Category Training

ICS Training Sucks – Progress Inhibited by Bias

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 5 Comments

It’s been a while since I’ve written directly toward my years-long rally against our current approach to Incident Command System (ICS) training. Some of these themes I’ve touched on in the past, but recent discussions on this and other topics have gotten the concept of our biases interfering with progress stuck in my head.

It is difficult for us, as humans, to move forward, to be truly progressive and innovative, when we are in a way contaminated by what we know about the current system which we wish to improve. This knowledge brings with it an inherent bias – good, bad, or otherwise – which influences our vision, reasoning, and decisions. Though on the other hand, knowledge of the existing system gives us a foundation from which we can work, often having awareness of what does and does not work.

I’m sure there have been some type of psychological studies done on such things. I’ve certainly thought about, in my continued rally against our current approach to ICS training, what that training could look like if we set individuals to develop something new if they’ve never seen the current training. Sure, the current training has a lot of valuable components, but overall, it’s poorly designed, with changes and updates through decades still based upon curriculum that was poorly developed, though with good intentions, so long ago.

In recent months, having had discussions with people about various things across emergency management that require improvement, from how we assess preparedness, to how we develop plans, to how we respond, and even looking at the entire US emergency management enterprise itself. Every one of these discussions, trying to imagine what a new system or methodology could look like, with every one of these people (myself included), were infected by an inherent bias that stemmed from what is. Again, I’m left wondering, what would someone build if they had no prior knowledge of what currently exists.

Of course, what would be built wouldn’t be flawless. To some solutions, those of us in the know may even shake our heads, saying that certain things have already been tried but were proven to fail (though perhaps under very different circumstances which may no longer be relevant). Some solutions, however, could be truly innovative.

The notion, perhaps, is a bit silly, as I’m not sure we could expect anyone to build, for example, a new ICS curriculum, without having subject matter expertise in ICS (either their own or through SMEs who would guide and advise on the curriculum). These SMEs, inevitably, would have taken ICS training somewhere along their journey.

All that said, I’m not sure it’s possible for us to eliminate our bias in many of these situations. Even the most visionary of people can’t shed that baggage. But we can certainly improve how we approach it. I think a significant strategy would be having a facilitator who is a champion of the goal and who understands the challenges, who can lead a group through the process. I’d also suggest having a real-time ‘red team’ (Contrarian?) element as part of the group, who can signal when the group is exercising too much bias brought forth from what they know of the current implementation.

In the example of reimagining ICS training, I’d suggest that the group not be permitted to even access the current curriculum during this effort. They should also start from the beginning of the instructional design process, identifying needs and developing training objectives from scratch, rather than recycling or even referencing the current curriculum. The objectives really need to answer the question – ‘What do we want participants to know or do at the completion of the course?’. Levels of training are certainly a given, but perhaps we need to reframe to what is used elsewhere in public safety, such as the OSHA 1910.120 standard which uses the levels of Awareness, Operations, Technician, and Command. Or the DHS model which uses Awareness, Performance, and Management & Planning. We need to further eliminate other bias we bring with us, such as the concept of each level of training only consisting of one course. Perhaps multiple courses are required to accomplish what is needed at each level? I don’t have the answers to any of these questions, but all of these things, and more, should be considered in any real discussion about a new and improved curriculum.

Of course, any discussions on new and improved ICS curriculum need to begin at the policy level, approving the funding and the effort and reinforcing the goal of having a curriculum that better serves our response efforts.

How would you limit the influence of bias in innovation?

© 2024 Tim Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

The Texas Emergency Management Academy

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 4 Comments

Continuing the recent theme of discussing standards and training in emergency management, a timely article was released with the latest Domestic Preparedness Journal Weekly Brief. The article (written by Dr. Michael Valiente, Senior Training Officer for TDEM) tells of the first Texas Emergency Management Academy, developed by the Texas Division of Emergency Management, which is an eight-month program providing training in a variety of topics. As an eight-month program (though I don’t know their class schedule) it’s certainly longer than the FEMA Basic Academy and seems quite intensive. There is even some indication of FEMA Basic Academy courses being included in the program. The article mentions starting with 20 cadets and graduating 17, which is an excellent graduation rate.

The program covers the expected topics of preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery with some specific content identified from FEMA, TDEM, and seemingly some guest instructors from other agencies, which I think really enriches the learning experience (emergency management isn’t only performed by emergency management agencies, after all). I’m hopeful there was quality training in how to write various types of emergency plans. I’m just more and more discouraged nearly every day by the plans I’m seeing out there… but that’s a different topic.

Beyond the four fundamental areas, there are some notable additions. One of which is a basic EMT course. I’m kind of scratching my head on this one. As I’ve espoused before, I certainly have no issues with people getting additional training or professional certifications – especially in life saving skills, but EMS is not EM. I can certainly hear in my head a lot of the justifications people would use for this, and while I understand them, I just don’t know that I can agree with the inclusion of an EMT course into an EM program.

