Tag emergency planning

Examining Needs-Based Emergency Planning

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

For the past decade and one half we have seen documents such as Civil Preparedness Guide (CPG) 1-8 (1990), State and Local Guide (SLG) 101 (1996), and two versions of Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 (2009 and 2010) provide us with continually advancing standards and guidance for emergency planning.   We have seen the focus points of planning evolve from assumption-based, to threat and risk-based, to capability-based planning through each of these iterations.  With the release of each new standard, however, the lessons learned from the previous have been preserved, bringing with them remnants of the earlier standards.  Our current standard, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (2010), maintains a focus on capability-based planning but still stresses the importance of formulating assumptions in our planning as well as identifying threats and risks.  Each of these elements is important, but in these examinations we seem to be forgetting something very important – what is the need?

Planning assumptions, risk and threat, and capabilities assessments are all important informers of emergency planning and must remain in the lexicon for us to be successful.  It seems, though, that while these elements contribute to our planning efforts, they still don’t define the true need.  In examining the real need in any jurisdiction, we need to identify these other elements but we can’t take the jurisdiction itself for granted.  Identifying the needs of the jurisdiction will help us, along with the other elements, to identify what the impacts of a disaster will be and how prepared we are to address them.  Too often we see emergency planning efforts which are very rote, paying little attention to the real needs of the jurisdiction.

If you have followed my blog for any length of time, you likely recall that I am a huge proponent of needs assessments.  As a trainer, a proper needs assessment is everything.  It leads us to the identification of what the desired behavior is and is a critical first step in determining how we will effectively train individuals to achieve it.  Earlier this month I had an article published in Training Magazine on the Importance of Analysis to Identify Root Cause.  The same principles of needs assessment can be easily applied to emergency planning.  Very simply, needs drive objectives.

The identification of needs for a jurisdiction involves an examination of both the physicality of the jurisdiction as well as the population.  Elements of the physicality of the jurisdiction include size and geography, accessibility of areas within the jurisdiction, and critical infrastructure and key resources contained within the jurisdiction.  Examining the population demographics includes age ranges, income levels, disability, vulnerable and at risk populations (the CDC Social Vulnerability Index is a great resource), languages, cultures, religions, population densities, and the ratios of full time residents to transients/visitors, and commuters.  GIS can provide us with much of this information both individually and in aggregate.

Once we collect this data, an analysis is important to identify what it all means (aka defining the need).  Where are there vulnerabilities within the jurisdiction in a steady state?  Under which scenarios exist increased vulnerabilities – such as a bridge that provides the only access to an area of the jurisdiction being washed out.  What religious and cultural matters must be considered in disaster response?  What needs exist for communicating with those with limited English proficiency?  The answers to these questions will inform strategies contained in our emergency plans and annexes.

Good planners dig to these depths and produce quality operational plans – but most don’t.  Plans which have not been written with this detailed process are doomed to fail as the needs of the jurisdiction have not been weighed with our assumptions, threats and risks, and capabilities.  The THIRA process helps to move us in the right direction by asking us to provide threats and hazards with context (our planning assumptions) and then establishing capability targets which will address these impacts.  Still, it’s not direct or detailed enough to provide us with all the information we need.

While CPG 101 guides us to know our communities and to understand the consequences of a potential incident, the current focus on capabilities, while important, is a focus on us – public safety.  The focus must be on the jurisdiction as a whole and an identification and understanding of potential impacts and the resultant needs of the jurisdiction.  It’s not so much a change in process as it is a change in emphasis.  We must first understand needs before we can plan to address them.

Thoughts?

© 2014 – Timothy Riecker

Training EOC Personnel – ICS is not Enough!

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 7 Comments

A consistent misconception is that if an emergency operations plan calls for an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to utilize the Incident Command System (ICS), then EOC personnel only require ICS training to be successful in their jobs.  ICS training, however, only gets personnel part way to success.

