In another bit of news regarding bird flu (aka avian influenza), the H7N9 strain of the virus has infected a citizen of British Columbia who recently traveled to China. This release comes just a few days after H5N1 had been confirmed in a duck in northern Washington. Certainly coincidence, but the discovery of the presence of both strains in North America – both for the first time – is daunting.
© 2015 – Timothy Riecker
Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC
In news released by the media this morning, the presence of H5N1 (aka bird flu or avian influenza) has been confirmed in the US. While many dusted off communicable disease plans with last year’s (and continuing) Ebola threat, we need to ensure that we take into account the wildlife and agricultural implications of H5N1 along with the threat to human life. While one positive finding certainly does not make an epidemic, the confirmed presence should be putting certain actions into place for many public safety partners, including federal and state agricultural and fish and game offices. Hunters, farmers, and veterinarians need to be aware of signs and symptoms just as much as our health care providers.
Be on the lookout for more information from authorities on this. Consider the implications it can have within your area of responsibility and be sure to think broadly and consider cascading impacts.
© 2015 – Timothy Riecker
Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC
Situation reports or SitReps have a great deal of importance in conveying information on an incident or event to a variety of stakeholders. Having worked for many years as a Planning Section Chief in a State EOC and county and local EOCs and command posts on a variety of incidents and events; well structured, well written, and relevant SitReps have become a bugaboo of mine. SitReps are intended to provide a snapshot of a common operating picture for stakeholders involved in the incident or event. Creation of a SitRep should be viewed as a process, similar to incident action planning.
The information contained in a SitRep provides them with the information they need to know to perform their duties in support of the incident. Keep in mind that stakeholders may not be involved in the operations or support of an incident but still need to have awareness as they may be impacted. A series of SitReps can also contribute greatly to the historical record of the incident or event.
Looking into the New Year and toward your next incident and event, I’ve provided some things I’ve learned along the way which can bake your situation reporting more effective and meaningful.
Defining the Audience
In the first step to building a benchmark SitRep, regular readers of my blog will recognize one of my common themes – identifying needs. Just as we do in training, we need to be aware of who are audience is what their needs are. The primary purpose of a SitRep is to meet the information needs of your audience.
Who are the stakeholders that see your SitReps? Are they operators, decision makers, or executives? Generally, based on these three categories, here is the information they need:
Operators. These are the folks who are ‘boots on ground’ getting the work done. While they might love to see detail of what is going on throughout the incident or event, they don’t NEED this information as it can, in fact, be simply distracting to them. Very rarely are SitReps geared toward this audience as you want them tactically focused on the tasks they are assigned to. Usually a brief incident summary satisfies their limited need to have a bigger picture of what is occurring. Those who are managing them should be providing them with the information they need to know.
Decision makers. Decision makers are found at many levels throughout an incident structure. They may be task force or strike team leaders, division or group supervisors, facility managers, branch directors, section chiefs, functional managers of agencies or departments, or others functioning in similar capacities. Decision makers have the greatest functional information need. The information being provided to this group strongly supports their role in the incident, the planning and management of the incident, and the safety of personnel. The information provided to them should have some degree of operational detail and should include information on hazards and safety issues as well as potential problem areas.
Executives. This category includes chief elected officials, high level appointed officials, and organizations with ancillary involvement. Executives are of course decision makers in their own right, but aren’t often involved at the level of detail of the decision makers discussed above. Generally executives don’t require a great degree of operational detail, but they do like numbers and statistics. Like the decision makers, they also need to be aware of potential pitfalls on the horizon as they need the information to make high level decisions to address the problem or be prepared to deal with the outcomes politically. You may have to be the most aware and response of the needs of this audience as they may have different information needs during an incident.
Where the Information Comes From
We know from communications training that information we convey must be timely, relevant, and accurate – this must be the litmus test by which you judge all SitRep content. The Planning Section should be obtaining information from all relevant stakeholders. They need an overview of what has, is, and will be happening operationally (and the outcomes/impacts of these operations) as well as all support activities and external influences (such as weather, crowd activities, etc.). Information from field operations should come, ideally, from individuals functioning in the field for the sole purpose of obtaining and providing information (field observers). Often times, however, we don’t have this luxury and have to obtain information directly from field-level managers themselves. Caution should be exercised with the information you receive from them, or anyone really, as some will alter information based upon their own agendas or bias. Information should also be obtained from support services, usually found through your Logistics section.
In an EOC environment we will also usually obtain information from the agencies and functions represented there. These agencies are also audiences for the SitRep so they get to see first-hand how their situational awareness contributes to a common operating picture. You may also be obtaining a lot of raw data. If it’s relevant, track this data and report on it, ensuring that it is meaningful to your audience. Leverage the talents of GIS to display this information in usable and meaningful formats. As the years have progressed, I’ve seen SitReps with less narrative and more GIS.
In obtaining information, I’ve found that a form or script can be of the greatest help. It ensures not only consistency in the information being gathered but it also ensures that nothing is missed. Often those reporting information will have a particular perspective which will be the focus of their reporting. Asking additional questions encourages them to think more broadly. Be sure to get your information sources on a firm schedule so you are not waiting on their information. Late information from your sources will result in a late or incomplete SitRep. Personnel may need regular reminders to compile and submit their situational information. Also be sure to give GIS plenty of time to do their work. Set a publication time and work backwards to establish reporting and work schedules for everyone involved.
Remember – timely, relevant, and accurate. While a short summary of previous actions may be important to provide context, it is not necessary to provide a long historical narrative. Be sure to report on the outcomes or effectiveness of actions. This detail of progress is important for a situation report. As far as accuracy, work to verify information to the greatest practical extent, especially any information that is speculative. Inaccurate information can be career ending.
