Tag Timothy Riecker

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

 

 

 

What, if Anything, Will Change in Law Enforcement?

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

The events this past month in Ferguson, MO have caught not only national but international attention.  As I’ve mentioned in earlier blog posts and comments to others, we still do not yet know all the facts of what actually transpired in the death of Michael Brown, therefore I urge everyone to hold off on any analysis or judgment and allow the family to grieve and judicial processes to work. 

The other topic of discussion related to Ferguson, MO has been the use of police force and the equipment used by law enforcement.  This has spurred a number of national-level news stories and even a request by the President to examine the programs which provide surplus military-grade equipment to law enforcement authorities.  One such article can be found here. 

Such inquiries can certainly be conducted but the fact of the matter is that the items that law enforcement is obtaining, such as body armor and armored vehicles, can be purchased on the open market.  Armored vehicles of some type have been in the possession and use of law enforcement agencies decades before this post-9/11 program ever existed.   The primary intent of the post-9/11 program is to bolster the resources of law enforcement agencies in the event that they encounter a terrorist threat.  Having these resources for that purpose doesn’t mean we should moth-ball them away in the event of a terrorist attack, however.  They should be used so our officers are familiar with them.  We’ve certainly seen other legitimate uses such as responses to mass shootings, busting drug labs, and gang-related responses and arrests.  Examine the case of the 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery where heavily armed and armored men simply had their way with LAPD.  Law enforcement should never be caught in this type of situation again.  A badge and a six-shooter just don’t cut it any more.  Gun control laws have proven wholly ineffective against criminals who are determined to obtain high powered weapons.  Clearly law enforcement must continue to have the upper hand to defeat these criminals and protect the public. 

The CBS article referenced in the second paragraph does bring about some interesting examples of potential overzealousness in the use of these resources, however.  Note that I do say ‘potential’, as a mere mention by the media does not tell the whole story, but we have seen articles with similar mentions over the last few years which do give cause to at least raise an eyebrow.  The article suggests that perhaps additional training is needed in the deployment and use of such resources.  I would suggest that the use of these resources must first be rooted in policy and procedure, accountability, and then training – just like everything else done in law enforcement and throughout most of public safety.  I’m sure most departments who possess these resources already have such things in place, but some may not.  Clearly we need to balance officer safety with operational necessity and even public perspective. 

While I’ve worked with law enforcement for years, I’ve never worked in law enforcement.  I’m curious about what others think.  What, if anything, will change in law enforcement as a result of the events in Ferguson, MO? 

© 2014 – Timothy Riecker

Emergency Visions Experts Corner

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

I’m proud to announce that I have been recently included in the Emergency Visions Experts Corner.  Emergency Visions is a company I have recently been chatting with regarding their technology solutions for THIRA and resource management.  The Emergency Visions software solutions are well thought through to ensure applicability across any jurisdiction or organization helping clients to track data real-time and perpetually to aid in preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. 

As part of their Experts Corner, I will partner with Emergency Visions to provide topical information, similar to this blog, and also have plans to conduct a webinar this October with them and their partner Carahsoft on the THIRA process and integrating THIRA results into other preparedness endeavors.  I encourage you to check out some of the blog posts and webinars already listed on the Emergency Visions website.  I’ll post information on the upcoming webinar once we have the details hammered out. 

Thanks as always for following this blog.  I’m grateful for the opportunity to continue to share ideas with others in the emergency management and homeland security field. 

– Tim Riecker

An Academic Study in Ferguson Civil Disorder

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

From an academic and emergency management lessons learned perspective, there will be a great deal to learn from the events in Ferguson, Missouri.  In this brief article on Western Illinois University’s Emergency Management program, faculty comment on how a few of the courses within their degree program expect to analyze this social disaster. 

I anticipate a lot of post-incident analysis once we have the facts of this event.  Respecting the loss of life as we do in any disaster, the practice of emergency management within the greater professions of public safety and even government administration stand to learn a great deal from an after action analysis of this incident to help us improve by preparing for and preventing the impacts of future incidents. 