Having a program of extended duration such as this offers some great opportunity to build in some external activities, such as conferences, training, and exercises sponsored or conducted by other partners, which they absolutely did. Of course, they included training from the Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service (TEEX) which I’ve always found to be fantastic. They also had a capstone exercise which was held at the TEEX facility in College Station (highly recommend, by the way, for those who have never been). Certainly, a great opportunity to utilize a terrific resource in your back yard.

Another noteworthy addition was an emergency management job fair which was preceded by classes on resume building, interview techniques, and other skills. I think this is brilliant and incredibly valuable for participants.

Overall, this seems a good and valuable program, though from what I read, given the inclusion of the EMS training, the response courses, the field training (which included a lot of response activity), and the (response) capstone exercise, it very heavily leans toward response. Sure the ‘pointy end of the stick’ for many emergency managers comes down to the high-consequence crisis that must be managed – and as such these training and experiences hold great value – but so much of what emergency managers do is in the time before and after disasters, much of which is administrative and collaborative. I’m just hoping there was a lot of great content, activities, and opportunities that supported these things as well that simply weren’t highlighted as much in the article.

In the discussions that have been had as of late on standards in emergency management, an academy-style program like this could certainly be a standard. There are pros and cons, but certainly things to be considered. I’m curious about what TDEM learned from this first academy that they expect to change for the next. Would love to hear from TDEM folks (and others) involved in the program, as well as graduates!

© 2023 Tim Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

The Emergency Management Support Act – Update 1

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

My original post on this bill generated some great discussion on Twitter and LinkedIn.

The actual bill text was finally posted on Congress’ bill tracking website.

My observations and comments:

  1. The short title of the bill suggests that the bill can be cited as the ‘EMS Act’.

Ugh. Really? Thanks Rep. Thompson for continuing to perpetuate confusion related to emergency management.

2. The bill provides, as an amendment to PKEMRA, a definition of local emergency management director: ‘An official designated at the local level to coordinate local disaster response, emergency planning, emergency preparedness, disaster recovery, disaster mitigation, and related activities on a full-time or part-time basis.’

While this is a necessary definition to include in the bill, I think that since the bill is focused on EMPG-funded local emergency management programs, it should specify those are the only local EM directors this applies to. Depending on how states administer and distribute EMPG funds locally, there are some states with many local emergency management programs that are not EMPG funded.

3. The bill provides, as an amendment to PKEMRA, a condition for eligibility of EMPG grant funds, that states ‘require local emergency management directors to successfully complete Federal Emergency Management Agency provided baseline emergency management training developed in accordance with the National Incident Management System not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection and recurrently at an interval determined by the Administrator to strengthen local emergency management capacity.’

So as mentioned in my original post, there is still no actual identification of what topics are to be addressed in the training. While it states ‘in accordance with NIMS’, that’s still not at all specific. I suppose to one extent, it’s good that politicians aren’t assuming they know what ‘baseline emergency management training’ looks like, and it also allows this would-be provision of an amended PKEMRA some longevity and flexibility to address changing needs. On the other hand, we still don’t know what the actual intent of this training is. Of course, we want emergency managers to be trained to a baseline. That’s certainly a good thing. Though as mentioned in my original post, many states have developed their own local emergency manager training programs. I assume that most of these state-developed training programs meet identified needs within the state, including specific state emergency management processes and operations which would not be included in any FEMA-developed training. Will states be allowed to substitute this training for the ‘FEMA-provided’ training indicated in this provision? If not, this will be an additional training requirement, which superficially isn’t a bad thing, but it is one more thing that emergency managers need to do – and not just once, but annually.

The provision doesn’t state the delivery modality of the training, so I suppose FEMA has the option of this training being independent study, in-person, live remote, or any hybridization of the above. While independent study is certainly the most convenient for everyone, we all know that it has limitations on learning taxonomies. That said, the language states ‘FEMA-provided’, not FEMA-conducted. Since other language in the bill indicates that States are to report to FEMA on compliance, it seems the intent is to have FEMA develop said training for state delivery (i.e. G courses). I suppose this can provide an opportunity for state training officers to amend the FEMA-developed course to include state-specific information without taking away from the material FEMA developed.

But with all that, what of other training initiatives out there, such as the FEMA Basic Academy? While there is no federally-driven grant requirement for the Basic Academy, the materials could be included within this. But with that, while I continue being a big advocate for training and see the value of the Basic Academy, the number of courses and duration of training could be a barrier – especially for part-time directors. And with the refresher requirement, there obviously can’t be an expectation for people to re-take the academy, so a separate refresher training would have to be developed and delivered.

As a former state training officer, there are a lot of possibilities, but also a lot of logistical issues to be addressed.

4. The bill does provide language to address gaps in compliance, with states being required to identify barriers of all local emergency management directors completing training and an approach to overcome those barriers with a timeline for compliance.

I really do appreciate accountability in laws and grants, and while this provision is a good start, there is no provision for a penalty, so it really has no teeth to it. To me, this seems very much like the NIMS training requirements that came about following HSPD-5, which initially had a lot of complication in tracking but devolved into a simple statement of compliance in EMPG reporting.

