Innovation. It seems to be what everyone clamors for. In emergency management we see people striving for it across the board: in government and in education we try to build the better emergency management mouse trap. We establish think tanks to find new solutions and the private sector looks for better ways to protect their investments. But what is it that we are looking for? What systemic problems do we still face in emergency management that require change?
There is plenty out there that needs to be improved upon. There always will be. Until we can prepare for, prevent, and mitigate disasters to the point that little to no response is ever needed and no loss of life occurs we will continue to strive for better ways of doing things. I’m guessing that day is a long way off, so we have plenty of work to do. Before we can innovate, however, we must find cause. Necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention. So what needs exist that must be corrected?
Certainly our after action reports (AARs) identify areas of needed change. But those generally only show us gaps in local systems. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis (THIRA) likewise shows gaps in local systems. Does this information ever get fed to higher levels? Of course it does… in some measure but only some of the time. States assemble State Preparedness Reports (SPRs) which, in current practice, conduct an analysis of each core capability through each of the POETE elements (planning, organizing, equipping, training, and exercising). These in turn inform the National Preparedness Report (NPR). The 2014 NPR was released by FEMA earlier this month, identifying areas for improvement in several of the core capabilities. This is certainly a resource to help us identify needs, but none of these resources or mechanisms are perfect. What is missing? How do we improve them?
Interestingly enough, some opine that we aren’t examining the right data. The Congressional Research Service suggests that we might need better measures of preparedness, according to their report and this article from FierceHomelandSecurity.com. The report gives no answers, but poses several questions. Overall, what can we do better?
Returning to innovation, where do the gaps truly exist? How do we validate those gaps? Can we address those gaps with current systems or do we need to create new systems (innovations)? If it is with current systems, what are the barriers to getting the gaps addressed in the short term? If it is not with current systems where does the innovation come from?
Despite having worked in Emergency Management for over fifteen years and having seen, felt, and experienced the myriad changes which have occurred – especially since 9/11 – and with every administration subsequent to the attacks I really hadn’t sat and considered the changes that have occurred. I’m about half way through an amazing book by John Fass Morton called Next-Generation Homeland Security: Network Federalism and the Course to National Preparedness. The first 200 pages or so of the book provide a thorough review of civil defense/emergency management/homeland security through decades and over a dozen presidential administrations. The gravity of it all has left my head spinning. So many changes – and most simply for the sake of politics. Much of it seems like wasted effort, but Mr. Morton connects the dots so brilliantly and identifies that D certainly could not have happened if not for A, B, and C… even though C and A were essentially the same. IT seems that through these years so much has occurred, but so little has actually changed. I would argue that the practice of emergency management is in a better place now than ever, but what will emergency management look like tomorrow? Will our continued evolution be through measured change or through innovation? What makes that determination?
© 2014 – Timothy Riecker