Organizing the Information
Typically you only have time to assemble one SitRep, despite having to serve multiple audiences. Inclusion of an executive summary is then a very appropriate means of providing an area within the SitRep for those audiences which need a shorter overview. After the executive summary you have a great deal of flexibility on the structure and formatting of the document, but keep things organized and largely consistent from report to report. Often times SitReps are organized the way we organize the incident – have you organized functionally or geographically? It may be a mix of the two, so organize your SitRep based upon that. Simply find a format that makes sense. I like to arrange information that applies to everyone first, such as a weather forecast. You may have information such as statistical tables or GIS products which are best provided as attachments so they don’t interrupt the flow of the narrative.
Keep in mind that this is NOT a document providing operational direction – that comes from an Incident Action Plan (IAP). Therefore, all associated operational information such as safety matters, communication plans, etc. should be included in the IAP and generally not replicated in the SitRep. Those who need access to that operational information should be also receiving copies of the IAP. A short synapsis of the SitRep can be provided in the IAP to add context and to provide information for operators but should not be replicated to any great extent.
Conclusion
Creating a situation report takes a lot of time and patience and is not something to be hurried, but their publication is something counted on so they must adhere to a schedule. It is very much a ‘garbage in – garbage out’ activity, so the quality of the information coming in is extremely important. A large incident or event may require a largely staffed Situation Unit to collect and organize information. SitReps should always be reviewed before being finalized. It is a professional report so attention should be paid to things like grammar and spelling.
So what have you learned from your experiences in assembling situation reports?
Need help building SitRep templates and standard operating guidelines? Emergency Preparedness Solutions can help! www.epsllc.biz
© 2015 – Timothy Riecker
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
Last week I posted a YouTube video shortly explaining how care facilities (shelters, warming centers, family assistance centers, etc.) should be positioned within an Incident Command System structure.
© 2014 – Timothy Riecker
We know that good emergency plans are the cornerstone of preparedness. Often times it is local governments that have difficulty putting quality plans in place because they don’t have knowledgeable personnel or funds available to make this happen. This gap is critical since we know that all disasters begin and end locally, so quality local plans are an imperative.
States provide financial assistance to local governments through a local allocation of the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), which is an annual grant program through FEMA/DHS as a component of the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). While there is always some variance in the goals or focus of EMPG, the overall concept and allowable costs are fairly static and the emphasis is always on preparedness.
Preparedness, however, encompasses a lot of activities. The best breakdown is POETE – Planning, Organizing, Equipping, Training, and Exercising. Just from this we can see a lot of opportunity to spend money on a lot of needed activities. Planning, however, regularly needs to be revisited. While funding the other activities may be important, they mean very little without a quality, up to date plan. All preparedness activities should relate somehow back to the plan, such as equipment and training efforts to shore up capabilities identified for need through the planning process. This applies to everyone by the way – federal, state, and local governments; private sector; and not for profits.
How can states (or any other grant or budget managers) continue to emphasize the importance of planning? I’ve recently seen a best practice by the State of New Hampshire which is similar to the federal administration of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs. First, they make funds available for, and only for, planning. This includes new plans and plan updates. Once plans have been developed that meet their standards, then additional funds can be requested for supporting preparedness activities. This building block preparedness approach helps provide targeted funds solely for plan improvements while helping to ensure that subsequent funds are provided for activities that associate with the plan and addressing or identifying (by way of exercises) gaps. While it can be a bit cumbersome, I think it’s a great model for promoting preparedness the right way.
Thoughts?
©2014 – Timothy Riecker
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
The THIRA (Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment) process is the most comprehensive hazard analysis in emergency management and homeland security. It provides more information than the traditional hazard analysis by examining each hazard through the lens of each of the 31 Core Capabilities which have been specifically defined by the stakeholders of the jurisdiction. The end result of the THIRA is a snapshot of the hazards a jurisdiction faces and the identification of what is needed to handle that hazard within each of the five mission areas (Prevention, Protection, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation). It can be a complex process, but well worth the investment of time for a jurisdiction. More, however, can be learned and the THIRA should inform more than just your plans.
For states and UASIs (Urban Area Security Initiative jurisdictions), the process continues in the form of the SPR (State Preparedness Report). The SPR uses the THIRA data and applies a POETE (Planning, Organizing, Equipping, Training, and Exercising) analysis to each capability. The POETE analysis drills deeper into each capability, allowing the jurisdiction to better understand their strengths and weaknesses within each capability. This is extremely valuable information and clearly there are benefits to more than just states and UASIs conducting a POETE analysis. The SPR process also prompts jurisdictions to assign a priority to each capability – High, Medium, or Low. All in all, this provides a depth of data, but what does it all mean?
While the SPR process expands on the THIRA foundation by prompting a more in-depth analysis of each capability, the end result is a multitude of data points. Taken individually, a jurisdiction can examine details of a specific capability, but further analysis needs to be undertaken to see the big picture. Many jurisdictions rate quite a few of the 31 Core Capabilities as a High priority. So what do you focus on? If everything is a priority then nothing is a priority!
In response to this, Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC has developed a proprietary Capability Prioritization which incorporates stakeholder-assigned priorities while also considering the ratings provided in the POETE analysis. The results of the Capability Prioritization provide a relative priority ranking of the Core Capabilities for the jurisdiction which can give the jurisdiction a better view of the overall priorities for continued development of preparedness strategies across the POETE spectrum, policy issues, investment justification, and resource allocation.
Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC is skilled and experienced in conducting THIRAs and POETE Analysis – plus we equip your jurisdiction with usable data and recommendations based on our findings. Contact us today to jumpstart and focus your preparedness efforts. The investment will pay off! Be Proactive, Be Prepared! ™
© 2014 – Timothy Riecker
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
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.
The Contrarian Emergency Manager 