Regular readers of my blog know that I am a big advocate of conducting needs assessments.  Often times, agencies don’t know how to conduct a needs assessment, don’t think it’s important enough to conduct one, don’t think that conducting one is necessary, or simply don’t even consider conducting a needs assessment.  The result is creating training or using existing training that does not meet the real needs.  Certainly if an EOC is using the foundations of ICS to define its organizational structure and processes, then ICS training is absolutely important.  Consider, however, the multitude of other processes that take place in an operational EOC that are not included (in whole or in part) in ICS training.  Processes including financial management and procurement, situation reporting, and use of EOC management and resource tracking software are so diverse and can very from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

The unique application of Multi-Agency Coordination Systems (MACS), an element of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), just like ICS, by each jurisdiction also has to be considered.  While there are numerous best practices in MACS, their interface with ICS – often implemented through an EOC – is influenced significantly by governmental structure, statutory responsibilities, and politics more than can be addressed by any training curriculum. Consider simply the differences between a state EOC, a county EOC, and a local government EOC and their unique roles and needs. For as much standardization NIMS encourages, there will still be different ways of implementing these systems.  In the end, the challenge remains the same – how do we train people to function in EOCs?

First, do conduct that needs assessment.  What do people have to know and what skills must they have to be successful in an EOC?  At this point, I speak foundationally, as additional and more in-depth training can be explored based on position and responsibility.  Certainly ICS – with sufficient detail in positions of the organization and the planning process.    What else do they need to know?  ICS training does not address in detail what an EOC is or does – an important understand for people to have.  What processes must they be familiar with?  What tools or methodologies does the EOC use that must be trained on?  Are there specific organizational elements that require unique interactions with the greater organization (such as emergency support functions <ESFs>)?  Look through your jurisdiction’s EOC Standard Operating Procedures/Guidelines (you do have one, right?) to help you identify some of these needs.

Second, identify how to address these training needs.  ICS organization and the planning process are covered in the ICS-300 course, so that will meet some of your needs.  Unfortunately, since so many of the other needs are unique to your jurisdiction, you will have to build custom training to meet these needs.  Yes, FEMA does have available a course called EOC Management and Operations (IS/G – 775).  While some material in this course may or may help meet your training needs, chances are the course in its entirety will not.  First, it dedicates time discussing ideal facilities for an EOC (not really necessary if you already have such a facility), and second, while it provides an outline for general EOC operations it still won’t address all of your specific needs, although course materials can be used as a resource to inform your instructional design.

Third, build staying power into your training.  Much of what is learned is quickly forgotten, especially when people don’t practice it often.  There are a few strategies to combat this knowledge loss… 1) offer refresher training, 2) conduct regular exercises, 3) create job aids.  ICS is big on job aids – that’s very simply what the ICS forms are.  There are a multitude of additional job aids that you can create for your EOC.  Practically every position and process can have checklists and flow charts which help remind staff of what they need to do and in what order to do it in.

This can all be a lot of work, but it will pay off next time you have to activate your EOC.  Remember, there is always help available.  My consulting firm, Emergency Preparedness Solutions, has a great deal of experience working in a variety of EOCs across the country.  We have developed plans, procedures, job aids, training, and exercises unique to each EOC.  We can help you!  Check out our website at www.epsllc.biz or contact us at consultants@epsllc.biz.  Be Proactive, Be Prepared!™

© 2014 – Timothy Riecker

Deliberate Planning – Strategic Planning and Business Continuity

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

Many organizations put forth extraordinary effort to develop strategic plans to give concerted organization-wide direction to the organization for the coming 3-5 years.  Like many of my readers, I have been part of several strategic planning efforts in different organizations, sometimes helping to lead the way.  There is a great deal of value to strategic planning as it helps not only refine the organization’s vision, but also develops objectives to help it get there while (ideally) bringing the entire organization on board – from finance, to HR, to operations, and facilities – everyone is facing in the same direction and striving to accomplish the same goals.  Just as strategic planning should not be performed in a vacuum, business continuity planning should not either.  Just as strategic planning engaged the whole organization, as should business continuity planning.

If the efforts of strategic planning and business continuity planning have such foundational similarities, why not bring the two together?  As the goals of these two efforts are distinctly different we certainly can’t merge the efforts, but the overlaps provide for easily exploitable opportunities within the organization.  How?