As mentioned, there was a lot of great discussion prompted by my last post. Most people agreed there were a lot of concerns absent seeing the bill itself. Now that we have, it still doesn’t really address most of those questions and concerns. There were some comments on the original post that at least this works to establish some kind of standard. I can only partially agree with that sentiment. The bill itself doesn’t define a standard at all. Let us be honest that this is not a standard for all emergency managers – it’s only for local emergency management directors funded by EMPG. Yes, that’s an important group, but it should not be confused with being a standard for the profession. Also, training should be based on an established standard; and generally speaking, training is not itself a standard.

Continued Thoughts on Training (for those who are interested)

Philosophically, there is a great opportunity here to develop a comprehensive baseline training course or program that includes elements of a lot of existing training as well as some new content, but that training, at least as developed by FEMA, can only address federal processes and fundamentals of emergency management from that perspective – it can’t speak to the unique approaches and nuances of each state, which means there is a critical component that would be missing from this training if the intent is for it to be truly ‘baseline’. I’d hope that whatever is developed provides room for states to incorporate locally specific information to make this training more worthwhile and valuable.

Will this be valuable, or will this become ‘one more thing’ for emergency managers to do? Will this be some pencil-whipped compliance item? While it leaves FEMA (and hopefully the emergency management community at large) to identifying what that standard will be (i.e. the content of the training), I expect that much of the EM community will want less instead of more. Again, as a former state training officer, I heard people complain every day about the duration of training and wanting to cut corners. I expect many current EMs will express this to be a waste of time for themselves, likely being shortsighted about the potential value to new personnel. That said, I’ll also suggest that if this is truly for local emergency management directors, these individuals should have the ‘baseline’ knowledge BEFORE being hired to the position of director – though we know that many, especially those who are current or retired fire and police who are often given these jobs actually know very little about emergency management beyond response.

The most comprehensive standard we have in emergency management is NFPA 1660, though I don’t feel that this, alone, is enough to provide the ‘baseline’ of training that local emergency management directors need as there are several other essential content areas, many covered by existing training. Also, while NFPA 1660 is a solid standard for emergency management and continuity programs, it doesn’t prescribe means and methods for the activities identified therein. That’s not a gap… that’s actually how standards should be developed which allows for innovation. So in figuring out what this ‘baseline’ training is to be, we also need to determine what the desired taxonomy is – what do we want them to know, to what extent, and what do we expect them to be able to do with that knowledge? (see my series of ICS Training Sucks articles for more discussion on Bloom’s Taxonomy and learning outcomes). If we want them to know how to do things, we need to provide implementation guidance for each area of NFPA 1660. Some of that we have, such as CPG 101 for emergency planning.

This is a rabbit I can chase for a long time down a lot of holes. If this bill passes, I’d love to be at the table with folks at EMI to help develop this.

© 2023 Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

The Emergency Management Support Act

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 3 Comments

First off, I certainly must acknowledge that it’s been a while since I’ve posted. I’m fortunate to have been and continue to be extremely busy managing and growing my firm, with a ton of great clients and projects around the country. I appreciate those who have reached out in the past couple of months expressing how much they have missed my blog posts. Fear not! There is plenty more to come.

I felt this post was rather timely to get out as I just heard about The Emergency Management Support Act (HR 3626), which amends the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) of 2006. This bill seeks to, among other items, set training requirements for local emergency managers. The bill was just introduced yesterday and has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

As of the authoring of this post, the full language of the bill is not yet available on Congress.gov, though a summary is available here. In the summary, there are three components identified:

  1. Direct States, through the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), to require local emergency management directors to complete emergency management training within one year after the enactment of the bill
  2. Require local emergency management directors to complete recurrent training with certifications to be submitted to FEMA annually
  3. Require FEMA to report to Congress on compliance with this Act

My commentary:

Superficially, this proposal makes sense. We want emergency managers to be trained, right? Before I even get into the three components, I want to look at the premise of the bill.

The summary points to the 2017 Hurricane Season FEMA After-Action Report (AAR) as the driving force behind the bill, citing an actually rather obscure comment on the twelfth page of the report that states “pre-disaster training and exercises proved to be critical in Florida’s ability to efficiently execute mutual aid agreements”. This quote is pretty isolated within the report, with the context of that particular section being gaps in Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) data. In fact, none of the recommendations for that section of the AAR mention anything about training, though you could stretch to a possible connection of an obscure mention of the creation of ‘preparedness products’. Second, the AAR quote’s specific mention of the execution of mutual aid agreements may or may not be a very niche topic, depending on how it’s being defined. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the AAR that provides any citation or context to this line. It makes me wonder why this one line is so specifically being referenced as it clearly was not a major point of the AAR.

Now, let’s get into the three components. For the first, requiring states to require local emergency management directors to complete emergency management training. OK, but on what topics? To what level of proficiency? There are no specifics provided. A multitude of state emergency management offices have created training requirements for local emergency managers which range from a single training course to several. Many are even tied to local EMPG allocations. It’s certainly an effective practice, but I still question this bill establishing an ill-defined requirement.

