Tag Emergency Management

Finally – an Emergency Management Podcast Worth Listening To!

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 5 Comments

I’m a bit of a podcast addict.  I listen to them all the time – at the gym, mowing the lawn, long drives, etc.  There are podcasts out there for all interests.  I’ve struggled, however, these last few years, with finding a good emergency management podcast.  Sure, I’ve found a few, but I find them to generally have limited relevancy and also to be boring as hell.  Yes, I want to learn, but I also want to be entertained.  Last week, after seeing a tweet from Brandon Greenburg about guesting on a podcast, I was immediately intrigued.

First off, if you aren’t familiar with Brandon, you should be.  He blogs regularly about disasters and technology, usually together, and has great thoughts and ideas.  Brandon is not only a practitioner, but also an academic, currently pursuing a Ph.D. from GWU in technology and disaster management.  Brandon is one of those colleagues who I’ve never met, yet correspond with via our blogging and social media platforms.  Since he knows EM and he knows tech and social media, anything Brandon would be on immediately gives me cause to pay attention.  For more on Brandon, visit www.disasternet.co or on Twitter @disasternet.

Getting to the podcast, the name is the Dukes of Hazards, hosted by Mitch Stripling and Andrew McMahan.  From their website, the podcast is “… an irreverent (but useful) podcast about disaster response, emergency management, mobilization culture, community resilience, and life in emergency operations.  Also, drones.  Research.  Movie reviews.  Jokes.”  It really is all of that.  And a clever name!

Mitch and Andrew have clearly cracked the secret code of podcasting – talk about any subject (even one that is serious, like emergency management) and make it both informative and entertaining.  They clearly have a good time recording (the beer and cookies probably help with that), they are experienced in EM, and they continue to stay current in the practice.  Their discussion topics are interesting and relevant, and they fully use dialogue – with each other, guests, and written listener feedback – to help you feel engaged in their discussion.

Dukes of Hazards looks at current events in EM, new practices and ideas, and discusses the future direction of different facets of our field.  They even occasionally poke fun at some of our idiosyncrasies and common personality traits, which is a breath of fresh air! There are also some occasional pop culture references like Star Wars and The Walking Dead that make me quite happy.

Bottom line – informative, entertaining, beer and cookies.  Need I say more?

Check out Dukes of Hazards at www.hazardspodcast.com for more info.  You can listen to their podcasts from the website, iTunes, and other outlets.  They can also be found on Twitter at @hazardspodcast. You won’t be sorry.

© 2015 – Timothy Riecker

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC

WWW.EPSLLC.BIZ

@EPS_LLC

Your Complete Guide to the 5 Cybersecurity Bills in Congress

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

Yesterday Eric Geller, a writer for The Daily Dot, an online internet culture newspaper, posted Your complete guide to the 5 cybersecurity bills in Congress.  This is a great overview of each of the bills and what they entail.  These bills represent an important progression toward a better cybersecurity policy and implementation in the US.  A worthwhile read.

© 2015 – Timothy Riecker

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC

www.epsllc.biz

News in Emergency Management

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

Regrettably I’ve not posted in a few weeks due to a very busy schedule.  While that hasn’t broken, I did want to take some time to ensure that my readers have seen some recent news that has been circulating in emergency management as of late.

First, the FEMA mobile app has updated and is now providing the ability for users to receive weather alerts from up to five locations across the nation.  This is a particularly handy feature for those who have family and friends in other states or those who travel frequently to different areas.  With hazardous weather season upon us, be sure that you use the FEMA mobile app or other state or local alerting service to ensure that you, your family, and organization receive alerts.

Second, DHS has provided an update on the status of the LLIS (Lessons Learned Information Sharing) Libarary.  From the release I received this morning…

Dear LLIS.gov User,

This spring, the Lessons Learned Information Sharing (LLIS) program will make a significant change. The LLIS.gov website will cease independent operations and will consolidate its content with the Naval Postgraduate School’s Homeland Security Digital Library (HSDL.org) and FEMA.gov.

One of the advantages of this move is that LLIS.gov content such as lessons learned, innovative practices, after-action reports, plans, templates, guides, and other materials will be consolidated with the already substantial database on HSDL.org. This change will allow the homeland security and emergency management communities to find relevant information in one place. FEMA’s LLIS program will continue to produce trend analyses, case studies on the use of FEMA preparedness grants, and webinars relevant to the whole community. These products will be available to the public on FEMA.gov.
They don’t give any timeframe for this migration aside from stating that they will provide updates in the coming weeks.  Personally, I think this is a move that makes sense by consolidating some great sources of information.  I’m also happy to hear that FEMA will continue providing some data and trend analysis, although I’m hopeful that the information they provide is of greater value than what I have seen in the past.  I’m also curious if this will be somehow integrated into the new Data.gov site.  It’s unfortunate that LLIS has been pulled down for so long while they have sorted all this out.

Lastly, good news for coastal communities and those who have suffered inland tropical storm damages in the last few years – the prediction for the 2015 hurricane season is that we will have lower than average activity.  A link to the annual predictive analysis can be found here.

That’s all for now.  Stay safe.

© 2015 – Timothy Riecker

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC

www.epsllc.biz 

Dispatch Transition to EOC Operations

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 2 Comments

Within the LinkedIn discussion thread of one of my recent posts on applications of ICS, I was prompted to consider that one more awkward element for an EOC operation can be the transition or integration of dispatch with the EOC.  Consider that during ‘routine’ operations, it is dispatch who is supporting field operations and tracking critical actions.  Many jurisdictions encounter a difficulty when activating an EOC locally to support a growing response – what to do with dispatch?

The EOC’s traditional role as ‘expanded dispatch’ aids a field response by providing a greater level of coordination far beyond the tools normally available to most dispatchers by facilitating direct access to agency representatives who are dedicated to supporting the needs of the incident.  Under routine operations, Command (or Logistics) is contacting dispatch directly (usually via radio) to request resources.  Upon activation of an EOC, these requests must be routed to the EOC.  In some jurisdictions, EOCs are co-located with dispatch (at least in the same building), making this transition a bit easier in regard to technology and people, but some jurisdictions have these buildings separated.

How do you solve this awkward dilemma of ICS/EOC interface?  First of all, it needs to be thought through and planned PRIOR to an incident!  This is when we can do our best work, ideally bringing all relevant stakeholders to the table, mapping out processes and procedures, and identifying equipment and technology issues needed to support it.  With everyone together, talk through what you want to do given the circumstances you have.  Each idea likely has pros and cons that have to be weighed.

Some possibilities… Keep all resource orders going through dispatch. In doing so, you are not interrupting the ‘normal’ communications link with field operations.  In this circumstance, though, you need to consider how the dispatcher will transfer the resource request to EOC Logistics.  Since you likely do not want Logistics to be accessing the PSAP system, the dispatcher will likely have to enter the request into another system, such as EOC management software (something they likely don’t use often).  This can be time consuming so it will likely require the dispatcher to be solely dedicated to this incident.  The scope of resources (or ideally missions) is also beyond what a dispatcher usually deals with (thus the reason for activating the EOC), so it would likely require some additional training and use of dispatchers with greater experience.

Another option is to bring the dispatcher into the EOC.  Sometimes physical separation, despite technology, can make things awkward.  If the jurisdiction has the technological ability to bring a dispatcher into the EOC as part of the Communications Unit, they can interact with field operations and facilitate communication better.  The need to enter the resource/mission request into a formal system which is assignable and trackable still exists.

Another option is to pull dispatch out of the incident.  This can cause significant disruption to the incident but is manageable if pre-planned, trained, and exercised.  At this point in an expanded incident the need to use radio communications beyond field operations may be exceeded.  Field Logistics can interface directly with EOC Logistics via phone or other technology to communicate resource requests.  This methodology gets the request directly to EOC Logistics for them to handle.

There are certainly other models and possibilities that exist.  What experiences do you have?  What have you seen work?  What have you seen fail?

© 2015 – Timothy Riecker

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC

WWW.EPSLLC.BIZ 

The Human Aspect of ICS and Overcoming Transitional Incidents

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 3 Comments

Most often when we consider the Incident Command System (ICS), we think of boxes in an organization chart, forms to be completed, and specific processes to be followed.  True, these are, in essence, aspects of ICS, but they alone will not pave the way to success.  What we must remember is that ICS is conducted by people.

Typically the most difficult aspect of a complex incident is the transition from what we normally do and how we normally respond to elevating our response to a more appropriate level given the scope of the incident.  The groundwork for this transition lies in our initial response, which many experienced responders know can set the tone for the entire operation.  This initial response is based largely on the decisions we make with the information we have.  While there are policies, plans, procedures, play books, checklists, and myriad training that help to inform us, it all comes down to the human factor.  People make decisions based upon the stimuli they are presented with and their own experiences.

Chief Cynthia Renaud in her paper The Missing Piece of NIMS: Teaching Incident Commanders How to Function in the Edge of Chaos discusses approaches to initial response as an oft forgotten aspect of how we teach ICS.  While we know that responders conduct initial responses all the time, there is a significant difference in scope between a routine incident and a complex incident.  This difference in scope requires a different and more open mindset.  While our size up actions may generally be the same, we need to think bigger and this kind of thinking is difficult to train.

The implementation of the ‘bigger’ (i.e. beyond what is routinely used) aspects of ICS is also a challenging mindset for responders.  These aspects of ICS, such as the initial delegation of other organizational aspects and the need for a written Incident Action Plan, do not come easily when they are not practiced.  The fact of the matter is that the implementation of ICS requires a conscious, deliberate decision accompanied by people with knowledge and skilled intent to guide its expansion suitable to the incident at hand.  It also requires a bigger picture mindset recognizing the need to expand the management of the response proportionate to the complexity of the incident and the resources required to address it.  When is it needed?  How do we do it?

One problem is that most of the people we count on to manage these initial responses are trained to manage tactics, not large incidents.  They excel at managing a handful of resources in a rapid deployment and resolving an incident quickly.  This is exactly what they are needed for and they do it well.  Chief Renaud indicates a need to train these first level supervisors to recognize complex incidents for what they are and give them the tools (and authority) to implement broader measures, including an expanded implementation of ICS.

I’m a firm believer in ICS, but I know that people have to drive it.  It’s not something we can put on autopilot and expect it to bring us to our destination.  It has to be consciously and deliberately implemented.  When people criticize ICS, I often find that their criticism is due to false expectations and inappropriate implementation.  With that, I firmly believe we need to do a better job at training to address these issues and help responders better understand the system and demystify its use.

How do we make our training better for the average (non Incident Management Team) responder?  How do we help bridge this gap between the routine and the complex?

© 2015 – Timothy Riecker

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC

www.epsllc.biz 

Emergency Managers Need to be More Like Engineers and Less Like Shopkeepers

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

I was inspired by this short (~1 minute) video from TrainingJournal.com.  In the presenter’s brief but pointed message, he describes many trainers as being akin to shopkeepers, providing organizations often times with rote solutions just as a shopkeeper will pull a product off their shelves. He goes on to say that this these solutions are usually effective, but only for a limited duration.  He offers, instead, that trainers need to be more like engineers, examining every facet of a problem and constructing lasting solutions.  As an experienced trainer and proponent of a detailed root cause analysis, I couldn’t agree more, but as I readied myself to write a post about the implications of this on training, my mind carried this metaphor to many of our practices in emergency management.

Consider how often we quickly dismiss identified gaps with an assumed solution.  Write a plan, conduct a training, install a bigger culvert.  Those are usually our solutions to an identified problem.  Are they wrong?  No – we’re correct more often than not.  Are these lasting solutions?  Rarely!  How often does the problem rear its head again within a relatively short span of time?  How do we address the re-occurrence?  As shop keepers we simply pull another solution off the shelf.  Can we do better?

The things we do in emergency management are often based upon best and current practices.  We address problems through the prevalent way of dealing with such things industry-wide.  Emergency management has a great community of practice.  I’ve mentioned in several previous blog posts the spirit of sharing we have and the benefits we see come of that.  It doesn’t seem often, though, that we engage in an industry-wide groupthink to solve various problems.  We use and adapt ideas of individuals and small groups, we see a steady and determined progression of the practices within our progression, but we rarely see ‘game changing’ ideas that revolutionize how prevent, prepare for, respond to, or recover from disasters.  Why is this?

Perhaps we need a greater collective voice locally, where practitioners are dealing with the problems directly?  Our methods of practice in emergency management are generally driven by the federal government (THIRA, NIMS, HSEEP, etc.).  I’m not saying any of these are bad – in fact they are excellent standards that we need to continue to refine and apply, but it’s generally not the federal government that is dealing directly with the constant flow of issues being dealt with at a state, and even more so, a local level.  We need to follow that metaphor of being engineers to apply more permanent solutions to these problems.  We need to create, innovate, and problem solve. Or do we?

Necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention.  We often miss the necessity of improving because we have current, functional solutions – we have things that work.  So why fix it if it’s not broken?  I say we can do better.  The realization of the need for lasting solutions is the necessity we need.  If the solutions we have on the shelf don’t work for us 100%, let’s figure out a better way.

I don’t know what or how, but I’m sure that as a community we can identify needs and prioritize what must be addressed.  Given the right people, time, and maybe a bit of money, we can be innovative and effect some lasting change.

I’d love to hear what others think on this topic.

© 2015 – Timothy Riecker

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC

www.epsllc.biz

Do You Have an Emergency Management Committee?

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 2 Comments

Comprehensive emergency and disaster management, effectively done, cannot be done by one person alone.  The best emergency management and homeland security practices are performed by teams.  The practices of emergency management and homeland security are so ubiquitous and multifaceted that we rely on the participation and input of persons in related professions, and in fact professions generally not seen as related, to be successful.  Because of this, both government entities and corporations alike often embrace a team approach to emergency management.  Do you?

Division of Responsibility – Unity of Effort

Aside from the chief elected official or chief executive officer, no one person has the direct ability to ‘command’ the forces of a jurisdiction or corporation.  The trouble with this is that these CEOs are generally not experts in disaster management.  Effective organizations learn the necessity of delegation early on which, while the CEO is still ultimately responsible, those delegated to are functionally responsible for their respective areas.  Laws and regulations often make these delegations mandatory for both jurisdictions and corporations.  While each of these delegations has their own functional responsibilities, they still operate as part of a greater organization and must work well together achieve maximum effectiveness.

The ability of these stakeholders to work together in a unity of effort is certainly important during a disaster, but it’s not the only time they should get together to talk about disasters.  Yes, many of these individuals will see each other during (hopefully) regular staff meetings, but these meetings typically involve briefing the CEO on current or upcoming activities, discussions on hiring and budgets, or being briefed on new policy.  While these are all important discussions they usually leave little room to discuss topics on emergency management and homeland security.

EM/HS certainly warrants its own meetings and workshops to accomplish important tasks such as a periodic threat and hazard identification, plan creation and updates, exercise planning meetings, and discussions on training, grants, and preparedness investments.  This group should also be making policy recommendations to the CEO and ensuring that preparedness efforts are permeating the entire jurisdiction or organization.  Their work together in preparedness efforts will strengthen their relationships and increase their knowledge of each other’s functional responsibilities and capabilities.

Who Should Participate?

In any of the mission areas of emergency management and homeland security (Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery – or in activities related to preparedness for any of these) there are often related or even overlapping interests amongst department heads.  The emergency manager, fire, police, EMS, and public works/highway are often at the forefront; but other departments and positions such as parks and recreation, clerk, human resources, finance/treasurer, and zoning can all (and should) have some degree of input.  Larger jurisdictions may have their own health and human services departments which are also important participants.  There are similar positions within corporate organizations that have the same interactions and hold the same importance in this regard to these organizations.  Also be sure to consider external partners such as utilities, major employers, and not for profits and social groups?  Perhaps your EMS provider is a third party or your law enforcement is provided for by a Sheriff’s Department or State Police – be sure to include them as well.

This ‘whole community’ list can grow very quickly and often times not all members are needed for the group to function effectively.  The best practice in emergency management committees is to take a tiered approach – with a core group addressing most matters but with the support and augmentation of an expanded group to include other departments and organizations whose participation is called upon when needed.

Emergency management and homeland security are team efforts which require the active participation and input of all stakeholders to be effective.  Don’t just rely on your emergency manager to get the job done.  They need support from the entire organization to ensure that your jurisdiction or corporation is prepared to address the worst, save lives, and minimize losses.  Some emergency managers view such committees as ‘oversight’ or an unnecessary bureaucracy, but success lies in collaboration.

What’s your approach?

© 2015 – Timothy Riecker

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC

www.epsllc.biz

Book Review – Next-Generation Homeland Security by John Fass Morton

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 3 Comments

I’m a firm believer that professionals need to keep current on trends and major discussions in their field of practice.  Homeland security and emergency management are no different, which is why I spend a great deal of time reading – books, blogs, newsletters, etc.

A book I finished in recent months was Next-Generation Homeland Security by John Fass Morton.  The book offers a great history of the roots of emergency management and homeland security, insights into the politics involved in the evolution of the two related fields, and thoughts on how preparedness agendas of the federal government and preparedness needs of local and state governments can be better merged moving forward.

Mr. Morton provides a highly detailed history of EM/HS – the most detail I’ve ever seen published anywhere.  This history doesn’t just cover new laws and changes in agency names, but also identifies key players and influencers, missteps, and practices along the way.  His detail of EM/HS over the past two decades is even greater as he has been able to obtain information and insights from his own experiences and those of his colleagues and contemporaries.  These details include all of our current programs such as NIMS, EMAC, and others – including many of the predecessors of those programs.  If you have interests in history or politics, much of the book will be very interesting to you simply based on this content.

Much of the book’s focus is on all-hazard preparedness, so you won’t find a great deal of information on DHS member agencies and their mission areas.  The book primarily follows the evolution of emergency management and its relationship with homeland security, while also providing some insight into the roots of homeland security which well predate 9/11.  Mr. Morton’s research certainly demonstrates how cyclic these evolutions have been.

Mr. Morton offers some interesting perspectives on our current state of preparedness and offers thoughts on organizational models which can enhance the coordination between the federal government and state and local authorities through strengthening of the FEMA/DHS regional offices, particularly the regional preparedness staff.  It’s apparent that there often conflicts between the federal government and state and local governments in regard to EM/HS priorities across all mission areas.  Mr. Morton’s perspectives offer a viable solution.

As I read I marked a lot of pages in the book for future reference, particularly in the second half (about 200 pages).  If you don’t have much interest in the histories Mr. Morton provides, as they are quite detailed, the second half of the book is where there will still be great value to you as this is where more contemporary practices, policies, and organizations are detailed as well as Mr. Morton’s thoughts on the further evolutions of our practice including the Federal regional approach and other topics such as professional development.  This is an excellent book for the dedicated practitioner who is looking for not only a detailed history but also thought provoking insight, not just a regurgitation of doctrine.  I believe it would also serve as an excellent book for graduate level academics, as it not only provides a great deal of information but can certainly stimulate quite a bit of discussion.  I hope to see some of Mr. Morton’s ideas get discussed broadly for the benefit of our profession.

Best Practices for the New Year – Resolve to be Responsible, Realistic, and Resourceful

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

As I work with jurisdictions and discuss their capabilities I find a broad range of perception among emergency managers about their jurisdictions’ capabilities and limitations.  Some overestimate their capability, thinking that they can handle anything and don’t need any outside assistance.  Others underestimate their capabilities, with their emergency plans defaulting to calling for help or making someone else responsible for nearly every scenario.  Fortunately some jurisdictions are spot on and have an informed and realistic perception of their capabilities.  Having the wrong awareness of what your jurisdiction can and cannot do can be dangerous.

Be Responsible

First of all, jurisdictions need to be responsible for their people.  Far too often I see an automatic assumption that someone else will handle an incident or a certain aspect of an incident, apparently abrogating the jurisdiction of all responsibility.  One of the more common occurrences of this is with sheltering where I rather often hear ‘The Red Cross will take care of that.’ with no further discussion even considered on the subject.  With no slight intended toward the Red Cross, relying on one entity to provide an absolutely critical capability is simply foolish.  If the Red Cross or any other outside entity is for some reason unable to provide these services for the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction is still left with the responsibility to provide this care for its citizens.  A jurisdiction without a plan to address this need is not being responsible for the welfare of its citizens.

The primary goal of a jurisdiction is to provide for its citizens.  Take this seriously and remember that you can’t assign this responsibility to others.

Be Realistic

Know your capabilities and your capacity.  In other words, know what you can and can’t do; and for what you can do, know how well and how long you can do it for.  Know what your limitations and dependencies are.  If your jurisdiction’s ability to provide advanced life support (ALS) care is dependent upon the only paramedic you have as a member of your ambulance service, you have very little capacity and quite a bit of vulnerability.

A good start to having a realistic view of your jurisdiction’s capabilities is conducting and regularly updating a comprehensive threat and hazard identification and risk assessment (THIRA).  THIRA is an in depth assessment which combines a traditional hazard analysis with a reference to DHS’ 31 Core Capabilities in the context of the threats specific to a jurisdiction.  I strongly suggest that a jurisdiction conducting a THIRA extend this assessment into an analysis of five key elements (Planning, Organizing, Equipping, Training, and Exercising – POETE) for each of their capabilities.  Go here for my post on the POETE analysis which explains the benefits and the process a little more.

A good THIRA helps jurisdictions identify not only their hazards but also the potential worst-case scenario impacts of these hazards.  It then provides an opportunity for the stakeholders of the jurisdiction to take an honest look at their capabilities and their ability to leverage these capabilities against those impacts.  Being honest in this assessment will help jurisdictions see what can hurt them most and identify the gaps and limitations they have in their capabilities.

Bottom line – be realistic in what you can do, how well, and how long you can do it.

Be Resourceful

The ability to endure the impacts of a disaster and, at a minimum, address the critical objectives of life safety, incident stabilization, and property conservation can require a jurisdiction to be creative and resourceful.  This is a key aspect of resiliency.  While assistance may still be needed from outside sources, a jurisdiction’s ability to survive and provide lifeline services for its citizens in the interim is extremely important.  Being resourceful can help a jurisdiction shore up its capabilities in times of need.  Key to being resourceful are good contacts and connections within the whole community.  Religious groups and social organizations, private companies, and even individual citizens can all provide services which can aid a jurisdiction in shoring up capabilities – at least in the short term.  Incorporate these as options within your emergency plans.  While these entities may have issues and commitments of their own during a disaster, they may also be able to help.

Use all available resources to get the job done and to sustain for as long as you can.  It can absolutely be the difference between life and death.

Best Practices for the New Year – Standards in Emergency Management Programs

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 3 Comments

Going into the New Year I’m endeavoring to write a few posts on best practices in emergency management.  The New Year is a great opportunity for us to take a broad look at our emergency management programs to identify needs and develop and implement some strategies to improve.  Instead of looking back in a rather cliché “year in review”, let’s look ahead toward improvement!

I also wanted to express appreciation to all of my blog readers.  Some of you find me directly through my blog’s home at WordPress, some through LinkedIn or Twitter (@triecker or @epsllc), and some through my company’s website – Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC.  If you like my blog please share it with others.  Comments are always welcome.

On to our topic… Standards in Emergency Management Programs

All emergency management programs – government, private sector, and not-for-profit – should strive for their programs to meet accepted industry standards.  The two most significant standards in the United States are the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1600: Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs and the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP).  The two standards are very similar in content and in fact complimentary, with the most significant difference being that EMAP offers an actual accreditation process.  Both programs offer copies of their standards free of charge, which is reflective of the spirit of sharing and improvement that exists in emergency management.

The NFPA offers the most recent previous version of their standard as a free download from their website.  The NFPA 1600 standard is quite detailed and can be initially overwhelming but really should be referenced piecemeal.  The free EMAP standards are published in a bit less detail, but they provide a very detailed assessment tool for those who initiate the formal accreditation process.  Because neither standard references specific laws or FEMA documents, they are also great references for governments, private sector, and not-for-profits outside the US.

How should you review the standards? 

They both essentially serve as checklists for what is programmatically needed for successful emergency management programs.  They are both organized by functions, such as planning, training, exercises, and logistics allowing a program to see what activities within each area are needed.  Neither standard will tell you how to meet any particular section of their standard, as they don’t want to be seen as favoring any particular published processes or products and want to encourage innovation and resourcefulness.  This also lends itself well to either/both standards being applicable and achievable by large and small organizations alike.

Examining your own emergency management program through the lens of either of these standards provides a great opportunity to see where you stand.  Examine your functions piece by piece, function by function.  Check off what areas you feel meet the standards and highlight those which you feel do not.  Use these areas as a point of reference for improvements.  Conduct a bit of a needs assessment in these areas to identify exactly what needs to be done to improve and meet the standard then create an improvement plan to make it happen.

Having helped organizations with both NFPA 1600 compliance as well as EMAP accreditation, I’ll attest that much of it simply comes down to paperwork and good systems management.  Many of the standards can be addressed through creating and applying polices and solid practices and procedures.  Organized and thorough record keeping is very important for these matters.

What if you don’t have a specific emergency management function or certain activities are conducted by someone else?

Of course you probably should have a specific emergency management function within your community, company, or organization; but many do not.  Needs are often met in these circumstances through an amalgamation of functions found throughout the rest of the jurisdiction, company, or organization.  Hopefully you at least have an emergency management committee (or one which can serve this purpose such as a safety committee) which has representation from these various entities.  Such a committee is an ideal group to review these standards.  An emergency management program isn’t necessarily a specific agency or office; it’s really the entire system.  These standards should be examined through the entire jurisdiction, company, or organization as responsibilities and functions may be spread around.

What advantages do these standards offer for emergency management programs?

There is certainly a piece of mind knowing that your program meets these standards which are based upon industry best practices, even more so if you took advantage of EMAP’s accreditation.  These standards also provide documented justification for grants, budget allocations, resources, and activities which will contribute to a thriving emergency management program.  Overall, however, you will find that your program will be more professional and more responsive to the emergency and disaster needs of your constituency – be it a community, company, or organization.

Meeting these standards is an investment, but mostly of time and effort.  Sure, there are ways you can meet certain standards better by purchasing some cutting edge software or hiring six more people, but these standards are not intended to serve only the most fortunate and affluent emergency management programs.  A program run by a part time emergency manager with minimal funding can still successfully meet these standards.

Maintaining compliance with these standards is important and is an ongoing effort – it’s quite easy to fall off the carnival ride, especially when distracted by our daily routines and changing priorities.  Set a schedule to conduct an annual review of the standards, incorporate your compliance efforts into strategic plans, and regularly refer back to the standards to keep them fresh in your head.

Of course help is available!  Emergency Preparedness Solutions can help your jurisdiction, company, or not-for-profit conduct a Standards Assessment to determine what standards are met, what standards need to be met, and develop a strategic plan to meet these standards.  Through our full range of preparedness services we can also help you meet these standards and develop a maintenance plan for your program.

If you have questions please contact me at tim@epsllc.biz.

Have a wonderful, safe, and productive New Year!

@ 2014 – Timothy Riecker