First, make business continuity and resilience a goal of your strategic plan.  What does this do for the organization?  Just like the other goals identified in strategic planning, it provides a documented leadership-driven purpose which will engage the whole organization.  Every business unit in an organization has a stake in business continuity.  Just with other goals within your strategic plan, the specific actions will be identified through objectives – be it a start to your business continuity program or a continuation and improvement thereof.  As mentioned in previous posts, business owners and managers put forth a great deal of effort to build and expand their businesses, but we also need plans to stay in business in the event of a disaster.

Second, once the strategic plan is completed, you now have a group of people from across the organization who now hopefully work well together – engage them!  Turn your strategic planning committee into your business continuity committee.  Good strategic planning provides for someone (ideally the planning group) to monitor the implementation of the strategic plan.  This takes minimal time compared to developing the strategic plan, allowing for this group – who has already worked together for some time and has gone through the group dynamics of forming, storming, norming, and performing – to focus on another task.  Why pull together another group of different people?  It’s a waste of time and the team will lag in performance.  Simply reengage them and change their focus.  This group is a great asset who has already proven they can represent their business units while still having an organization-wide perspective.

Third, mine data from the strategic planning process to support business continuity.  A thorough strategic planning process has examined the organization from many angles and perspective – particularly through a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats).  While a SWOT analysis is performed from a business standpoint, much of the data obtained and derived from this analysis can inform both your hazard analysis and the identification of mission essential functions – these are the things which you MUST DO to stay in business and to minimize the greatest losses.

Lastly, continue the relationship between strategic planning and business continuity.  Both work in a cycle of continuous improvement and those cycles obviously intersect – not just at one point but potentially at multiple junctures; an important consideration of a business continuity program is the impact which disasters may have not only on current business operations but also on planned business initiatives.  This shared knowledge and insight between two planning efforts conducted within one group is invaluable.  As strategic planning continues, new objectives for the business continuity program should be included while resiliency opportunities identified through the business continuity program should inform the strategic plan helping the organization overall to become more resilient and sustainable.

What are your thoughts on the synergy between strategic planning and business continuity?  What other opportunities do you see?

As always, if you need help starting, growing, or rebuilding your business continuity or emergency management program, Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC can help.  Contact us through www.epsllc.biz or directly at consultants@epsllc.biz.

© 2014 – Timothy Riecker

Business Continuity in the Food Service Industry

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

Last year I had the pleasure of working with a number of folks in the food service industry on business continuity.  Just like any industry, they have some very specific mission essential functions which must be maintained or minimally disrupted in the event of a disaster. 

If you’ve watched Bar Rescue or other similar shows (or eaten in a restaurant) you should know that sanitation is a critical issue in the food service industry.  Sanitation is the aspect of food service which is most heavily inspected (not as often as it should be in my opinion) and cited.  It is a critical component of regulation in the food service industry (usually done by local health departments) and failure to comply with sanitation can, will, and should result in being shut down.  Operating in a disaster environment is no exception to this – particularly when people are more susceptible and more exposed to food borne illness during disasters.  Part of sanitation, by the way, also includes the control of vermin. 

In my discussions with food service folks on business continuity, sanitation is the primary mission essential function they must maintain.  Others on the list include receiving and storage (at appropriate temperatures) of food goods and preparation of food (to proper temperatures and maintaining those temperatures until food is served). 

As restaurants examine their hazards they need to know what impacts hazards can have on their operations.  Certainly a loss of power can inhibit their ability to store and prepare food – but does it make it impossible to do so?  Maybe.  Dry ice can help regulate cold storage, but must be carefully monitored.  Food preparation is often done with natural gas or propane stoves, so power may not necessarily be required.  Even refrigeration can be outfitted to be powered by propane or natural gas.  That’s how food trucks and carts do it. 

Other considerations during a disaster are the ability of employees, customers, and suppliers to access your location.  You may have to operate with minimal staff as some of your staff could have been impacted by the disaster.  Assuming access is viable and that you can safety store and prepare food, it is possible for you to make money or at least minimize losses, even with a smaller menu, since those impacted by a disaster may not be able to make their own food and responders and relief workers will be happy to sit down and enjoy a warm meal. 

The best way to minimize your losses during a disaster is to have a business continuity plan.  If you need help building one, call Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC.  Reach us at consultants@epsllc.biz or www.epsllc.biz. 