The second component requires recurrent training, with certifications to be submitted to FEMA annually. This little statement is loaded with landmines. Again, I must ask the question – recurrent training on what topics? My second comment is the use of the term ‘certifications’. I have an entire post on the significant difference between certificate and certification. Is this second component calling now for not just training but a certification? That’s a very different thing. And most certifications do not require annual refresher training, though they do often require some kind of continuing education. My last comment on this component is about the submission of said ‘certifications’ to FEMA annually. This is not something FEMA is set up to receive and manage. While they have a learning management system or content management system that works behind the scenes of their independent study program and also tracks completions of other courses delivered by their Emergency Management Institute (and other partner programs), they do not track third party training for emergency managers across the nation. It could be that the ‘certification’ they refer to here is an attestation by state emergency management offices that local emergency management directors are meeting training requirements. If such is the case, this would certainly be easier and could be accomplished within state EMPG reporting back to FEMA.

As with most legislation in emergency management (and I imagine other technical fields), this is ill informed and ill constructed (though I say this only from seeing the summary and not the bill itself). While the intentions are good, this could cause states to have to restructure their established training requirements for local emergency management directors, and, depending on the mechanism for receiving and managing this information, could put an unnecessary administrative burden on FEMA. I really do wish lawmakers would rely more on subject matter experts to identify needs for and crafting of legislation instead of the good idea fairy.

Thanks, as always, for reading.

TR

Tim Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

Incident Management is a Technical Skill

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 1 Comment

Last week I had the pleasure of speaking with Rob Burton on his Tea and Chaos webinar. We talked about the Incident Command System (ICS) and what can make it successful. Since our conversation, I’ve had some continued thoughts about ICS and the complaints people have about it. One of the complaints I hear more often is that it is the system that is flawed because it’s too challenging for people to use. They argue that it should be easier to implement with little training.

I believe I mentioned in the webinar that using ICS is not like riding a bike or tying a shoelace. It’s not something you can be trained on then expect to be able to perform years later (with no interim training and application) with little to no difficulty. ICS, a tool of incident management. Incident management is not only a perishable skill, but also a technical skill.

A technical skill is something you are trained on and hone with practice over time. Technical skills are typically industry specific and require a specialized knowledge set. It could be anything from video editing to surgery. In either of these examples, people learn the knowledge needed and acquire the skills to implement. They learn and perform every detail, becoming proficient in the practice, processes, and associated tools. If they want to stay current and relevant, they take opportunities for continuing education. They learn about new approaches and tools. They maintain proficiency through repetition and application of new knowledge.

Incident management is no different. ICS is just one of the tools we use in incident management, and as such it is something we must learn, practice, hone, and maintain. If you aren’t using it and learning more about it, those skillsets will diminish.

Let’s continue to change our perspective on preparedness for incident management. If you aren’t familiar with my years-long crusade to improve ICS training (ICS Training Sucks), here is some background reading. It’s not only the curriculum we need to change, but also our expectations of learners. What do we want learners to be able to do? Continuing on with one of the examples… not every doctor is a surgeon. So not every responder or emergency manager is an incident manager. They should know the fundamentals, just as most doctors are trained in the fundamentals such as anatomy and physiology, cell biology, etc. We certainly want our responders and emergency managers to have awareness of incident management concepts, as they may certainly be called upon to play a role in a greater organization, though if incident management isn’t their specialization, they likely won’t actually be part of the core ICS or emergency operations center (EOC) staff, even though they will be functioning within the system.

Some will need to learn more, though. Which means they need training – not just on WHAT incident management is, but HOW we manage incidents. Much of our core ICS training is focused on what ICS is, with very little on how to use it. Expecting people to become good incident managers just by taking ICS courses is foolish. It would be like expecting a doctor to become a proficient surgeon because they have learned about the tools in the operating room. So before we even get to the tool (ICS), we need to be teaching about the function (incident management). Incident management is composed of a variety of capabilities and skillsets, such as leadership and project management, which are barely touched upon in existing training. Once those are learned, then we can teach the tools, such as ICS.  

Most who are candidates for incident management should become generalists before they become specialists. General surgeons have a broad knowledge and perform the vast majority of surgeries. Some go on to be specialists. In incident management that specialization could be subject matter expertise in the management of certain hazards or impacts, or performing in a specific function. I see this as being the difference between local incident management capabilities and formal incident management teams. Specialization is supported by position-specific training, among other mechanisms. Yet we don’t really have anything to support incident management generalists.

For all that we’re accomplishing with building incident management capability, we still have a significant gap at the local level across the nation. To expect specialization within most local jurisdictions simply isn’t realistic. We define a lot of the practice through NIMS position descriptions and task books, yet we are skipping some critical steps. We are going right to focusing on the tool instead of the practice, yet at the foundational levels we aren’t teaching enough about how to implement the tool – and in fact spending far too much time on higher level implementations of the tools that most will never see (that’s the ICS 400 course, by the way). We are wasting time and resources by training people in position specific courses when what they really need for their jurisdiction is to become good incident management generalists.

