Communication of interagency networks of public health and law enfor-cement institutions during emergency situations: The Usa case

Bu makale, acil durumlarda rol almakta olan kamu örgütleri arasındaki iletişimin ve günümüzün değişken ortamında örgütlerarası koordinasyonun önemini incelemektedir. İnsanlık halen dünyada meydana gelmekte olan pek çok doğal ve biyolojik afetleri yaşamaktadır. Bu felaketler, kamu yöneticilerine çok zor dersler vermiş ve onlara felaketlere karşı koyma faaliyetlerinin koordine edilmesinde oldukça fazla güçlükler yaşatmıştır. Yaygın iletişim, acil durumlarda karar alacak örgütler tarafından etkin bir şekilde sağlanmalıdır. Hiyerarşiye dayalı ağbağlar rutin durumlarda verimli bir şekilde çalışsalar bile acil durumların ortaya çıkardığı dinamik ortamlarda yeterli şekilde fonksiyonlarını yerine getiremezler. Kısa sürede, bir ağbağın herhangi bir zaafiyete maruz kalmadan işlerliğini koruyabilmesinin hayati önemi vardır. Bu yüzden, felaketlere karşı koyma ve geleceğe ait ihtiyaçların karşılanmasında, kamu sağlığı ve kanun uygulayıcı örgütlerin karşılıklı işbirliği ve anlayışı, makalede anlatılan ABD örneğinde olduğu gibi geliştirmeleri gerekmektedir.

Acil durumlarda kamu sağlığı ve kanun uygulayıcı kamu örgütlerine ait ağbağların iletişimi: Abd örneği

This article examines the importance of communication among agencies which play a part in emergencies and of interagency coordination in today’s turbulent environment. Human beings have still been experiencing many natural and biological disasters in the world. These disasters gave many tough lessons to public managers and they experienced many difficulties in coordinating disaster response efforts. Extensive communication must be performed efficiently by organizations which take decisions during emergencies. Even if, hierarchical networks do efficiently in routine conditions, they function inadequately in dynamic settings of emergencies. In short time, it’s survival for the network to keep its interoperability as not obtaining any failure. Therefore, mutual collaboration and understanding for the future needs of disaster response efforts must be expanded by public health and law enforcement institutions as illustrated with the USA case in the article.

PDF

___

Brown, T. M., and Miller, C. E. (2000). Communication networks in task-performing groups: Effect of task complexity, time pressure, and interpersonal dominance. Small Group Research, 31(2): 131-157.
Butler, J. C., Cohen, M. L., Friedman, C.R., Scripp,R.M. and Watz, C.G. (2002). Collaboration Between Public Health and Law Enforcement: New Paradigms and Partnerships for Bioterrorism Planning and Response. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 8(10): 1152-1156.
Chess,C. and Clarke, L. (2007). Facilitation of Risk Communication during the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: The Organizational Backstory.. American Journal of Public Health. Washington. 97(9): 1578-1583.
Comfort, L. K. (1999). Shared risk: Complex systems in seismic response. New York: Pergamon Department of Health and Human Services Report (1991). Services Integration: A Report of the Office of the Inspector General, Washington DC.
General Accounting Office (GAO), (2011, March 31). Bioterrorism: Public Health Response to Anthrax Incidents of 2001. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb /AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=202570.
Gray B (1989). Collaborating. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Kapucu, N. (2007). Building Community Capacity to Respond: Public Manager. Potomac: 36 (3): 21-26.
Kapucu, N. (2006). Interagency Communication Networks During Emergencies: Boundary Spanners in Multiagency Coordination. American Review of Public Administration. 36 (2): 207-225
Law Enforcement Issue Report (LEI) (2011, March 31). Information Management for State Health Officials. Retrieved from. http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cdc/astho/LawEnforce mentIssueReport. pdf.
Manev, M.I. and Stevenson, B. (2001). Balancing Ties: Boundary Spanning and Influence in the Organization's Extended Network of Communication. The Journal of Business Communication. 38(2): 183-205.
McGuire, M. (2002). Managing networks: Propositions on what managers do and why they do it. Public Administration Review. 62(5): 599-609.
Miles, C. and Snow, C.C. (1986). Organizations: New concepts for new forms. Management Review. California. 28(3). 62-73.
Milward, H. B. (1982). Inter-organizational Policy Systems and Research on Public Organizations. Administration and Society. 13(4): 457-478.
Monge, P. R. and Contractor, N.S. (2003). Theories of Communication Networks. London: Oxford University Press.
O'Toole, J. and Laurence J. (1997). Implementing public innovations in network settings. Administration and Society. 29(2), 115 - 138.
Provan, K. G. and Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. Ithaca. 40(1): 1- 33.
Richards, E.P. (2002). Collaboration between Public Health and Law Enforcement: The Constitutional Challenge. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 8(10): 1157-1159.
Robinson, S.E. and Gerber, B.J. (2007). A Seat at the Table for Nondisaster Organizations. Public Manager. Potomac: 36(3): 4-7.
Putterhill, M. S. and Rohrer, T. S. (1995). A Causal Model of Employee Commitment in a Manufacturing Setting. International Journal of Manpover. 16(5): 56-69.
Scott, W.R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. New Jersey, Parentice Hall. 4 ed.
Tsgarousianou, R., Tambini, D. and Bryan, C. (1998). Cyberdemocracy: Technology, cities and civic networks. New York: Routledge.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (2006). Testing multi-level, multi-theoretical hypotheses about networks in 21st century organizational forms: An analytic framework and empirical example. Academy of Management Review. 31(3): 681-703.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1999). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, P. and Vlassis, D. (2001). Combating Transnational Crime: Concepts, Activities and Response. London: Routledge Publications.