Cyber Security Video – Stop. Think. Connect

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

Students and faculty from Grand Valley State University created a video for the West Michigan Cyber Security Consortium and the US Department of Homeland Security’s campaign on cyber security called Tapping In – Stop. Think. Connect.  The information site for the video (including a link to the video) can be found here – Stop. Think. Connect.

It’s a clever video about the dangers of hackers, the importance of individual vigilance, and ways to maintain your own cyber security.  Overall the video is well done and the music is catchy, although I think the production is a bit long (five and a half minutes), leading to the message getting a back seat to the music.  I do like the characterization and the vignettes that drive the video and the overall message.  I’m hopeful they will edit down the piece to provide video segments a bit more palatable to our short attention spans and conducive to inclusion in advertising campaigns. 

More of this is needed.  The public at large seems to pay little attention to cyber security and the role that individuals play in it.  While data infiltrations of large corporations like Target get a great deal of media attention, hackers and phishing scams lead to data and identity theft of individuals on a daily basis. 

How do you promote cyber security in your organization or jurisdiction?  What materials and methods do you use to promote it?  Do you feel you are reaching your audience?  

© 2014 – Timothy Riecker

Keeping Up With Changes in Emergency Management

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 4 Comments

As with many things in life, the field of emergency management has changed and will continue to do so.  Much of this change is an evolution – generally positive and productive adjustments to make us more effective and efficient in what we do supported by doctrine and models to guide our actions and provide consistency of application.  Sometimes changes are made which simply give the illusion of progress or are applied much like a Band-Aid as a knee-jerk stop-gap measure which usually fail unless a better implementation is put in place.  Many of the better thought out applications, however, do tend to stick.  While we have seen a great deal of change in the field over the last 14 years, we have largely seen a clear progression with practitioners and policy makers learning from previous programs. 

Yesterday I encountered two separate instances which did not apply current practices and policies. The first was an advertisement for a training program which discussed the four phases of emergency management.  The second was an article in which the author stated that ‘…preparedness is no longer part of the (emergency management) lexicon…’.  The two items, while different, are related in that they both indicate a lack of understanding in the evolution we have made from the four phases of emergency management – mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. 

In a nutshell, these long standing phases began to change soon after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 with the integration of homeland security with emergency management resulting in the inclusion of ‘prevention’ into the emergency management phases – thus prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.  As minor as this seems, it was quite a change for those of us who had been in the world of the four phases for a while and was a difficult pill to swallow.  Along with the human nature of resistance to change there was still a feeling that the matter wasn’t quite fully settled – in other words, more change would come. 

For several years different models were kicked around but none really gained traction until the issuance of Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD8), which created the National Preparedness Goal and the National Preparedness System.  These begat things like the Core Capabilities (a revamping of the predecessor Target Capabilities) and the introduction of the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) as well as a new way of viewing the major activities within emergency management and homeland security – the five mission areas of prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery.  These five mission areas have re-defined, or perhaps more accurately defined what it is that we do in emergency management and homeland security. 

The traditional four phases were often depicted in a cycle.  Taken literally, this meant that you progressed from one phase to the next in a series.  The truth of the matter was that each of the four phases could actually run simultaneously.  There was also a misunderstanding that preparedness was an isolated activity, when in actuality our preparedness efforts applied to all activities.  With the further evolution of homeland security the foundational activities of prevention and then protection were identified and defined.  Pulling together these five mission areas – prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery – the National Preparedness System provides for distinct preparedness activities identified for each mission area, an organization of the Core Capabilities within each mission area, and national planning frameworks which identify the role and goals of each mission area in achieving the national preparedness goal.  Not only has preparedness not gone away, but it has been elevated in status. 

PPD8 was probably the presidential directive with the greatest and broadest impact on our field of practice since Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD5) in 2003 which drove the implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS).  Keeping up with critical changes in our evolution such as these is absolutely imperative for practitioners.  Not only do these policy changes impact how we do our jobs individually and programmatically, but they impact how we coordinate with each other, which is and always will be the foundational essence of emergency management. 

How do you keep up with changes in our field of practice?