Those complaining that ICS is too difficult, are failing to see the bigger picture the technical skills needed to build professions. Professionals must keep up on the rigors and requirements of their technical skills. If you don’t want to keep up on these things, then I’ll argue that you aren’t dedicated to the profession.

While I feel that what we are doing to build formal incident management teams is great and largely on target, it’s everything that comes before that which needs to be completely reimagined. We need a group of incident management professionals to come together on this. Professionals who understand the gaps that exist and are willing to deviate from current practices and expectations to build what is needed to address those gaps. They can’t be afraid of the traditionalists or those who are only focused on building high-level capability. All disasters begin and end locally, and we are ignoring the incident management needs of most local jurisdictions. We are also building a system focused on high-level capability that doesn’t have a firm foundation, which makes me question sustainability. We can do better. We must do better.

© 2022 Tim Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

Certificates and Certifications

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 4 Comments

There seem to be regular misunderstandings between words and their meanings. The words ‘certified’, ‘certificate’, and ‘certification’ are words I see regularly misused, especially in requests for proposals, LinkedIn profiles, and resumes.  Unfortunately, as with so much in the English language, there are no easy boxes to put these in, but the differences are really important.

One of the things I regularly see is in reference to something like the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). Far too often, RFPs request personnel who are ‘HSEEP certified’. There is no certification for HSEEP. To be certified, according to Oxford, means that someone is ‘officially recognized as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards’. People who complete HSEEP training are provided with a certificate of completion. A certificate of completion is simply documentation given by a training provider indicating that someone has completed the requirements of a course (attendance, participation, maybe an exam), but is not intended to speak to their qualifications, therefore it is not a certification.

Certifications are credentials that should be provided by independent bodies indicating that someone has met a certain slate of standards. To be certified in something digs deeper. I am a Certified Emergency Disaster Professional (CEDP), which is a credential provided by the International Board for Certification Services and Management (IBFCSM). To become certified I had to demonstrate experience, education, and competence; and I must affirm continued competence through continuing education.

Colleges also have certificate programs, such as the one I’ve helped develop and have recently started teaching for Herkimer College. A certificate program is a specific type of academic program with a more concise set of requirements compared to a degree program.

If you are writing RFPs, developing your LinkedIn profile, or updating your resume, please be sure to properly represent credentials and qualifications.

© 2022 Tim Riecker, CEDP

Soft Skills Are Hard to Find

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

Across emergency management, dependent upon specific jobs, we certainly need to apply a lot of technical skillsets. So often, though, soft skills are dismissed, which is quite ironic given that soft skills are really the foundation of what emergency managers need given our emphasis on communication, collaboration, and coordination.

If you aren’t familiar with the term, soft skills are things that are generally applicable to various types of work. These include things like communication, writing, leadership, teamwork, problem solving, organizing, time management, and others. These are skills generally expected of any working professional. They can be honed, but often require some innate ability. Soft skills are different from hard skills, which are those that tend to be more technical and industry specific. These are also generally something acquired more through learning and less dependent upon innate ability.

FEMA’s Professional Development Series (PDS) used to be a cornerstone of emergency management training. Many state emergency management training programs had an emphasis on these courses and the content they provided. The PDS offered soft skills courses, such as Effective Communication, Decision Making and Problem Solving, and Leadership alongside training on topics more so focused on emergency management topics. These courses did a lot to support the professionalism of emergency managers and their abilities to do their jobs in a reasonably comprehensive nature. About 15 years ago FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute made the decision to offer these courses as part of their Independent Study program, a choice that made the content more widely available while also arguably decreasing the effectiveness of the training by removing the dynamics of a live instructor and the learning gained from group activities. While states still had the option to continue delivering classroom versions of these courses, demand severely dropped as people opted to take the courses online.

While the PDS is still available, it’s in a diminished popularity. FEMA’s EMI now offers the National Emergency Management Basic Academy, which provides a great series of courses, and to their credit, they do include some soft skills topics within the courses, especially the Foundations of Emergency Management course. That said, we still need more. Soft skills aren’t a one-off, they need to be built and honed. While FEMA’s EMI isn’t the only provider of soft skills training, they are the go-to provider for most emergency managers.

Having recently had the opportunity to review the participant manual for the new Advanced Planning Practitioner course, I was very happy to see the thought put into providing content on soft skills particularly as they relate to the hard skills involved in emergency planning. Emergency planning at its essence is absolutely a hard skill, with specific technical aspects, but there are several soft skills that are complimentary to the process of emergency planning, without which the planning effort will be less than effective. Consider that so much of emergency planning is consensus building, coordination, meeting management, research, and writing. Communication, facilitation, and public speaking are central to much of this.

I think a lot of people have a tendency to roll their eyes at soft skills, thinking that their abilities are already at peak performance or claiming that they are good because they took a course 15 years ago. As professionals in emergency management, we need to regularly spend time honing our skills. Yes, there are plenty of technical things for us to be trained in and practice such as plan writing, exercises, ICS, etc., but soft skills make us better at doing those things. Both in government service and as a consultant, I see far too many people lacking in soft skills. There may be some highly technical jobs where soft skills have less importance, but soft skills in emergency management are just as important, if not more important, than some technical skills, especially when you consider that one of the greatest values we contribute is our ability to bring people to the table, facilitate discussions, and gain consensus on important decisions before, during, and after disaster. How all that is applied may very well be technical, but we can’t get there without good soft skills.