What Planning Format To Use?

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 2 Comments

Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101) describes three format options for your emergency operations plan (EOP): The traditional functional EOP format, the Emergency Support Function (ESF) format, and the agency/department focused format.  As mentioned in CPG 101 the traditional functional EOP format is the most popular and widely used.  It generally provides for three major sections – the basic plan, functional annexes, and hazard specific annexes.  The traditional format provides for the greatest flexibility and allows a jurisdiction or organization to easily evolve their plan as the need for addressing additional issues or hazards is recognized.  Continuity of Government/Continuity of Operations (COG/COOP) plans are easily integrated as annexes as our newer concepts such as resiliency plans and climate change plans. 

Agency/department focused EOP formats provide utility for those folks that like to crack open the book looking to answer the question ‘what is expected of me?’.  This format offers some flexibility, but under most occurrences where the need to address a new issue arises edits need to be made through much of the plan to identify and address each agency’s involvement in said issue.  It can also be awkward to include other associated plans, such as the afore mentioned COOP and COG plans.  It does work for smaller communities, though, whose hazards and other planning areas stay fairly static. 

The ESF EOP format is modeled after the National Response Framework (NRF) (originally the Federal Response Plan) which addresses functions by grouping agencies and organizations with responsibility and resources to address those functions.  This model has worked fairly well for the federal government given their structure and the general federalist approach of most agencies (aside from those agencies with direct authorities such as the US Coast Guard).   There is some flexibility in this model with the ability to include both support and hazard specific annexes, but one must be cautioned not to confuse the ESF annexes with the support annexes.  The key word in the format is ‘support’, which is largely what the federal government does in response to a disaster. 

Last week Lucien Canton posted an article Emergency Support Functions: Misunderstood and Misapplied.  Read this!  As usual, Lu states his point expertly as he discusses the pros, cons, and uses for the ESF structure.  Many jurisdictions, in an effort to mirror a system which seems to work for the federal government, create their EOP in an ESF format.  I’ve rarely ever seen it well applied – at least not in the form that the feds use.  Understanding that the feds structure their ESFs to address policy and coordination, these same needs may not exist at a state or local level.  Therefore states and locals change the ESF structure.  While there is certainly no requirement to use only those ESFs which are used in the NRF, using a different format can cause great confusion.  For example, what is ESF #12 (Energy) in the NRF may be an ESF for economic recovery for a city or county.  Now we have what we’ve been trying to avoid in incident management – a lack of common terminology. 

Each jurisdiction and organization should choose which format works best for them.  I would strongly recommend the traditional format which is the easiest to shape to meet your needs rather than trying to work within an awkward planning framework.  Remember that no plan is ever perfect, but requires regular attention to ensure that it evolves with and addresses your needs.  Don’t try to tackle it all at once, either, or on your own.  Proper planning is a team effort requiring input from multiple stakeholders in your jurisdiction or organization.  CPG 101 references ‘whole community’ planning which is a great idea to ensure that you capture multiple perspectives and that all stakeholders are bought into the process and the product.  Take on your planning work in small bites, one component at a time.  First work on the base plan – the most essential part.  Then identify those functional and hazard specific annexes which are most important – accomplish those next.  To help guide your work it will help to create a project chart for your planning efforts identifying timelines and benchmarks, stakeholders, and needed inputs.  Finally, don’t forget to exercise your plans to validate them! 

Lastly, my marketing plug – If you need help planning please contact Emergency Preparedness Solutions!  EPS is experienced in working with governments, private sector, and not for profits in all facets of preparedness including assessment, planning, training, and exercises.  We are happy to discuss your needs and determine the best way to meet them. 

What planning format do you prefer and why?

© 2014 – Timothy Riecker

 

 

 

Business Continuity – Telework Capabilities and Policies

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

This month’s issue of Homeland Security Today (volume 11, number 3 – April/May 2014) features, along with a variety of other excellent articles, an article titled Virtual Crisis Response by David Smith.  Right up front they provide a thought-provoking factoid… The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the five-year cost of implementing telework throughout the federal government is about $30 million, which is less than the cost of a single day of shutting down federal offices in the DC area due to a snow storm.