© 2014 Timothy Riecker

Crowdsourcing CPR

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

Emergency Management Magazine has run a great article on LA County Fire Department linking its dispatch system to an app that will notify CPR trained citizens of the need for their lifesaving skills.  This app, PulsePoint, has apparently been in existence for a while and has, according to the article, 650 emergency response systems linked to it from across the country.

I was not aware of this app, but I think the concept of crowdsourcing lifesaving skills like CPR is great – especially given the narrow window of time that emergency medicine can be effective following cardiac arrest.  This concept leads me to think of what other areas within public safety can be crowdsourced, relying on the good will of citizens to provide aid in times of need.

What possibilities do you see?

– Tim Riecker

 

UPDATE

After posting this blog I downloaded the PulsePoint app on my phone.  I was amazed at the number of locations PulsePoint serves across the country.  While there were none near me I still activated the alerting feature on the app as I do travel to many of the locations listed.  When searching for the app in the App Store, I also came across PulsePoint AED, which is another crowdsourcing app which allows users to help identify the locations of AEDs in their communities (this database is cross referenced with the CPR app so users can be alerted to the location of an AED).  There didn’t seem to be any indicated in my area, so there likely are not any users around here as of yet.  I’ll certainly be keeping an eye out for these locations when I’m out in the community and contributing to PulsePoint’s database.

Having a Resource Management Common Operating Picture

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 2 Comments

Resource management is one of the most complex aspects of emergency management.  The resource management cycle could be seen as a microcosm of the emergency management cycle with a number of steps operating in sequence and some simultaneously before, during, and after a disaster.  We need to properly establish our resource management systems, procedures, and policies and keep them, as well as our inventories, up to date.

Referencing the Core Capabilities, the capabilities of Public and Private Services and Resources, Planning, Critical Transportation, and Operational Coordination all have bearing on resource management.  Resource management is also one of the key components of NIMS.  The following graphic on the resource management cycle comes from NIMS doctrine.  While this is largely a logistics issue, the importance of it all cuts across all levels of all organizations.

NIMS Resource Management Cycle

NIMS Resource Management Cycle

Consider each of the steps identified in the resource management cycle.  There is quite a bit of complexity to each.  An additional challenge is that they are always in motion as requirements regularly change, new resources are obtained, and obsolete resources are retired from service.  Often one change in a step of the cycle requires changes cascading to other steps.  Also consider the variety of people involved in each step.  No one agency or department has all the resources, therefore we are relying on information from others to create a common operating picture of resource management.  Additionally, the regularity of changes in this information require us to have establish and maintain a system which allows for real-time tracking of this information.

Any information can be viewed in a variety of manners.  A fairly simple web-based tool can allow for multiple stakeholders to input data and change resource status, but the display of that information the reporting available from such as system allows for better utility.  The integration of GIS can help us identify not only where our resources are, but what their status is (NIMS provides us with three resources status indicators: Assigned, Available, and Out of Service), as well as detailed information on the resource such as the kind and type (again, these are NIMS-driven definitions that describe the capability of a resource), the owner of the resource along with contact information, and other information including technical, operational, and maintenance information.

In a pre-incident condition we should know what we have, what capability of those resources, and the conditions for deployment.  Operating under ICS, once an incident occurs, Logistics obtains resources for the incident where tracking becomes the responsibility of the Resource Unit in the Planning Section.  After an incident, these resources return to their owners where they are maintained and re-inventoried.  Depending on the incident, owners may be reimbursed for their use which requires reporting on a variety of metrics.

Wildfire incident management practices brought us the T-Card system – a great low-tech way of tracking incident resources.  A T-Card system is easy to learn and deploy and does a great job of tracking resources but can be very labor intensive and certainly has a delay in reporting.  I’ve also used spreadsheets and stand alone databases, which allow for more flexibility and automated reporting, but still suffer from a delay with a single point of data input and management.  Networked systems allow for immediate inclusion of staging areas, bases, and other mobilization or stockpile areas and are suited for simple and complex incidents.  Consider leveraging technology to maximize your resource management common operating picture on both a daily basis and for incident management.  Of course it’s always good to have a low-tech back up (and the know-how to use it!).