What do you think are the most valuable soft skills?

© 2021 Tim Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

ICS 400 Training – Who Really Needs It?

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 6 Comments

A few days ago I had a bit of discussion with others on Twitter in regard to who actually has a need for ICS 400 training. I think a lot of people are taking the ICS 400 (Advanced ICS for Command and General Staff) course for the wrong reasons. While I’d never dissuade anyone from learning above and beyond what is required, we also, as a general statement, can’t be packing course offerings with people who don’t actually need the training. There is also an organizational expense to sending people to training, and the return on that investment decreases when they don’t need it and won’t apply it. Overall, if you are a new reader, I have a lot of thoughts on why our approach to ICS Training Sucks, which can be found here.

Before we dig any deeper into the topic, let’s have a common understanding of what is covered in the ICS 400 course. The course objectives identified in the National Preparedness Course Catalog for some reason differ from those actually included in the current 2019 version of the course, so instead I’ll list the major topics covered by the two-day course:

  • Incident Complex
  • Dividing into multiple incidents
  • Expanding the Planning Capability
  • Adding a second Operations or Logistics Section
  • Placement options for the Intel/Investigations function
  • Area Command
  • Multi-Agency Coordination
  • Emergency Operations Centers
  • Emergency Support Functions

For this discussion, it’s also important to reference the NIMS Training Program document, released in the summer of 2020. This document states many times over that it includes training recommendations and that the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) determines which personnel are to take which courses. This document indicates the ICS 400 is recommended for:

  1. ICS personnel in leadership/supervisor roles
  2. IMT command, section, branch, division, or group leaders preparing for complex incidents

Note that while #1 above seems to fully capture anyone in a leadership/supervisor role, the document also says that IMT unit, strike team, resource team, or task force leaders preparing for complex incidents do NOT need the training. I’d say this certainly conflicts with #1 above.

With that information provided, let’s talk about who really needs to take the ICS 400 from a practical, functional perspective. First of all, looking at recommendation #1 above, that’s a ridiculously broad statement, which includes personnel that don’t need to have knowledge of the course topics. The second recommendation, specific to IMTs, I’ll agree is reasonably accurate.

Having managed a state training program and taught many dozen deliveries of the ICS 400 course, I’ll tell you that the vast majority of people taking the course don’t need to be in it. I’d suggest that some deliveries may have had absolutely no one that actually needed it, while most had a scant few. Much of this perspective comes from a relative determination of need of personnel that fit within recommendation #1 above. Just because someone may be an incident commander or a member of command and general staff, doesn’t necessarily mean they need to take ICS 400. It’s very likely that through their entire career all of the incidents they respond to and participate in the management of can be organized using standard ICS approaches.

Interface with an EOC does not mean you need to take ICS 400. There is, in fact, a better course for that, aptly named ‘ICS/EOC Interface’. More people need to take this course than the ICS 400. I’m also aware that some jurisdictions require ICS 400 for their EOC staff. The ICS 400 course doesn’t teach you how to function in or manage an EOC. Again, the ICS/EOC Interface course is the better solution, along with whatever custom EOC training is developed (note that none of the FEMA EOC courses will actually teach you how to manage or work in YOUR EOC). If you feel that people in your EOC need to know about some of the concepts within the ICS 400, such as Multi-Agency Coordination or Area Command, simply include the appropriate content in your EOC training. To be honest, I can tell most EOC personnel what they need to know about an Area Command in about three minutes. They don’t need to sit through a two-day course to learn what they need to know.

Cutting to who does need it (aside from IMT personnel), personnel who would be a member of Command and General Staff for a very large and complex incident (certainly a Type I incident, and MAYBE certain Type 2 incidents) are the candidates. Yes, I understand that any jurisdiction can make an argument for their fire chief or police chief, for example, being the IC for an incident of this size and complexity, though let’s consider this in a relative and realistic sense. Most incidents of this size and complexity are likely to span multiple jurisdictions. Particularly in a home rule state, that fire chief or police chief is typically only going to be in charge of that portion of the incident within their legal borders. Although that incident may be a Type I incident taken as a whole, it will likely be managed in large part by a higher AHJ, which may use some of the concepts outlined in the ICS 400. While local government is still responsible for managing the portion of the incident within their borders, they are much less likely to utilize any of the ICS 400 concepts themselves. Along a similar line of thought, most jurisdictions don’t have hazards that, if they become incidents, would be of such size or complexity within their jurisdiction that would require use of these concepts. This leaves larger, more populous jurisdictions generally having a greater need for this level of training.

