In this week’s reading on the Whole Community approach, the following statement appears on page 3, “[A] Whole Community approach attempts to engage the full capacity of the private and nonprofit sectors, including businesses, faith-based and disability organizations, and the general public, in conjunction with the participation of local, tribal, state, territorial, and Federal government partners.” This engagement means different things to different groups. In an all-hazards environment, individuals and institutions will make different decisions on how to prepare for and respond to threats and hazards;” The self-defined philosophy of the Whole Community approach seems to focus primarily on the prevention aspect of the homeland security mission and to push that mission away from the federal government. If, as stated above, the mission means different things to different groups and these different groups will make different decisions, how is a comprehensive strategy developed? Further, how can disparate strategies be concurrently and competently implemented, considering that the federal government will—like it or not—need to play a large role in the response and recovery phases of the mission? Is the federal government shirking its duty by not taking over the entire enterprise?