What systems do you have in place for resource management?  What best practices have you identified?

© 2014 Timothy Riecker

 

Planning for a Mass Fatality Incident

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

Planning for a mass fatality incident can be almost as complex as responding to such an incident.  Mass fatalities can arise from transportation incidents, pandemics, mud slides, mass shooting, or other sudden incidents.  Thankfully mass fatality incidents do not occur often, but due to the impacts and complexity of managing such incidents every jurisdiction should have a plan in place to address them.

A mass fatality incident management plan should be an annex to a comprehensive emergency management plan.  Just as with any deliberate emergency planning effort (ref CPG 101), we start by assembling a planning team.  This planning team should represent all relevant stakeholders from across the community.  Beyond your usual public safety agencies, the team should also include the coroner or medical examiner, public health, public works, hospitals, social services agencies, the American Red Cross, funeral directors, and cemetarians.  It is also important to consider the cultural and/or spiritual requirements of how the deceased are handled so community leaders from these groups should also be included in your planning process.

Your plan should acknowledge the hazards in your community which can lead to a mass fatality incident.  These should already have been identified through your hazard analysis/THIRA.  If you have not conducted a THIRA, your planning team should discuss the impacts of such an event through a briefly outlined credible worst-case scenario then identify what capabilities are needed to address these impacts.

Assisting agencies may have some slightly different roles in the management of a mass fatality incident than they would in other incident responses.  These differences should be identified in the mass fatality incident response plan.  It should also be recognized that the causal nature of the incident is most likely to drive who will be in charge of such an incident.  Typically there are other matters which must be mitigated to save lives, protect property, and stabilize the incident which will determine who is in charge.  Because it is a mass fatality incident the coroner or medical examiner will be managing a significant portion of the incident and may also be driving policy based upon their legal responsibilities, but they may not be in command, although they may be likely to be part of a unified command.

While the coroner or medical examiner will be handling the deceased, it must absolutely be remembered that the living must also be cared for.  First and foremost are the immediate survivors, if any, of the incident who will require emergency medical care.  Depending on the nature of the incident, others may need to be treated for exposure.  Mental health care is a much more prominent issue in a mass fatality than perhaps any other incident – and the need for mental health care applies to everyone working the incident, families and friends of victims and survivors, and the community at large.

A common venue in mass fatality incidents for providing mental health assistance to families and friends of victims and survivors is a Family Assistance Center (FAC).  The Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996 requires family assistance centers to be established for major transportation incidents (the joint responsibility of the NTSB and the American Red Cross) but these centers have been used for other mass fatality incidents as well.  In additional to crisis mental health counseling, a variety of other services can also be provided at a FAC.  A FAC should be established very quickly and it should be recognized that surviving victims may be stranded in the area and that family and friends will flock to the area – many of which may have little support structure or plans for essentials such as lodging.  A FAC is also an ideal location for authorities to obtain information from survivors about the missing or deceased which will help with future identification.  FACs are often located in hotels where large conference facilities, lodging, food, and other services can be obtained.

Another facility common to a mass fatality incident is a temporary morgue.  Temporary morgues are established either as a matter of operational convenience (rather than having to transport remains to the jurisdiction’s usual morgue site) or because the usual morgue site is too small to accommodate a larger operation.  Usually in conjunction with a temporary morgue is the need for cold storage for remains.  This is most often accomplished via refrigerated trucks/containers.  The incident morgue is obviously a secure location, with only authorized personnel being allowed access.

The amount of logistical planning required to establish and support facilities such as a family assistance center and temporary morgue lend themselves greatly to pre-planning efforts, including MOUs, site-specific standard operating procedures, mobile caches of disaster supplies, and exercises to test the standard operating procedures for setting up and running such facilities.  There are a variety of resources available to assist you with assembling your mass fatality incident response plan from LLIS, the federal Disaster Mortuary Response Team (DMoRT), state health departments, state emergency management agencies, and funeral home director’s associations.  The National Association of County and City Health Officials also has information which can assist you.

Take the time to create a mass fatality incident management plan, train personnel on the plan, and exercise it regularly.  Mass fatalities represent some of the most complex incidents I’ve ever been involved in and are very multifaceted.  As always, if your jurisdiction needs assistance in any preparedness efforts, Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC is here to help!

© 2014 Timothy Riecker

 

Business Continuity and Emergency Management Standards and Requirements

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 2 Comments

When building a business continuity or emergency management program – or the foundation of that program in a business continuity or emergency management plan – there is a lot of research that needs to be performed before much work can even begin.  Some of the most critical research is the identification of the standards and requirements which apply to your program/plan.  Note a significant difference in terminology between requirement and standard.  Requirements are generally items that are in passed into law or included in regulation.  Standards are typically developed by standards organizations or accrediting bodies and are generally looked upon as best practices within an industry.  Standards are also more likely to be regularly updated whereas requirements (laws) are generally updated on a less often basis.

Where should you look for requirements and standards which apply to you?  Much of it is based upon what industry you are in and where you are located.

Start locally.  Research local laws and codes which may have requirements for certain industries.  Local emergency management planning codes that I’ve seen include industries that use or produce specific chemicals, healthcare facilities, day care programs, and the hospitality industry (hotels and resorts), to name a few.  These codes may require certain planning or notification elements which you must address.  You should search the codes/laws of your city/town/village as well as your county.  The clerks or emergency management officials for those jurisdictions should be of great help to you.  States usually also have specific planning requirements found in state law and/or regulation which cover requirements for local jurisdictions as well as many of the industries mentioned previously.  Contact your state emergency management agency as well as the state agency that regulates your industry for the best information.

Local and state laws comprise most of the requirements you will find – however certain industries may have federal laws or regulations which must be followed – many of these come from the EPA.  Nationally, however, you are more likely to find standards.  FEMA’s standard for emergency planning (which largely applies to jurisdictions but can certainly be used by other organizations) is found in Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 – Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans.  While there is no up front legal requirement to follow CPG 101 from FEMA, it may be a requirement of grant funding – yet another requirement you must explore and address.  Certain industries seeking ISO (International Standards Organization) accreditation may need to follow various ISO standards on emergency management and safety.  Overall, if your industry has a professional association or accrediting body, they are an excellent resource for you.

But isn’t there some standard that applies broadly to everyone?  Yes – that is NFPA 1600.  The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) creates standards which apply to many industries and are often legally adopted as code by jurisdictions.  The NFPA itself does not create law or regulation but they drive many of the standards we see across the nation in many applications including chemical production and handling, engineering, electrical, plumbing, building and development codes, fire codes and others.  NFPA documents are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).  NFPA 1600 is the Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs.  Typically access to NFPA documents requires membership or a fee per document (their material is copyrighted), however NFPA 1600 is seen as so critical and broad-reaching that the NFPA offers access to the document free of charge.

NFPA 1600 is comprehensive yet open enough for individual application.  You won’t see from NFPA 1600 any detailed guidance in how to write a plan, but you will see the steps of a planning process and key benchmarks they recommend be addressed in a plan.  In addition to planning, the standard also addresses program management, training and exercises, and program improvement.  Intended to be used as a tool, the standard also includes program evaluation checklists and references other best practices in emergency management and business continuity including DRII (Disaster Recovery Institute International) and United Nations programs.  An annex within the standard even addresses family preparedness programs intended for employees.

While the standards you must follow are dependent upon your location and industry, NFPA 1600 can be applicable to all organizations and should be referenced in the building and maintenance of your emergency management and business continuity plan.  For those of you dependent upon access to information on your mobile devices, they even have a free NFPA 1600 mobile app (I reference it often!).

Adherence to requirements and standards helps ensure that your program meets or exceeds all expectations and best practices.  Even if you are not legally obligated to do so, following standards, such as NFPA 1600, provides you with a comprehensive program which will help you better prepare for, respond to, and recover from disaster.

If you need help navigating your emergency management requirements or standards, contact Emergency Preparedness Solutions.  Visit our website at www.epsllc.biz.

© 2014 Timothy Riecker