergovernmental nightmare. Public Administration Review, 44, 393-401.
62.
SylvesR. T. (1994). Coping with catastrophe: Building an emergency management system to meet people’s needs in natural and manmade disasters. Public Administration Review, 54, 303-307.
63.
TierneyK. J.LindellM. K.PerryR. W. (2001). Facing the unexpected: Disaster preparedness and response in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
64.
TierneyK. T. (1985). Emergency medical preparedness and response in disasters: The need for intergovernmental coordination. Public Administration Review, 45, 77-84.
65.
TownsendF. F. (2006). The federal response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons learned. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant to the President for homeland security and counterterrorism. Available from www.whitehouse.com
66.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2006). Select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and response to Katrina: A failure of initiative. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://katrina.house.gov/full_katrina_report.htm
67.
U.S. Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs. (2006). Hurricane Katrina: A nation still unprepared. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/Katrina/ExecSum.pdf
68.
WamsleyG. L.SchroederA. D. (1996). Escalating in a quagmire: The changing dynamics of the emergency management policy subsystem. Public Administration Review, 56, 235-244.
69.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
70.
WaughW.SylvesR. (1996). The intergovernmental relations of emergency management. In SylvesR.WaughW. (Eds.), Disaster management in the U.S. and Canada: The politics, policymaking, administration and analysis of emergency management (2nd ed., pp. 46-68). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
71.
WaughW. L.Jr. (2000). Living with hazards, dealing with disasters. London, UK: M.E. Sharpe.
72.
WaughW. L.Jr. (2004). Leveraging networks to meet national goals: FEMA and the state construction networks. In KamenskyJ. M.BurlinT. J. (Eds.), Collaboration: Using networks and partnerships (pp. 273-319). New York, NY: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
73.
WaughW. L.Jr.StreibG. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review, 66, 131-140.
74.
WeberE. P.LovrichN. P.GaffneyM. J. (2007). Assessing collaborative capacity in a multidimensional world. Administration & Society, 39, 194-220.
75.
WeickK. E.RobertsK. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357-381.
76.
WildavskyA. (1971). Searching for safety. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
77.
WiseC. R. (2006). Organizing for homeland security after Katrina: Is adaptive management what’s missing?Public Administration Review, 66, 302-318.
78.
WiseC. R.RaniaN. (2002). Organizing the federal system for homeland security: Problems, issues, and dilemmas. Public Administration Review, 62, 44-57.
79.
WollmannH. (2003). Coordination in the intergovernmental setting. In PetersG.PierreJ. (Eds.), The handbook of public administration (pp. 594-606). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
80.
WrightD. S. (1998). Federalism, intergovernmental relations, and intergovernmental management. In RabinJ.HildrethW. B.MillerG. J. (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (2nd ed., pp. 381-447). New York: Marcel Dekker.
81.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
82.
ZimmermanJ. F. (1996). Interstate relations: The neglected dimensions of federalism. Westport, CT: Praeger.
83.
ZimmermanJ. F. (2002). Interstate cooperation: Concepts and administrative agreements. Westport, CT: Praeger.
