American governance in the twenty-first century continues down a path of enhanced coercion and direction from the federal government. Emergency management policy is no different from any other policy field in this aspect, especially in the time following the September 11 attacks. Throughout the Obama administration, the federal government continued these policies and created additional mandates that required local compliance with federal policy demands. Failure to do so would put grant funding at risk in a field where budgets are typically stretched to the limit. However, an earlier study by Hildebrand (J Homeland Secur Emerg Manag 12(2):273–298, 2015) showed that this coercive threat had no statistical significance in predicting the reported implementation behaviors of local emergency management officials during the George W. Bush administration. This study seeks to determine if attitudes of local emergency managers changed during the Obama administration, and if the potential impacts from coercion had any predictive effect upon the local agencies decision to implement policy demands from the National Response Framework (NRF), National Incident Management System (NIMS), and Incident Command System (ICS). The findings once again show that coercive threats (the potential loss of grant funding) play little-to-no role in the actions and attitudes of local emergency management professionals when reporting compliance with federal policy demands.

Disasters have occurred in the United States since our inception. Although we cannot know when or how the next disaster will occur, we can take measures to generally prepare for the effects of disasters. One of these measures is individual preparedness. Individuals may purchase power generators for use in the event of long-term power outages or standard AA batteries and a flashlight for short-term power outages. A struggle for both emergency managers and elected officials is convincing individuals that they should take proactive steps to prepare for the eventuality of a disaster. One policy implemented by five states has been Emergency or Disaster Preparedness Sales Tax Holidays. These states have identified a number of items deemed necessary for disaster preparedness and deemed a particular weekend each year as the “sales tax holiday.” This means that individuals can purchase the goods identified by the state without paying a state sales tax during that period. The basic thought is that by removing the tax and drawing attention to preparedness, individuals may be more likely to purchase these goods and become more prepared for disaster. In this paper, I seek to understand why these sales tax holidays were enacted in these states. Were they done during a policy window after a major disaster as a reactive measure, or were they done prior to a major event as a proactive measure? An analysis of legislative policies in each state, along with an examination of presidentially declared disasters, will be used to explore these questions.

Donald Trump has made many controversial appointments since taking the office of President of the United States of America. Many of his appointees have had little to no experience in their substantive area. Some even argue that many of his appointees received their jobs from patronage. One glaring exception is Brock Long's appointment as Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Long served as the Director of the Alabama Emergency Agency, the state level equivalent of FEMA. Given that he is an experience public servant, Long may prove to be of the better appointments made by President Trump.