SHX1877.TIFFolks, this is 2014.  We have the capability to telework off of nearly any device you could imagine and for a very low-cost.  Like most, I have access to both work and personal email and files from anywhere… from my own laptop, from my smart phone, or from any other internet connected device.  I have this capability as a small business owner using tools that we set up ourselves.  I’ve worked for large corporations and state agencies that also have that capability, and even more with VPN and other tools available.  When speaking with people who work for other companies or government agencies, however, I’m astounded by the lack of interest in allowing telework.  I’m going to refrain from outlining the virtues of telework as a regular operation (don’t get me wrong, there are drawbacks as well), but telework does provide for a means of maintaining continuous business and government operations which many businesses and governments seem to be dismissing.

There are quite a few businesses and governments who maintain remotely accessible email and data as a means of enabling the conduct of business while traveling or working from an alternate site as a normal course of business – thankfully.  Many of these entities, however, due to a lack of trust in their employees, union issues, or simply an inability to adapt do not allow employees to telework.  This may have discouraged employees from even attempting to connect to these services from home, where they may likely be if some event – flood, snow storm, or otherwise – prevented them from going to work.  Maybe you do have the capabilities but generally don’t allow telework.  So how can you be sure that it will work in the event of a disaster?  The answer is simple… you have to test it.

The Homeland Security Today article provides some info on the tech stuff you need to ensure a viable network.  Follow their lead and talk to your tech people – either indigenous or consultants.  I’m not a tech guy, so I won’t even attempt to give that kind of information.  What I will tell you is that you need a business continuity telework policy along with plans and protocols to support it.  These plans need to identify the same critical business functions you identified in your base business continuity plan and address how they can be maintained remotely.  Just like any other plan we put in place, we need to train people to it and test it (exercise it).  How do we exercise it?  For starters, tell everyone (or at least key continuity staff) they don’t have to come into the office on Friday.  No, they don’t get the day off – they have to work from home, but this is a test to make sure it is possible.  Be sure to buy your help desk people something nice that day because they will be busy!  There will be plenty of connection problems.  Properly designed job aids will help facilitate this on the user end, but tech people will be needed to trouble shoot.  Of course before you even get into this you will have to make sure that everyone has the capability to connect from home.  Do they have high-speed internet at home?  Do they have an appropriate device for connecting and working through the day?

Next, once you have everyone on the network, consider how you will communicate.  Teleconference?  Video conference?  Remember that these people don’t have their work desk phones.  What information needs to be exchanged?  What is everyone’s role and can they perform it remotely?  Can they gain access to all the data and files they need?  Test the viability of the network, too… is your server in your office?  What happens if you lose power to your office?  Understand that some employees may experience utility outages during a disaster which may prevent some employees from accessing the network, but the goal is to get as many people on as possible to maintain critical business operations.  Given this, your plan should address how you will maintain critical operations in the absence of some employees – even remotely.

Just like any other exercise, put together an after action report, and not just from the perspective of the IT folks either.  Be sure to solicit input from the employees as well.  What were your lessons learned and what improvements need to be made?  Lastly, don’t just exercise this once.  Do this at least a couple of times each year.  Not only does this give you ongoing feedback of the plan, but it also helps to make sure employees can continue to connect remotely (especially new employees), and also helps to ensure that technology upgrades don’t interfere with remote access.

Do you have telework protocols integrated into your business continuity plan?  Have you exercised them?


© 2014 Timothy Riecker

 

 

The POETE Analysis – Emergency Planning and Beyond

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 7 Comments

POETE stands for Planning, Organizing, Equipping, Training, and Exercising. These are the five elements that each jurisdiction should be examining their own capabilities by. By examining their capabilities through each of these elements, a jurisdiction can better define their strengths and areas for improvement.

The POETE analysis, often completed as part of a THIRA (Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment) is actually a component of the State Preparedness Report (SPR) (note that this was the definition of the acronym at the time of the original post. It is now Stakeholder Preparedness Report), which incorporates THIRA data into this annual submission. When properly conducted, a POETE analysis will examine a jurisdiction’s capability targets. These capability targets, through the THIRA process, are individually defined by each jurisdiction, based upon the capability definitions of each of the 31 Core Capabilities (Note: at the time of my original post there were 31 Core Capabilities. There are now 32). The Core Capabilities were identified in the National Preparedness Goal and are an evolution of the legacy Target Capabilities. Gone are the days when many jurisdictions struggled with the definitions of the Target Capabilities and trying to determine how they applied to jurisdictions large and small across the nation. The new Core Capabilities are divided amongst five mission areas – Prevention, Protection, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation. By referencing Core Capabilities in our preparedness efforts, we have a consistent definition of each area of practice.

When a jurisdiction’s stakeholders conduct a POETE analysis, each element is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 – a rating of 5 indicating that the jurisdiction has all the resources needed and has accomplished all activities necessary for that element within that capability area. Using the Core Capability of Fatality Management as an example the jurisdiction will identify a desired outcome and from that a capability target. CPG-201, the guidance published by DHS/FEMA for conducting a THIRA, outlines this process in detail and provides the following capability target for illustrative purposes:

“During the first 72 hours of an incident, conduct operations to recover 375 fatalities.”

The jurisdiction will examine their efforts and resources for each POETE element for this capability target. Below are thoughts on what could be considered for each element:

Planning: What is the state of their plans for mass fatality management? Do they have a plan? Is it up to date? Does it address best practices?

Organizing: Are all stakeholders on board with mass fatality preparedness efforts? Is there a member of the community yet to be engaged? Are lines of authority during a mass fatality incident clear?

Equipping: Does the jurisdiction have the equipment and supplies available to handle the needs of a mass fatality incident? Are MOUs and contracts in place?

Training: Do responders and stakeholders train regularly on the tasks associated with managing a mass fatality incident? Is training up to date? Is training conducted at the appropriate level?

Exercising: Have exercises been conducted recently to test the plans and familiarize stakeholders with plans and equipment? Has the jurisdiction conducted discussion-based and operations-based exercises? Have identified areas for improvement been addressed?

The jurisdiction’s responses to these questions and the subsequent ratings provided for each POETE element will help them identify areas for improvement which will contribute to the overall capability. From personal experience, I can tell you that the discussions that take place amongst stakeholders which reveal both the efforts applied for each element as well as the frustrations and barriers to progress for each are generally quite productive and great information sharing sessions. It is important to capture as many of the factual elements of this discussion as possible as they add context to the numerical value assigned. Having the right people participating in the effort is critical to ensuring that inputs are accurate and relevant.

Once the POETE analysis is completed, what’s next? As mentioned earlier, the POETE analysis is actually a required component of the annual State Preparedness Report, which must be submitted to FEMA/DHS by each state and territory. Ideally, the results of the POETE analysis should be translated from raw data (numbers) to a narrative, explaining the progress and accomplishments as well as future efforts and barriers; in other words, the ratings should be factually explained and these explanations should feed an actionable strategic plan. The priority rating inherent in the THIRA process will help establish relative priority for each Core Capability within the strategic plan. While this is a requirement for states and territories, a comprehensive strategic plan for any emergency management and homeland security program at any jurisdictional level is obviously beneficial and would reflect positively in an EMAP accreditation.

POETE elements should be incorporated into other emergency management activities as well. When needs are identified and defined based upon Core Capabilities, these should be outlined in the jurisdiction’s multi-year Training and Exercise Plan, which should serve as a guiding document for many preparedness activities. The focus that a POETE analysis provides for each Core Capability can help identify training objectives which can help maintain and improve capability

Consider integrating them into your evaluation of exercises. While the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) doctrine makes no mention of POETE, much of HSEEP is based upon capabilities. With a POETE analysis being an integral component of measuring our progress toward a capability, I would suggest including it into exercise evaluations. POETE elements can be included in Exercise Evaluation Guides (EEGs) to capture evaluator observations and should be outlined in the After Action Report (AAR) itself for each observation – giving suggestions for improvements based upon each POETE element. Consider how you could incorporate the POETE elements into an AAR as an outline identifying areas for improvement for the EOC management activities of the Operational Coordination Core Capability. As an example:

Planning: The jurisdiction should update the EOC management plan to incorporate all critical processes. Job aids should be created to assist EOC staff in their duties.

Organizing: Lines of authority were not clear to exercise participants in the EOC. Tasks were assigned to agencies but status of tasks was not effectively monitored.

Equipping: There were not enough computers for participating agencies. EOC management software did not facilitate tracking of resources.

Training: EOC agency representatives were not all trained in the use of EOC management software, creating delays in action and missed assignments. The EOC Manager and Planning Section Chief were well versed in the Planning Process and used it well to facilitate the Planning Process.

Exercising: Isolated drills should be conducted to test notification systems on a regular basis. Discussion based exercises will assist in identifying policy issues associated with suspension of laws and their impact on EOC operations.

The POETE analysis is a process which can help us identify strengths and areas for improvement within our emergency management and homeland security programs. While the POETE analysis can be time consuming, the information gathered for each Core Capability is valuable to any preparedness effort. With such a variety of federally-driven programs and requirements extended throughout emergency management and homeland security, we can find the greatest benefit from those which have the ability to cross multiple program areas – such as the Core Capabilities – allowing us to consolidate the evaluation of these programs into one system, providing maximum benefit and minimizing efforts.

Have you conducted a POETE analysis for your jurisdiction?  Did you find it a worthwhile process?

Looking for help with a POETE analysis?  Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC can help!  www.epsllc.biz 

© 2014 Timothy Riecker

Hazard Analysis – Looking Beyond Your Borders

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

In the radiological emergency preparedness niche field of emergency management we conduct a lot of preparedness activities for a hazard which may not even be within our jurisdiction.  The emergency planning zone (EPZ) for a nuclear power plant often times transcends multiple towns, cities, villages, counties, and even state lines.  While I have some issues with the effectiveness and implementation of radiological emergency planning, they at least address the reality of the hazard crossing the artificial borders we humans have established.  For other hazards, this premise usually does not hold true.

In January of this year a chemical leaked from a storage tank at a coal processing facility in Charleston, West Virginia.  This chemical leaked into the Elk River and both directly and indirectly impacted hundreds of thousands of citizens, businesses, and governments requiring evacuations and preventing water use for several weeks. The DHS Lessons Learned Information Sharing (LLIS) website has posted a brief by The Joint Commission on this incident with specific citations on the impacts to area hospitals, mostly through contracted laundry services.

In the private sector, we often encourages businesses to examine the vulnerabilities of suppliers and distributors as part of their hazard vulnerability analysis (HVA) and business impact assessment (BIA).  This is not something often considered by governments.  For example, in my town, there is only one very small gas station, so due their limited hours (fuel is not available 24/7) government services and the town’s contracted fire company must leave the town for fuel.  That is a significant dependency on a supplier outside the jurisdiction.  I’ve sure there are many other suppliers used by the town which lie outside their borders.  Additionally, what are the potential impacts of an incident that occurs in a neighboring jurisdiction?  Such an incident could either directly impact you, such as a chemical plume entering your jurisdiction; or would require your jurisdiction to address sheltering, traffic, or mutual aid needs.

I would suggest, as part of the hazard analysis phase of your planning process, that you obtain copies of the hazard analysis of neighboring jurisdictions.  The hazards they indicate may be quite eye-opening to you and may require you to better prepare for a hazard beyond your borders.

©2014 Timothy Riecker

Are you Ready for Hurricane Season 2014?

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

Today begins National Hurricane Preparedness Week, ushering in hurricane season which starts a week from today on June 1st.  In the last 10 years we have seen some absolutely devastating hurricanes, including Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Sandy in 2012.  These storms are powerful, taking lives, destroying homes and infrastructure, and changing the landscape.  We were reminded that these storms can bring strong winds and flooding rainfall not only to coastal areas but well inland where governments and residents may not be as prepared as they should.

The graphic below is the National Hurricane Center’s prediction for the year.  While there is plenty of science behind this, it’s an imperfect science.  It’s one thing to predict tomorrow’s weather, it’s something else entirely to predict Atlantic storms two months from now.  Like most things in emergency management, it’s a guide – so don’t let it lull you into false confidence.  Be sure to prepare!

2014 Atlantic Hurricane Forecast

2014 Atlantic Hurricane Forecast

What do you need to know to prepare?  The graphic below has a list of seminars conducted by the National Hurricane Center which are accessible via YouTube.  The first one starts today!  Go to this website for more information and the links to the YouTube videos.

Hurricane Preparedness Courses

Hurricane Preparedness Courses

Be smart this year and make sure you and your family are prepared and safe.  Government and business emergency managers – be sure to give your hurricane plans and associated annexes one more look this week to make sure they are current and ready to activate.  Also, there is no time like the present to make improvements.  Just because we’re entering hurricane season doesn’t mean you can’t update plans now.  Don’t wait until hurricane season is over!  Be sure to distribute copies of the plans to key stakeholders and to run a seminar to remind people of the general content of the plan and what is expected of them in the implementation of the plan.  Pay special attention to trigger points, decision points, and succession.  Be sure to verify the availability of key resources; test generators and IT fail overs.

If you are looking for some assistance in reviewing your plans, training staff, or exercising plans please contact Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC at consultants@epsllc.biz.  We’re happy to assist you!

Are you ready???

Creating Operational Emergency Plans

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 2 Comments

I was inspired for this article from an email I received earlier today from Lu Canton, a rather prolific emergency management consultant who has branched a bit into consulting consultants.  His email today (a forward from his blog) was about making emergency plans ‘real’.  His point was that many planners focus on checking the boxes of the list of planning requirements (those prescribed by law, regulation, etc.) rather than focusing on ensuring that you have a plan that can actually be implemented.  He conducted a webinar over a year ago which I had blogged about.

Planning requirements are important, as they largely stem from lessons learned from earlier incidents.  Granted, some of these requirements come about being translated through the eyes and ears of politicians whose staffers write the legislation and don’t understand emergency management at all – resulting in convoluted, contradictory, and poorly focused requirements.  Requirements lead to standards, helping to ensure that emergency managers are addressing the needs of their jurisdiction and best practices in the industry.  To help guide us through this, many higher level agencies provide templates.  I’ve pontificated in the past about the danger of templates, which have a place in reminding us of these requirements and help us with format and flow, but are often misused by individuals who simply seek to fill in the blank with the name of the jurisdiction and claim they have a finalized plan.

How do we avoid falling into this trap?  Follow the planning process!  FEMA’s Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 provides an overview of this process for creating emergency operations plans.  The two initial steps – forming a planning team and conducting a hazard analysis – are absolutely critical to the integrity of the process and ensuring a quality plan that meets the needs of your jurisdiction by addressing your threats and hazards.  Planning teams then need to consider these threats and hazards, make reasonable assumptions about their impacts (using a credible worst case scenario), then identify resources and strategies the jurisdiction will undertake to solve the problems they will face.

Does all this mean that a plan needs to be written from scratch?  Of course not!  In fact I strongly encourage people against it.  It’s practically guaranteed that you will forget a critical element.  One of the greatest things in the emergency management community is how we learn from each other.  You can reference templates you find, examine plans of your neighboring jurisdictions or jurisdictions similar to you, check out what is on LLIS.  There is plenty of great content you can examine and apply for your own use.  Just ensure that you carefully review and consider how it applies to you.

As you write the plan, think the details through.  This will help ensure that your plan is operational, not just meeting requirements.  Discuss with your planning team what is expected of each assisting and cooperating agency for each incident type.  Who will be in charge?  What resources will be necessary and where will you get them from?  What would the objectives be and what processes and decision points must be conducted to accomplish those objectives.  As you create the plan, map out these processes and ensure that you’ve considered the who, what, where, when, and how of each step in each process.  Recall that you are planning at a strategic level, not a tactical level.  Planning at a tactical level is nearly impossible with a pre-incident (aka ‘deliberate’) plan.  Tactics will be addressed during the actual response, hopefully referencing the EOP/CEMP you are writing now, and implemented through an incident action plan (IAP).

Remember, though, the proof is in the pudding, as they say.  Your plan needs to be tested to ensure viability.  Use a table top exercise to test policy and decisions, then a functional exercise to test the implementation of the plan and higher level tactics.  Full scale exercises and drills can test the tactical implementation of plans.  Good evaluation of the exercises will lead to planning improvements.  For insight on the exercise process, you can check out my exercise management series of posts referenced here.

Remember: when it comes to planning – keep it real!

Tim Riecker