At some point, every state and UASI was required, as part of their NIMS implementation, to develop a NIMS training plan. Most of the plans I’ve seen further perpetuate the idea that so many people must have ICS 400 training. As part of this, many states require that anyone holding the position of fire chief must have ICS 400. Considering my argument in the paragraphs above, you can see why this is tremendously unnecessary. We must also consider erosion of knowledge over time. As people do not use the knowledge, skills, and abilities they have learned, that knowledge erodes. This is highly likely with the concepts of ICS 400.

A lot of states and other jurisdictions need to take a more realistic look at who really needs ICS 400 training. I’d also like to see some clarification on the matter in FEMA’s NIMS Training Guidance. It’s not about making this training elite or restricting access, but it is about decreasing the perceived and artificially inflated demand for the course.

What’s your jurisdiction’s take on ICS 400 training?

© 2021 Tim Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

You’ve Been Trained, Now What?

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

I just sat through a good webinar on incident response and management. The panel consisted of fire and law enforcement personnel. A law enforcement official was rather honest in saying that one of their identified deficiencies from an AAR was poor implementation of ICS. He said that while all police personnel had received ICS training back during the NIMS push of the mid-2000s, most officers had done little with it since. We see so many endless lists of training that people have taken on their CVs, resumes, LinkedIn, etc., but how much of that do they still know? Take an honest look at your own resume of training and I bet you will see some of the same.

In public safety we love to get training. A lot of the training is good. Some less so. Much of the training we take is awareness-level training, providing us with knowledge. It’s fairly easy to flex those muscles after the training by reading about, writing about, teaching, or doing other things with that information. Still, some of that acquired knowledge stagnates. Some of the training we take is more operations-based – it’s hands on or procedural. Most certainly, without using the knowledge and skills acquired in operations-based training, those skills atropy.

So what should we do to protect our loss of these valuable knowledge and skills acquired? Obviously application is the best means of preserving what we have learned. Even if you are using it, though, it’s good to stay on top of best practices, new practices, and updated training; not only as a means of staying current on the latest and greatest, but also to hedge against bad habits as well as certain nuggets of that original training we might not regularly perform. Apply and practice skills, either on the job or in exercises. For things that are more knowledge-based, talk about it, read about it, write about, or present on it. This repetition will keep the subject matter familiar and quicken your recall of facts and increase your ability to analyze it. Writing can be in any form, up to and including developing or updating plans and procedures. A special shout out goes to presentations and training (if you are qualified), though. Training and presentations often require the instructor/presenter to have a depth of knowledge beyond the learning domain of what they are teaching or presenting on. This is often required to answer questions, support implementation, and address the many what-ifs related to the subject matter.

I’d argue that your organization also has a role (and responsibility) in preserving these gained knowledge and skills as well. First, sharing of the experience is important. Since not everyone in your organization can attend every training opportunity, it’s a best practice for those who receive training to tell others about their experience, what they learned, and the relevance they see to their work. Simpler subject matter can be provided in an email or printed handout, while more complex subject matter might be better conveyed through a presentation. Unless your training was received to help you support an existing plan or procedure, your organization should also support implementation of what you have learned, if appropriate. Keeping knowledge and skills fresh should also be endorsed through opportunities for refresher training and other related training which may expand the knowledge and skills or hone specific application. Organizations should also identify what knowledge and skills they need and must maintain, and ensure that they identify staff that need the opportunities for training and development, as well as how to maintain what is learned.

With the personal and organizational costs of training, we reap the greatest benefit by maintaining or advancing the knowledge and proficiency gained. While the quest for knowledge is endless and admirable, and I’d generally never block an opportunity for someone to gain more, we should be assessing what the benefit is to learner and to the organization. Part of that is determining what commitments the organization and the learner must make to preserve what is gained. I believe that employee development plans can be a big part of this, as they should be informed by what the employee needs to improve upon, what we want them to excel at, and what future roles we may have planned for them. These factors drive the goals and objectives of the employee development plan which should also lead to what training opportunities are ideal to support these goals and objectives. Even if your organization doesn’t do any formal employee development plans, you can develop one for yourself.

What’s your take on keeping current with what you’ve learned?

© 2021 Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

Preparedness in the Pandemic Age

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

Planning, training, and exercises, as the foundational activities of preparedness, shouldn’t be stopping because of the pandemic. Preparedness is an ongoing activity which needs to forge ahead with little disruption – and there is always plenty to do! What must we do, though, to accommodate necessary precautions in the age of the Pandemic?

Let’s talk about planning first. The biggest relevant issue for planning is the conduct of stakeholder meetings. These may be larger group meetings to discuss and get buy-in on broader topics, or detailed small-group meetings to discuss very specific topics. Information, sometimes sensitive, is exchanged, presentations are given, and documents are reviewed. I’ve mentioned in various posts through the years the importance of properly preparing for meetings. Even for traditional in-person meetings, there are important things to consider, such as:

  1. Do you really need a meeting?
  2. Developing an agenda
  3. Having the right people in attendance
  4. Ensuring that all speakers and presenters are prepared
  5. Ensuring that all attendees are prepared to discuss the subject matter
  6. An adequate meeting space and support (technology, dry erase boards, etc)

All of these rules still apply in a virtual world, perhaps with even more emphasis. While we’ve obviously had video meeting technology for a long time, we’ve discovered this year that many people haven’t used it much or at all until earlier this year. The surge in use has also brought attention to the plethora of tools which can be facilitated through video conference platforms. While the simple sharing of video supports most of our meeting needs, we can share screens, conduct presentations, and use collaborative tools such as whiteboards and shared documents. Pretty much everything we do in an in-person meeting can be accomplished through video conference platforms – but those who arrange the calls need to take the time to become familiar with the tools and functionality; and if there is anything that needs to be done by participants (some of which are likely to be less tech-savvy) you need to be able to coach them through it. Some of these tools require integrations of other technology, such as cloud document storage or various apps. Remember that meetings should be interactive, so encourage people to use chatrooms to help queue up questions for presenters. If any documents or information are sensitive, be sure you are taking the appropriate precautions with how the meeting is set up, how participants are invited, and how documents are shared.

My tip… read reviews to determine which platform will best suit your needs and watch some tutorials on YouTube.

When it comes to remote training, so much of what I mentioned for stakeholder meetings will apply here. Being interactive is still incredibly important, as is the ability to integrate other technologies, such as videos, PowerPoint, and shared documents. When designing training that will be delivered remotely, if it helps, don’t think about the platform first – think about how you would do the training in person. Would you have breakout sessions for group work? That can be easily accomplished on video conference platforms, but it takes some preparation. Would you put things on a white board or chart paper? That can also be accomplished. Giving an exam? Having participants complete a survey or feedback form? Yes and yes. It can all be done, but preparation is key. Some instructors, especially in public safety, have gotten too used to simply showing up and delivering their material – not because they are lazy, but because they have done it dozens or hundreds of times. They have a routine. If you want participants to get a similar, or perhaps even better learning experience, some deliberate thought and preparation is required. Also, make sure you simply don’t become a talking head. Break things up and be dynamic. It’s easy for our own demeanor to elevate disinterest. I often stand (using a variable height standing desk) when giving presentations and conducting training. Being on my feet helps me push more energy into what I’m doing.

Tip… remember to give people breaks, just as you would in face-to-face training.

Lastly, exercises. A lot of this is a combination of the information I gave for planning and training. Exercise planning meetings need to be conducted, and every exercise has some extent of presentations, with discussion-based exercises having more emphasis on this obviously. To answer the big question – yes, most exercise can be conducted remotely! Obviously, discussion-based exercises are generally the lower-hanging fruit, so they can and should be happening remotely. Remember that exercises are supposed to be interactive experiences, so your exercise design absolutely must account for identifying the means and methods of engagement in the virtual environment. All the things I’ve mentioned already are prime options for this, such as breakout groups, shared documents, live polling, etc. Facilitators and evaluators can be assigned to specific breakout rooms or have access to all of them, allowing them to float from room to room.

What about operations-based exercises? Yes, there are options for conducting operations-based exercises remotely. First, we do need to acknowledge the obvious challenges associated with conducting drills and full-scale exercises via remote environments. Is it impossible? No, but it depends on what the focus of the exercise is. Something like a cyber-security or intelligence exercise may be more naturally brought into a virtual environment, depending on the exercise objectives or tasks. Games may be fully integrated into digital platforms already, which helps, but if they aren’t, these may need to be re-imagined and developed in a virtual environment. This can get expensive, so it really needs to be a properly thought through. Functional exercises, such as the typical command post exercise or emergency operations center (EOC) exercise, can absolutely be performed virtually. Many jurisdictions successfully ran their EOCs virtually during the height of the pandemic (many still are). If the actual activity can be performed virtually, it can (and should!) be exercised virtually. Again, preparation is key to ensuring that participants can do what they would normally do, while controllers and evaluators still have full access and visibility. Simulation Cells can be virtually integrated and most EOC management platforms are web-based. With some thought, we can bring most exercises into a virtual environment and still make them effective experiences while also meeting all HSEEP requirements.

Tip… For a virtual functional exercise, unless the time period of your exercise is set after the initial response, consider including an objective for the participants (and the tech support of their agencies, as needed) to set up everything that is needed in real time during the exercise – just like they would in real life. This would include all their video, file share, data tracking, etc. That set up is a considerable challenge of running a virtual EOC. If you didn’t want that activity to distract from your exercise, it’s also a great drill. Don’t let it just be tech support personnel, though, as EOC personnel should be expressing their needs.

Remote work environments have helped many organizations overcome challenges associated with the pandemic. Some organizations were better prepared than others to make it happen, but most seem to have achieved effective operational continuity. Hopefully your preparedness programs haven’t stalled out because people feel these activities can’t be done in a virtual environment. We also can’t use the excuse that we’re too busy because of the pandemic to not be preparing. While some niche organizations might still be quite busy, the pandemic response, for most, has become an integrated job duty for the medium term. We can’t let things fall to the wayside or we will never get back on track. The time is now!

I’d love to hear how you are using tech platforms to support preparedness efforts.

©2020 Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC