Implication

Implication

1- Summarize the readings in 2 paragraphs. What is the importance of this chapter or reading to our study? It is good to identify what chapter or reading you are discussing. 2- A paragraph on two topics that were that you consider important and why 3- Topic(s) that were confusing – (pick 1 or 2 of them). NOTE: you must include the chapter/page in the reading where the topic can be found.

 

 

 

The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness
What You’ll Learn ● Why preparedness is considered the building block of emergency management ● The difference between mitigation and preparedness ● How FEMA’s Community and Family Preparedness Program educates the public about disasters ● Why evacuation planning is important ● Why special consideration must be made for certain populations when planning for emergencies and disasters ● How the Emergency Management Institute promotes community-level disaster preparedness ● The types of exercises and what each involves ● How training and equipment help first responders to prepare ● H ow businesses and nongovernmental organizations prepare for emergencies
Introduction P reparedness in the field of emergency management can best be defined as a state of readiness to respond to a disaster, crisis, or any other type of emergency situation. Preparedness is not only a state of readiness, but it is also a theme throughout most aspects of emergency management. If you look back in U.S. history, you will see that our forebearers practiced the preparedness that emergency managers use today. The fallout shelters of the 1950s and the air raid wardens were promoting preparedness for a poten- tial nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. An early 1970s study prepared by the National Governors Association talked about the importance of preparedness as the first step in emergency management. Since then, preparedness has advanced significantly and con- tinues to do so even today. The federal government dedicates billions of dollars each year to emergency preparedness, and no emergency management organization can function without a strong preparedness capability. The capacity to respond and recover from emer- gency and disaster events is only developed through planning, training, and exercising— the heart of preparedness. It is the expansion of preparedness activities, including a movement into the areas of higher education, that has led to an increased professionalism
4
98 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
w ithin the discipline. And as the role of all sectors of society in the management of emer- gencies and disasters has come to light, preparedness activities have gradually expanded to include the private sector, NGOs, individuals, and others. T oday we recognize that all organizations, whether they are private, nongovernmen- tal, or governmental, are susceptible to the consequences of disasters and must there- fore ensure their preparedness. We also know that preparedness must focus not only on the protection of citizens, property, and essential government services in the aftermath of a disaster event but also on ensuring that the viability of the community— i ncluding its businesses and markets, social services, and character — can be sustained despite the hazard risks that exist. Emergency management agencies alone cannot ensure this, which is why the practice continues to expand. T his chapter discusses the preparedness cycle from a systems approach, preparedness programs, hazard preparedness, training programs, and exercise programs. The focus is on federal efforts — predominantly FEMA — and best practices are highlighted through several case studies.
A Systems Approach: The Preparedness Cycle As an academic field as well as an applied practice in the public and private sector, emer- gency management is still in the early stages of its establishment. As such, it has thus far drawn heavily on existing external fields, including emergency medicine, fire suppression, public health, business risk management, and law enforcement, for many of its founda- tional elements and core competencies. However, these disciplines are steeped in their own traditions, methods, and cultures, and they were not developed with the same goals as those in the emergency management field. Without its own foundation joining academia and structured analytic methodologies with the practices and competencies required of emergency management professionals in all sectors, advancement outside of the govern- ment sector will fall behind. The management of major emergency events and disasters requires navigation through extreme complexity and often requires coordination among hundreds to thousands of individuals and dozens of agencies and organizations. It is out of this need that a systematic approach for the preparedness function of emergency man- agement must take such a prominent position today, not only for emergency managers and the traditional emergency services but for all emergency management stakeholders (including individual private citizens). Figure 4-1 , which was developed by the FEMA National Preparedness Directorate, shows the planning process, beginning with planning for the range of hazards that exist and working in a systematic approach toward a cyclical process to establish and improve preparedness. This cycle recognizes the importance of the four major components of any preparedness effort: planning, equipment, training, and exercise. This cycle also repre- sents preparedness not only for government jurisdictions at all levels but also the pre- paredness actions taken by individuals, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and other entities.
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 99
Step 1: Planning I n Figure 4-1, the preparedness cycle begins with the creation of various plans through which disaster response and recovery become possible. Planning is an ambitious effort in and of itself, and it requires significant effort to achieve the many tasks involved. Planning most often begins with the hazards risk assessment process described in Chapter 2, wherein all applicable hazards are identified and assessed for prioritization. While it is true that modern emergency management philosophy proclaims plans are most effective when they address all hazards risks, it is important to be aware that all-hazards prepared- ness is most effective when it takes into account, and therefore places a general focus on, those hazards that are actually likely to occur. Each community makes the best of the limited funds they have, so their full spectrum of equipment, resources, and trained staff need to focus on what actually might happen. This is why, for instance, communities in North Dakota might dedicate significant funds for the capabilities and resources to man- age snow removal equipment, while communities in Florida spend the same effort and funding on conducting evacuation plans, even though both involve an “ all-hazards ” focus. Planning also involves a scooping of community vulnerability. In the planning phase, vulnerability helps planners to understand why disasters occur, where they are most likely to have the greatest impact, and, thus, what the appropriate response should be. Vulnerability assessment for a jurisdiction, business, organization, or individual also includes an assessment of current preparedness levels to determine the capabilities and resources that may be counted on and therefore planned for. This always includes the outside resources that may be called upon in times of need, such as mutual aid partners (e.g., town to town, business to business), emergency management assistance compacts (e.g., state to state assistance), interjurisdictional assistance (e.g., federal assistance, state to local assistance), contracts with private businesses and resource suppliers (e.g., debris
Evaluation
Planning
PPrreeppaarraattiioonnReassessAssess Threat
Assess Vulnerability
ID Shortfalls Requirements
Implement Enhancements
Exercise Train
Assessment
FIGURE 4-1 The preparedness planning cycle.
100 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
removal companies, hazmat remediation businesses), and others. Statutory authorities — t he foundation of emergency management actions— m ust be understood, since govern- ment practice and authority is always dictated by law, even (or especially) in times of emergency. Emergency planning is what often fills the majority of time spent by emergency man- agement officials and those individuals tasked with the management of emergencies at businesses or in organizations. Luckily, as stated in Chapter 2, most events that occur on a daily basis fall within what is considered “ normal ” and are therefore managed with little or no problem. The product of planning is, of course, the plan, which is often called the emergency operations plan or the emergency plan.
Step 2: Organization and Equipment P reparedness is limited by several factors, two of which include actual possession or access to the equipment needed to manage response requirements and the organization of people and agencies through which the necessary response and recovery tasks will take place. Emergency management is technical in practice, and its various functions rely more and more on the use of equipment. There are several categories of equipment in the emergency management profession, including (for example) personnel protective equip- ment (PPE), which protects responders from the effects of the hazards; communications equipment, which allows responders to talk to one another both within and between dif- ferent organizations; and special search and rescue equipment, which allows responders to enter compromised buildings, navigate hazardous waters, or detect signs of life. Equipment is primarily dictated by the hazards that exist and the functions laid out in the emergency operations plan. The purchase and maintenance of emergency manage- ment equipment have always been a challenge for communities because of limited funds available. Clearly (though to a limited degree), the more equipment a jurisdiction can acquire in order to manage the consequences likely to befall that jurisdiction, the more prepared they will be to meet the needs of people and property when the time comes. However, as that ideal will likely never be reached, and so many competing demands exist in the community for those same funds, difficult decisions must be made. In recent years, however, a few solutions have emerged that help communities to better meet their equip- ment needs. These include a great expansion of federal funding for which equipment is eligible, expansion in mutual assistance practices wherein equipment that is rarely used is shared among several communities, and the development of cheaper and more effective technologies, wherein equipment that was once considered “ o ut of reach” is now more realistically accessible.
Step 3: Training T raining of emergency response officials is paramount to their ability to conduct the tasks required of them. Contemporary practice recognizes that it is not only the officials involved with the traditional emergency services who must participate in emergency
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 101
management training but also the elected officials responsible for key disaster-specific decisions, the businesses and nongovernmental organizations operating in the commu- nity that will be called upon to provide products or services, and the individuals whose responsibility it is to decrease their own vulnerability and assist in the overall community response. This is a lofty goal but one that has expanded at a rate that rivals most other disciplines. Training is conducted both at technical institutes, such as fire and police academies at the national, state, and local levels, and at the various universities, colleges, and community colleges around the country and the world. Training is also conducted by nongovernmental organizations, like the American Red Cross, by private companies that specialize in training for profit, and in the communities themselves, as is the case with the ever-popular Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) courses that are offered in all U.S. states and territories. And finally, the goal of enabling a trained public is one that continues to grow in importance in the writings and words of practitioners and scholars alike.
Step 4: Exercise T he adage that “ p ractice makes perfect” is certainly true with emergency management. Training is even more so a critical component of preparedness efforts because the rare nature of emergency events means that few officials have experienced them firsthand and thus have little applicable experience to rely on when these events do occur. Through a regimen of training, including drills, tabletop exercises, functional exercises, and full- scale exercises, a much better understanding of the realities of response is achieved, as well as the identification of shortfalls or failures in planning, training, organization, or equipment.
Step 5: Evaluation and Improvement The final step in the preparedness cycle takes the lessons learned and applies them to future iterations. Evaluation and improvement are generally the product of two sources. The first is that of exercise. By examining how the plans, equipment, and trained staff respond to imagined scenarios, it is possible to identify where changes in planning, purchases of more or better equipment, and more comprehensive training should be applied. Evaluation and improvement are also the result of actual disaster experience. Disasters show us in bold fashion the full limits of an emergency management organi- zation’s capabilities and identify the highest benefit to cost ratio for future spending and dedication of time and staff resources. Through the use of after action reporting (AAR), disaster experiences become lessons learned and the foundation of future planning cycles. Many of the topics described here are expanded upon in the remainder of this chapter. The cycle of preparedness is one that, as its cyclical nature dictates, is ongoing. Moreover, all steps are occurring at all times, in a constant state of evolution and improvement as information, budgets, staff, political will, and perceptions change.
102 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mitigation versus Preparedness Despite their unique definitions and both being distinct emergency management func- tions, significant confusion often arises over what constitutes mitigation and prepared- ness (and to what extent these two functions overlap). At the federal level, mitigation and preparedness are highly defined, with FEMA maintaining two completely distinct direc- torates (mitigation and national preparedness) to manage these functions. However, at the state, local, organizational, and private levels, there is much less of a defined bound- ary between the two. The major distinction between these two functions at every level is best characterized by the mission of the actions themselves, which calls into play the definitions that have been provided for mitigation and preparedness. In most simple terms, mitigation attempts to eliminate hazard risk by reducing either the likelihood or the consequences of the risk associated with the particular hazard. Associated activities, devices, or actions try to prevent a hazard from ever manifesting into a disaster in the first place, or they try to make the disaster much less damaging to humans, property, or the environment if an emergency or disaster situation arises. Typically, these actions are taken prior to the instance of an emergency event. Preparedness, on the other hand, seeks to improve the abilities of agencies and individuals to respond to the consequences of a disaster event once the disaster event has occurred . Preparedness assumes the occurrence of an event, whereas mitigation attempts to prevent the event altogether.
Preparedness: The Emergency Operations Plan T he emergency operations plan (EOP) is the playbook by which emergency management response operations are conducted. However, the development of an EOP is not just a documentation of what will be done and by whom, but rather it is the process by which these factors are determined. The planning process, like the preparedness process, is a cyclical one that is dependent on each of the subsequent steps on the preparedness cycle, and each determines how the other changes periodically. Planning must be dynamic to be effective to meet the changing character and needs of the jurisdiction or organization for which it is conducted. T he National Response Framework (which is discussed in Chapter 6) is but one exam- ple of an emergency plan. Emergency plans literally come in all shapes and sizes and in all manner of quality. These plans, however, are designed by a standard paradigm. Through an evolutionary process of lesson sharing, doctrine, and guidance, select components now appear in almost all emergency plans. These components have formed because they are the most logical presentation through which the response and recovery needs of juris- dictions and agencies may be represented and therefore relied upon in times of need. These components include the following:
● The Base Plan: Contains the most comprehensive information about the community, its risks, its statutory authorities, and the general concept by which emergency
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 103
operations are conducted (including the officials responsible and the tasks they will be held accountable for). This section also includes the assumptions according to which the plans were created and the process by which the plans are updated and distributed. ● Functional Annexes: Describe in more detail the different types of assistance that the responsible agencies and officials will provide, assigning responsibility for more task- oriented information. The functional annexes tend to be more operational in nature than what is found in the base plan. ● Hazard or Situational Annexes: Hazard annexes recognize that despite the all- hazards nature of base plans, some of the factors are unique to specific hazards that must be described in detail and communicated to emergency management and related officials when the need arises. Using hazard annexes keeps situation-specific information out of the base plan, which can make the base plan more concise and more effective in the time-constrained period of disaster response.
The planning process and the emergency operations plan both depend heavily on all of the steps in the preparedness cycle. Planning both dictates and accounts for the equip- ment that must be purchased to treat the disaster consequences that are planned for and to carry out the tasks assigned. Planning also becomes the basis of training and exercise, and responders train to the capabilities laid out in the plan and rely upon the assump- tions captured by the plan to determine those core competencies that are sought. The exercises that are conducted test the jurisdiction’s or organization’s ability to carry out what is prescribed in the plan. Nationwide planning efforts are currently guided by the FEMA-produced Comprehen- sive Planning Guide-101 (CPG-101) . This federal document was created to provide gen- eral yet standardized guidelines on developing emergency operations plans (EOPs) and the terminology used in planning efforts and emergency management in general. The purpose of this guide was to promote a common understanding of the fundamentals of planning and decision making, which in turn would foster a more coordinated response when multiple agencies responded in concert to large-scale, multijurisdictional events. Given the pressures on communities to adopt the National Incident Management System and the contingencies placed on federal grant programs, it is understandable that com- munities would require such guidance. CPG-101 is not the first instance of the federal government providing guidelines. In fact, as long as 50 years ago, the Federal Civil Defense Guide was released for the same purpose. The Civil Preparedness Guide 1-8, Guide for the Development of State and Local Emergency Operations Plans, and State and Local Guide (SLG) 101, Guide for All-Hazards Emergency Operations Planning followed, and they were influential predecessors to CPG-101 . CPG-101 can be accessed at http://www.fema .gov/pdf/about/divisions/npd/cpg_101_layout.pdf . Many states guide EOP planning efforts through the release of standard planning guide- lines. Some states even provide templates for EOP development, which allow for stan- dardization of not only content but of structure as well. From a state-level coordination
104 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
p erspective this makes perfect sense because a unified command response will call upon some form of synchronization from the various agencies involved. Such templates ensure that responders are referring to the same functions and using the same terminology, among other needs. Virginia is one state that has such guidelines, which can be accessed at http://www.vaemergency.com/library/plans/local_eop.cfm .
Evacuation Planning F or many communities, one of their most important planning considerations is how they will evacuate citizens in the event of a major disaster. For disasters where advanced notice of a hazard event is possible (e.g., hurricanes or tsunamis) or for situations where it is essential that all citizens be removed from the affected area as soon as possible after an event has occurred (e.g., terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction), advanced planning is required in order to determine, among other things, activation pro- cedures, the determination of adequate and effective routes, methods of transportation, destinations for those evacuated, security precautions for homes and belongings, adher- ence by citizens to evacuation orders, and facilitation of the evacuation itself. While many communities have conducted some form of evacuation planning as part of the basic emergency operations plan, few have been able to conduct a full-scale test that gives them an accurate idea of how the plan will work in a real-life situation. The difficulties that were experienced by local emergency managers in the evacuations from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 highlight both the need for evacuation planning and the shortfalls of existing plans. In the Katrina evacuation — the largest in U.S. his- tory, resulting in the displacement of over 1.3 million people — failure to consider how the evacuation would affect people of lower economic standing resulted in thousands refus- ing to or being unable to leave. In Hurricane Rita, as determined by a University of Texas study, a strong majority of the deaths (90 of the 113) associated with that storm were a result of the poorly planned evacuation itself. After these events, the U.S. Department of Transportation conducted a study of the evacuation plans in the Gulf Coast region, where hurricanes are most likely to strike. The study looked at each of the five Gulf Coast states (Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) and 58 of the counties and parishes in them to determine where the weaknesses lay in their evacuation plans and to learn from any best practices that existed. According to this study, seven key elements can be used to measure the compre- hensive nature of a plan:
● Decision making and management ● Planning ● Public communication and preparedness ● Evacuation of people with special needs ● Operations ● Sheltering considerations ● Mass evacuation training and exercises
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 105
T he study found that while most of the plans were effective in terms of creating stan- dard operating procedures, conducting exercises and drafting after-action reports, updat- ing plans, and defining evacuation direction and control, they were often weak in the following areas:
● Keeping evacuees informed during the evacuation ● Providing for evacuating individuals with various special needs ● Returning evacuees to their homes ● U sing contraflow (reversed lane) operations ● Providing for the care and protection of animals
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
Evacuation planning research has come to the forefront since the experiences in Texas and Louisiana exposed the challenges posed in any evacuation effort. Although many lessons were learned from the botched evacuation after Hurricane Katrina, it was obvious that little progress had been made before the evacuations during the lead-up to Hurricane Rita occurred. The following reports provide insight into the issues involved in evacuation planning and the difficulties in bringing about progress. The Texas House Research Organization. Evacuation Planning in Texas: Before and After Hurricane Rita. http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/interim/int79-2.pdf U .S. Department of Transportation. Report to Congress on Catastrophic Hurricane Plan Evaluation. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/hurricanevacuation/
Emergency Planning for Special Needs Populations T raditionally, emergency planning has looked at a homogenous population thought of collectively as the “ community. ” However, communities are made up of distinct individu- als and groups, each with unique conditions that define their lives, their interactions, and their abilities. Several of these individuals have special needs that emergency planners must consider when drafting emergency operations plans and other emergency proce- dures in the community. In the absence of such consideration, any plans are likely to fail these individuals, as their provisions will be irrelevant or inappropriate. T here is no set criteria that categorizes an individual as “ s pecial needs.” Likewise, there is no standard set of special needs populations that exist in all communities. Each community must assess its own population to determine what special needs exist and how those needs must be addressed in the emergency plan if it is to adequately protect all of the community’s citizens equally. I n considering special needs populations, planners must work with representatives from each group (or, in the case of children, the mentally ill, and other groups, they must work with experts who deal with those types of individuals). By including these key
106 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
stakeholders, the planners are better able to adjust existing policies or to create new poli- cies that allow for the safety and security of these groups before, during, and after emer- gency events. Consideration of special needs groups is something that must be addressed in all four phases of emergency management. The following are examples of consider- ations that must be made:
● Foreign language training and materials ● Registry of special needs individuals ’ locations and emergency requirements ● Special emergency equipment and forms of transportation ● Special communications equipment or methods ● Alternate (nontraditional) warning media and procedures ● Special protection measures at shelters and during evacuations ● Inclusion of certain prescription drugs and physical support devices in shelters and other emergency facilities ● Special education measures targeting newcomers and transient populations ● Special transportation and holding facilities for incarcerated evacuees or victims ● Training for emergency responders in special needs care
During many, if not all, of the recent U.S. disasters, it was apparent that certain special needs populations exhibited a greater degree of vulnerability and, as a result, experienced a proportionally greater impact than other groups affected by the same event. Two specific examples include the 1995 heat wave in Chicago, in which almost all of the 600 victims were elderly poor, and Hurricane Katrina, where most of the residents who failed to evac- uate (and died as a result) were the urban poor. In the recovery phase of Katrina (as well as many other recent major disasters), it was the illegal immigrant population, who had never registered for services out of fear of deportation, who suffered to a greater degree. To an increasing degree, however, campaigns advocating for increased consideration of spe- cial needs populations in emergency planning, initiated primarily by activist groups rep- resenting the individual groups, have accelerated the acceptance by emergency planners of the planning need throughout the United States.
CRITICAL THINKING
Why is evacuation planning so difficult? What kinds of things can go wrong during an actual evacuation? What do you think can be done to minimize these potential setbacks?
Preparedness Equipment E mergency management organizations rely upon an incredibly diverse range of equipment categories with which they perform the response roles assigned to them. These categories of equipment, which include (among many others) personal protective equipment (PPE), firefighting apparatus, and communications systems, are described in detail throughout
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 107
this book. Equipment is very important in the preparedness phase because it is during this phase that equipment needs are identified, equipment is purchased, and staff are trained in the use of the equipment. The federal government, through FEMA, facilitates the acquisition of significant amounts of emergency management equipment at the state and local levels through a number of emergency management grant vehicles with an equipment focus. In order to inform communities about the specific categories and specifications of equipment that are eligible under these grants, FEMA created the authorized equipment list (AEL). The AEL is a virtual catalog of the many different types of equipment that responders are likely to require in the course of their response and recovery efforts. This list indicates a continued federal focus on the terrorism hazard, even though most of these grant programs maintain all-hazards eligibility.
Education and Training Programs E ducation and training have always been integral to the emergency services. Firefighters receive their education at the fire academy, police officers get theirs at the police acad- emy, and EMS officials get medical and emergency first aid training from both public and private sources. However, a revolution of sorts has occurred in the provision of education and training in the emergency management profession. Only a few decades ago, emer- gency management was an outgrowth of the emergency services and a position for which little or no training was provided (nor was it felt that additional training was needed). The advent of emergency management training and education coincided with the cre- ation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1979, which touched off the devel- opment of the practice as a profession. At that time, few officials (both within and outside the traditional emergency services) had any background in emergency management, and few people were dedicated to the function even within major city governments. At the nation’s universities, few programs provided even minor degrees or certificates in the field, and only a handful of colleges offered such courses. A t first, it was FEMA that defined the profession as one that required specific aca- demic courses and training. FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute became the focus of these efforts. Working with practitioners at select colleges and universities that offered similar programs, FEMA defined the core competencies of emergency man- agement professionals and developed a definition for an “ emergency management curriculum. ” I t was the events of September 11, 2001, however, that truly transformed emergency management training and education. Since then, primarily due to an explosion in fund- ing available and jobs created in the growing emergency management marketplace (both public and private), scores of colleges and universities have begun to offer traditional emergency management degrees, and hundreds of schools offer emergency manage- ment classes. Many private training facilities have opened to meet the expanding training needs of the profession, and traditional emergency services academies have expanded
108 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
their curriculums to accommodate the growing number of courses required by full-time emergency management professionals.
The FEMA Emergency Management Institute (EMI) and National Fire Academy (NFA) S ince its inception in 1979, FEMA has emerged as a leader in providing direction for the education and training of emergency management professionals through both the devel- opment and provision of actual training courses and the development of higher educa- tion courses and materials. The Emergency Management Institute (EMI) and the National Fire Academy (NFA), both in Emmitsburg, Maryland, serve the training and educational needs of hundreds of thousands of firefighters, fire officers, emergency managers, and others. These institutions offer training program courses whose primary objective is to enhance emergency management practice in the United States. At present, approximately 10,000 students are enrolled in EMI’s resident courses. Nonresident courses, which are administered by the states through their emergency management agencies (under a cooperative agreement with FEMA), accommodate an additional 100,000 students each year. Emergency management exercises that are supported by EMI draw over 150,000 participants annually, and through the range of independent study program courses administered through the Institute’s website, several hundred thousand other individuals receive training. Three EMI programs of note are the Integrated Emergency Management Course (IEMC) curriculum, the Disaster-Resistant Jobs courses, and several Train-the-Trainer courses that are available in many different subject areas. The IEMC is a set of courses for public officials that cover all aspects of the community emergency management function. Community officials from Oklahoma City participated in the IEMC program just months before the Alfred P. Murrah building terrorist bombing in 1995, and they credit the lessons they learned through the program with helping them to respond quickly and effectively in the aftermath of that event. The Disaster-Resistant Jobs course was developed in coop- eration with the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce and is designed to “ h elp small and medium-sized communities protect the economy from the effects of catastrophic events.” This course was developed in response to the devastating impact the 1997 floods had on the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota. The EDA and FEMA recognized that more economic development planning could be done to reduce the impacts of future disasters on local economies. FEMA ’ s EMI Higher Education Project works to establish and support emergency man- agement curriculum in junior colleges, colleges, and universities. The project has devel- oped a prototype curriculum for associate degrees in emergency management. Currently, for emergency management, FEMA lists 9 doctoral programs, 61 masters degree programs, 23 bachelors degree programs, 28 bachelors-level emergency management concentrations and minors, 38 associates-level programs, 63 standalone certificate programs, and 45 addi- tional programs offering one or more courses. For homeland security, EMI lists 3 doctoral
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 109
p rograms, 29 masters programs, 14 bachelors programs, 14 bachelors-level homeland secu- rity concentrations and minors, 14 associates degree programs, and 57 certificate programs. T he NFA proclaims that “ t hrough its courses and programs, the National Fire Academy works to enhance the ability of fire and emergency services and allied professionals to deal more effectively with fire and related emergencies. ” The NFA was first created in 1975 to serve as the primary delivery mechanism for the fire training efforts of the congressio- nally mandated U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). Since that time, the NFA estimates it has trained more than 1.4 million students. Like EMI, the NFA delivers many of its courses in Emmitsburg, Maryland, and across the country in cooperation with state and local fire training organizations and local colleges and universities. T he NFA’s on-campus programs target middle- and top-level fire officers, fire service instructors, technical professionals, and representatives from allied professions. Any person with substantial involvement in fire prevention and control, emergency medi- cal services, or fire-related emergency management activities is eligible to apply for NFA courses. The NFA also delivers courses using CD-ROMs, their simulation laboratory, and the Internet.
Public Preparedness Education Perhaps the most difficult component of emergency management preparedness train- ing is the one that focuses on the general public. Public preparedness education, also called risk communication, is a field that has seen vastly mixed success. One of the great- est emergency management public education efforts came out of the civil protection era when the government sought to protect its citizens from the assumed risk of aerial bomb- ing from enemy governments. This campaign focused on the notorious “ a ir raid drills” that instructed children on how to protect themselves by crouching under their desks. Since that time, there has been a flurry of mass communication in the emergency man- agement and preparedness spectra, but very little has come close to achieving such wide- spread behavioral change. Public education efforts are not very successful for two reasons: First, most campaigns are conducted by emergency managers with understandably little training in the highly complex social marketing and public education disciplines. The field is just learning the value of a systematic or academic approach to the task, and improve- ments in efficacy can be expected as a result. Second, it is common knowledge that the public faces myriad risks on a daily basis beyond what is being communicated, and many of those daily hazards, as they are often called, take precedence over any major disaster that has little likelihood of ever occurring (as well as many other risk perception factors that prevented widespread success) to individuals. There are, of course, individual success stories, including the stop, cover, and roll fire safety drills and the stop, drop, and cover earthquake drills, but research has shown that most families still fail to take even the most basic preparations to protect themselves from major disasters even though a highly visible succession of disasters has befallen the nation.
110 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
F EMA has expended much effort over the years to manage the public education reform. Before 9/11, FEMA’s training efforts consisted primarily of publishing educational materi- als for teachers, community centers, and other organizations. After the terrorist attacks, however, these efforts expanded greatly through the establishment of a well-publicized preparedness website developed by FEMA called Ready.gov. This website provided pre- paredness information on what FEMA considered the three important preparedness responsibilities of all citizens and businesses: get a kit, make a plan, and stay informed. Unfortunately, the site never caught on, and few people even looked at it. F EMA also published the preparedness guide Are You Ready? This is a downloadable and printable step-by-step guide that discusses the risks people face today and how they can mitigate them. FEMA also published an instructor’s guide so the book can be used for a class instead of just being read (which can be much less effective). A video titled Getting Ready for Disaster also accompanies the guide, providing another alternative channel for preparedness learning. Each of these resources can be found and accessed on the FEMA Are You Ready website at http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/ . Today , one of the greatest success stories in the public education domain is the growing network of Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) programs operat- ing around the country. CERT was developed with the belief that after a major disaster, first responders are likely to be quickly overwhelmed and therefore unable to meet the demand for certain services. Factors such as the presence of mass numbers of casualties, failures in infrastructure (such as communication systems), and other confounding vari- ables like road blockages will prevent equitable access to emergency assistance. In these situations, people will have to rely on one another for help to meet their immediate life- saving and life-sustaining needs. By training members of the general public to perform many of these functions that are normally assumed by the emergency services, the scope of preparedness within the community increases greatly, and vulnerability to hazard risk is reduced. Therefore, CERT’s goals are as follows: 1. Present citizens with the facts about what to expect following a major disaster in terms of immediate services. 2. Give the message about their responsibility for mitigation and preparedness.
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
The nongovernmental organization Council for Excellence in Government developed a Public Readiness Index as part of a report it published on citizen disaster preparedness in the United States. This index rated people’s preparedness on a 1 to 10 scale based on answers to 10 questions. The questions ranged from whether people were aware of their community’s disaster plan and how to find the emergency broadcasting channel on the radio to whether they’d prepared a home disaster kit and established a meeting place for family members. The average score on this index was 3.31. This report can be found at http://www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/pri_ report.pdf .
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 111
3. Train them in needed lifesaving skills, with an emphasis on decision-making skills, rescuer safety, and doing the greatest good for the greatest number. 4. Organize teams so they are an extension of first-responder services, offering immediate help to victims until professional services arrive.
T he Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) concept was developed and imple- mented by the Los Angeles City Fire Department (LAFD) in 1985. The Whittier Narrows earthquake in 1987 underscored the areawide threat of a major disaster in California. Further, it confirmed the need for training civilians to meet their immediate needs. As a result, the LAFD created the Disaster Preparedness Division to train citizens and private and government employees. T he training program that the LAFD initiated was recognized for its ability to fur- ther the process through which citizens understand their responsibility in preparing for disaster. It also increased their ability to safely help themselves, their family, and their neighbors. FEMA recognizes the value of this program and helped to expand its reach nationwide. The EMI and the National Fire Academy adopted and expanded the CERT materials, believing them to be applicable to all hazards. Today, CERT training is con- ducted within easy reach of almost every community in the country. C ERT prepares unaffiliated citizens to respond to and cope with the aftermath of a disaster. CERT groups are provided with the skills and knowledge to provide immediate assistance to victims in their area, organize spontaneous volunteers who have not had any training, and collect disaster intelligence that will assist professional responders with pri- oritizing and allocating resources following a disaster. Since 1993, when FEMA made this training available nationally, communities in almost all states and territories have con- ducted CERT training. The CERT course is delivered in the community by a team of first responders who have the requisite knowledge and skills to instruct the sessions. The CERT training for community groups usually is delivered in two-and-a-half-hour sessions, one evening per week, over a seven-week period. CERT is maintained by the FEMA Community Preparedness Division, which also runs the Citizen Corps Program that oversees CERT.
Emergency Management Exercises Once a plan has been developed, equipment has been purchased, and personnel have been trained in the plan and the use of equipment, it is time to make sure that a criti- cal level of preparedness has been achieved. In actuality, the only true validation of pre- paredness efforts comes as the result of a response to an actual disaster event. However, it serves little good to wait until such an event occurs because at that point it is too late to identify weaknesses and make changes as necessary. In order to substitute for “ b attle- field experience,” emergency management agencies use programs of disaster exercises to simulate many of the situations that may arise. Exercises provide an opportunity to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the plan and its components and to test the systems, facilities, and personnel involved in
112 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
implementing the plan. Exercises are conducted at all levels of government, in the pri- vate sector, at educational facilities, and more. FEMA defines an exercise as “ a con- trolled, scenario-driven, simulated experience designed to demonstrate and evaluate an organization’s capability to execute one or more assigned or implicit operational tasks or procedures as outlined in its contingency plan.” These are the common categories of emergency management exercises (Coppola, 2006):
● Drill. A controlled, supervised method by which a single disaster management operation or function is practiced or tested. ● Tabletop exercise. Designed to allow officials to practice components of or the full activation of the emergency response plan within the confines of a controlled, low- stress discussion scenario. ● Functional exercise. Tests and practices response capabilities by simulating an event to which responsible officials must respond. Unlike a drill, which tests one function or activity, the functional exercise tests a full range of associated activities that together fulfill a greater overall response purpose. ● Full-scale exercise. A scenario-based event that seeks to create an atmosphere closely mimicking an actual disaster. All players required to act during a real event, as outlined in the EOP, are involved in the full-scale exercise, working in real time and using all of the required equipment and procedures ( Figures 4-2 and 4-3 ).
F EMA supports exercises at all jurisdictional levels through the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP; pronounced “ hee-sep ” ). HSEEP was created to provide guidance and standardization to the exercise efforts of emergency management
FIGURE 4-2 Salinas, Puerto Rico, March 25, 2009. To test a swift response to an unexpected disaster in Salinas, FEMA joined the PR State Emergency Management Agency, the National Guard Bureau, the U.S. Department of Defense Northern Command, and other federal, state, and local emergency managers in the “ Vigilant Guard exercise. ” The Vigilant Guard aims to assess the response capabilities of all of the participating agencies and organizations to a simulated 7.0 earthquake scenario in the southern region of the island. Ashley Andujar/FEMA.
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 113
organizations and to develop a framework for evaluation. HSEEP has met both praise and complaint, since it is the most comprehensive tool of its kind, but many jurisdic- tions feel that it is just another way the federal government is trying to dictate actions at the local level. This, in part, is due to the fact that federally funded exercises must com- ply with HSEEP regulations and standards to be covered under emergency management grant programs, which are the only option for funding such exercises for the majority of departments. HSEEP also ties together other emergency management doctrines that have not met uniform acceptance across all jurisdictions, including that of NIMS and the NRF, which must be tested in the course of exercise conduct. FEMA requires HSEEP compliance for grant eligibility. Compliance is defined as adher- ence to specific processes and practices for exercise program management and exercise design, development, conduct, evaluation, and improvement planning. Four specific per- formance requirements are established in the HSEEP policy and guidance documentation: 1. Conduct an annual training and exercise planning workshop, and maintain a multiyear training and exercise plan (TEP). 2. Plan and conduct exercises in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the HSEEP policy. 3. Develop and submit a properly formatted after-action report/improvement plan. 4. Track and implement corrective actions identified in the AAR/IP.
The penultimate emergency management exercise series is the DHS-supported National Level Exercise (NLE) program. The NLE program, formerly called TOPOFF (for Top Officials), is a full-scale exercise held once a year that tests the response to major disas- ter events spanning states, regions, and across international borders. Traditionally, NLE exercises have focused on terrorism hazards. However, in 2011, NLE will for the first time
FIGURE 4-3 Salinas, Puerto Rico, March 25, 2009. Alejandro De La Campa, the Caribbean area division director, at a press conference after the Salinas exercise. Ashley Andujar/FEMA.
114 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
f ocus on a natural hazard: a major earthquake on the New Madrid Fault Zone in central United States. NLE is maintained by the DHS National Exercise Program, which provides the coordination and planning for federal, regional, and state exercise activities beyond what the states conduct themselves. NLE predates DHS because the first TOPOFF exercise was held in May 2000 to test a simultaneous biological attack in Colorado and a chemical attack in New Hampshire. Since that time, the following exercises have been conducted:
● TOPOFF 2: Conducted in May 2003, tested a simultaneous radiological attack in Washington State and a biological attack in Illinois. ● TOPOFF 3: Conducted in April 2005, tested a simultaneous chemical attack in Connecticut and a biological attack in New Jersey. ● TOPOFF 4: Conducted in October 2007, tested simultaneous radiological attacks in Oregon, Arizona, Guam, and Washington, D.C. ● NLE 2009: Conducted in July and August 2009, this exercise focused exclusively on the prevention of a terrorist attack around the country (but focused on Washington, D.C., Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas). ● NLE 2010: Conducted in May 2010, focused on the detonation of a nuclear device.
Evaluation and Improvement It is through evaluation and assessment that those responsible for response and recovery are best able to refine preparedness capabilities. While this chapter so far has discussed the processes by which preparedness capabilities are built up, including the drafting of plans, equipment acquisitions, and the conduct of exercises, it is through the evaluation process that capabilities are kept on track and improved over time. There are several pro- grams by which emergency management evaluation may be conducted. Here are a few of the more common ones:
● EMAP: Probably the most recognizable organizational preparedness evaluation effort, the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) evaluates state, territorial, and local emergency management agencies according to the peer-reviewed Emergency Management Standard. EMAP is funded by FEMA but maintained by an independent nonprofit organization. Agencies that are interested in accreditation pay a fee for evaluation by independent reviewers. ● SPR: The State Preparedness Report (SPR) was developed to satisfy the requirements for state-level emergency management disaster preparedness defined by the Post- Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA). Under this initiative, states and territories submit an annual SPR as a means to report on the progress, capabilities, and accomplishments of their all-hazards preparedness program. This report is designed to enable states to communicate to Congress current accomplishments in meeting the preparedness priorities and capabilities defined by DHS and how they will continue to increase statewide preparedness. States develop
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 115
their individual SPRs using a standard template, wherein they address the actions they have taken to address the eight National Priorities (as identified in the National Preparedness Guidelines): a. Implement the NIMS and the NRF b. Expand regional collaboration c. Implement the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) d. Strengthen information sharing and collaboration capabilities e. Strengthen interoperable and operable communications capabilities f. Strengthen CBRNE detection, response, and decontamination capabilities g. Strengthen medical surge and mass prophylaxis capabilities h. Strengthen planning and citizen capabilities ● TCL: The Target Capabilities List (TCL) is a FEMA-administered program that identifies and defines capabilities that may be needed to respond to the various hazard risks facing the country. Under TCL, capabilities need not be maintained by each individual agency but rather must be something that the agency is able to draw upon from within its own ranks or from any mutual aid, EMAC, or other partners. Under TCL, jurisdictions are expected to develop and maintain capability at levels that reflect the differing risk and needs throughout the country. The TCL identifies 37 distinct capabilities developed in consultation with representatives from all levels of government, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations. Users refer to the TCL to design plans, procedures, training, exercises, and evaluations that develop and assess capacity and proficiency to perform their assigned missions and tasks in major events. The TCL is intended to serve as foundational reference document and planning guide to achieve national preparedness. ● NIMSCAST: The NIMS Compliance Assistance Support Tool (NIMSCAST), maintained by the FEMA National Preparedness Directorate, is a system that allows organizations in the emergency management community to self-report on their progress in implementing the National Incident Management System (NIMS). ● DEC Communications Project: The Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC) Communications Project is a FEMA-administered 28-state initiative that analyzes emergency communications. DEC’s mission focus is the provision of communications capabilities when landlines and cellular networks are damaged or congested, particularly during the first 96 hours of a disaster, for situational awareness and command and control, state and local first responders, and emergency responders performing disaster missions. At the conclusion of scheduled state assessments, an assessment team drafts a detailed report that encompasses communications requirements, proposed mitigation strategies, negotiated mission assignments, and acquisition strategies. The team also writes regional emergency communications plans and equipment specifications. ● CAS: The Comprehensive Assessment System (CAS) is a FEMA-administered emergency management assessment system that identifies issues and shortfalls across the spectrum of homeland security operations with respect to resource
116 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
allocation and the performance of specific all-hazards capabilities at the federal, state, tribal, and local jurisdictional levels. Mandated by PKEMRA, CAS assesses compliance with the National Preparedness System, the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and other related plans; assesses resource needs; and assesses the performance of training, exercises, and operations. FEMA hopes that CAS will one day function as a central repository for national preparedness data. ● CEM: Individual emergency management preparedness capabilities may be evaluated through the Certified Emergency Manager (CEM) program maintained by the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM). This fee-based program ensures that individuals have received a requisite array of courses and experience that prepare them for the demands of an actual disaster response. Those passing certification are permitted to use the acronym CEM in their professional title.
Preparedness: A National Effort E mergency and disaster preparedness is conducted at all levels of government, but it is through the FEMA National Preparedness (NP) Directorate that a national-level strat- egy for preparedness is developed, communicated, and supported. Following the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress determined, through the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Report Act of 2006, that there was a dire need for a national direction on emergency preparedness to ensure that the national government, states, counties, parishes, cities, towns, and communities were equipped with the knowledge, funding, and guidance to ensure proper response and recovery from major disaster events at all government and organizational levels. As a result, the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) was estab- lished on April 1, 2007, in order to oversee coordination and development of the strategies necessary to achieve these goals. NPD was established to provide preparedness policy and planning guidance and to help build disaster response capabilities. As a FEMA directorate, NPD has wide leverage to develop and institute preparedness programs that include train- ing courses, national policy development and state/local policy guidance, and the plan- ning and conduct of exercises, including the National Level Exercises (NLEs) described previously. T he requirements of a national-level preparedness effort are guided by the National Response Framework (NRF), which superseded the National Response Plan (NRP) in January 2008. The NRF was released to establish a comprehensive, national, all-hazards approach to domestic incident response and to provide clear guidance over the inte- gration of community, state, tribal, and federal response efforts. In order to achieve the capability to conduct the necessary actions prescribed within this framework, FEMA has released a series of doctrines guiding preparedness at a strategic level. Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8) directed the secretary of Homeland Security to develop a national domestic all-hazards preparedness goal. As part of that effort, in March 2005, DHS released the Interim National Preparedness Goal. This goal was later adapted into
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 117
w hat is now the National Preparedness Guidelines. These guidelines have the following four elements:
1. The National Preparedness Vision, which provides a concise statement of the core preparedness goal for the nation. 2. The National Planning Scenarios, which depict 15 high-consequence threat scenarios involving natural and (yet primarily) terrorist hazards according to which preparedness may be based. These scenarios have come under considerable scrutiny since their release, and their use has been extensively limited as a result. 3. The Universal Task List (UTL), which includes approximately 1,600 unique tasks identified as being key to preventing, protecting against, responding to, and recovering from the major events represented by the national planning scenarios. 4. The Target Capabilities List (TCL), which was just described and that defines 37 specific capabilities that FEMA has determined to be essential to communities, the private sector, and all levels of government in order to respond effectively to disasters.
These two FEMA programs also help to guide national-level preparedness:
● The Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP): http://www.fema.gov/ about/divisions/thd_repp.shtm ● The Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP): http://www.fema .gov/about/divisions/thd_csepp.shtm
These two programs provide preparedness guidance that is highly specific to two haz- ard threats (radiological and chemical hazards) for which significant understanding is beyond what is typically possessed by state and local emergency management officials. They also provide standards for the private, governmental, and military facilities that are the source of such hazards to ensure that these hazards are adequately contained and that the capabilities to respond to accidents or incidents that involve the release of chem- icals are in place. The National Preparedness Directorate is comprised of several individual divisions that address different aspects of preparedness. In addition to EMI, these include the following:
● Preparedness Policy, Planning, and Analysis (PPPA): PPPA strengthens national preparedness through the development of national-level preparedness policy, including (for instance) maintenance of the Target Capabilities List and National Preparedness Guidelines; establishment and support of national planning systems (such as a catastrophic planning program targeting the nation’s major urban areas); and the development of assessment methodologies to analyze preparedness benchmarks (such as the Comprehensive Assessment System and the National Preparedness Report). ● Technological Hazards Division (THP): THP coordinates national efforts to enhance preparedness in communities around nuclear power plants and military chemical
118 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
weapons sites. The two programs just described, including the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP) and the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP), are part of this division’s efforts. ● National Integration Center (NIC): The NIC is responsible for developing, managing, and coordinating all national-level programs focused on training, education, exercise, and lessons learned. The NIC also maintains the Lessons Learned Information System (LLIS; pronounced “ ellis ” ), which is an online-accessible database of best practices designed to enhance preparedness efforts of local, state, and federal emergency management agencies, and the Responder Knowledge Base (RKB), a website designed to provide emergency managers with easy access to the preparedness background data they might need (and accessed at www.rkb.us ). ● The Community Preparedness Division: This division works to enhance public disaster preparedness, mainly by administering the Citizen Corps program. Community Preparedness also develops policies targeting public preparedness efforts and designs materials that may be accessed by those who provide disaster preparedness education to various stakeholder groups outside of the emergency services. ● The Preparedness Coordination Division: PCD provides support to federal, state, and local agencies through field-based methods, primarily under the management federal preparedness coordinators, who work out of the 10 FEMA regional offices.
Preparedness Grant Programs T he FEMA National Preparedness Directorate currently administers a wide range of grant programs that target preparedness efforts at all government levels, though primarily those of states, territories, tribes, and local jurisdictions. These programs differ according to their goals, the agencies eligible to apply for them, and the activities and equipment eligible to be funded. Some of the grant programs that received funding in 2010 include the following.
Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG): $329.9 million available in 2010 T he EMPG was created to assist state and local governments in enhancing and sustaining all-hazards emergency management capabilities. Eligible applicants include the states and territories. State administrative agencies or state emergency management agencies (EMAs) are eligible to apply directly to FEMA for EMPG funds on behalf of state and local emergency management agencies. This grant has a 50 percent federal and 50 percent state cost share, cash or in-kind match requirement. Grant information can be found at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/2010/fy10_empg_kit.pdf .
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program: $57.6 million available in 2010 T he EOC Grant Program is created to improve emergency management and prepared- ness capabilities by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure, and interoperable emergency
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 119
o perations centers (EOCs), with a focus on addressing identified deficiencies and needs. This program provides funding for construction or renovation of a state, local, or tribal government’s principal EOC. Only the state can apply for this grant, though much of the funding is then passed to the local government. Grant information can be found at http:// www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/2010/fy10_eoc_kit.pdf.
The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) The HSGP is comprised of seven separate grant programs, each described here.
State Homeland Security Program (SHSP): $842 million available in 2010 The HSGP provides funds to build response capabilities at the state and local levels and to implement the goals and objectives included in state homeland security strategies and initiatives in each state preparedness report (see SPR earlier in this chapter). States are required to ensure that at least 25 percent of SHSP-appropriated funds are dedicated toward law enforcement terrorism prevention – oriented planning, organization, training, exercise, and equipment activities, including those activities that support the develop- ment and operation of fusion centers. Only the state government can apply to FEMA for SHSP funds. Each state will receive a minimum 0.36 percent of the total funds, and the remainder is based on several risk factors (four territories— A merican Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands — receive a minimum allocation of 0.08 percent of the total funds).
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI): $832.5 million available in 2010 T he UASI program focuses on enhancing regional preparedness in major metropolitan areas in support of the National Preparedness Guidelines. The program assists selected jurisdictions in developing integrated regional systems for disaster mitigation, prepared- ness, response, and recovery. States are required to ensure that at least 25 percent of UASI-appropriated funds are dedicated toward law enforcement terrorism prevention– o riented planning, organization, training, exercise, and equipment activities, including those activities that support the development and operation of fusion centers. Only the state governments may apply for the UASI grant programs, though most of the money is passed directly to the urban areas.
The Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) Program: $39.36 million available in 2010 The MMRS program supports the integration of emergency management, health, and medical systems into a coordinated response to mass-casualty incidents. The grant pro- gram seeks to augment existing local operational response systems in the preparedness phase. Only state governments may apply to FEMA for MMRS funds, but most of the funding is passed through to 124 MMRS jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction receives $317,419 to establish or sustain local capabilities.
120 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Citizen Corps Program (CCP): $ 12.48 million available in 2010 The Citizen Corps mission is to bring community and government leaders together to coordinate community involvement in emergency preparedness, planning, mitigation, response, and recovery. Again, only the state and territorial governments can apply to FEMA for CCP funds. CCP allocations are distributed according to risk-based formulas that specify that all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico receive a minimum of 0.75 percent of the total available grant funding and that four territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) receive a minimum of 0.25 percent of total funding. The remainder is distributed on a population-share basis.
Operation Stonegarden (OPSG): $60 million available in 2010 OPSG was created to enhance cooperation and coordination among local, state, and fed- eral law enforcement agencies to secure international borders with Mexico and Canada, as well as states and territories with international water borders. Prospective recipients for OPSG include local units of government at the county level and federally recognized tribal governments in the states bordering Canada (including Alaska), southern states bordering Mexico, and states and territories with international water borders. Grant information can be found at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/2010/fy10_hsgp_kit.pdf.
FY 2010 Port Security Grant Program (PSGP): $288 million available in 2010 T he PSGP seeks to protect critical port infrastructures from terrorism, particularly attacks using explosives and nonconventional threats that could cause major disruptions to com- merce. PSGP funds are used to increase port preparedness, primarily to assist ports in enhancing maritime domain awareness; enhancing risk management capabilities to pre- vent, detect, respond to, and recover from attacks involving improvised explosive devices (IEDs), chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosive (CBRNE), and other nonconven- tional weapons; as well as training and exercises and transportation worker identification credential (TWIC) implementation. Seven port areas have been selected as Group I (highest risk), and 48 port areas have been selected as Group II. Ports not identified in Group I or II are eligible to apply as a Group III or “ a ll other port areas” applicant. Grant information can be found at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/2010/fy10_psgp_guidance.pdf .
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP): $33.6 million available in 2010 R CPGP enhances catastrophic incident preparedness in selected high-risk, high- consequence urban areas and their surrounding regions. RCPGP is intended to sup- port coordination of regional all-hazards planning for catastrophic events, including the development of integrated planning communities, plans, protocols, and procedures to manage a catastrophic disaster. Eligible applicants include 11 predesignated high-risk, high-consequence urban areas. Grant information can be found at http://www.fema.gov/ pdf/government/grant/2010/fy10_rcp_kit.pdf .
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 121
Business Continuity Planning and Emergency Management Business continuity planning (BCP) is the process by which businesses prepare for disas- ters by identifying the risks to their business processes, their facilities, their employees, and their information, and then take action to reduce that risk. BCP also includes identifi- cation and enactment of the processes by which businesses are able to continue to func- tion (even if at a reduced capacity) during periods of disaster such that they are able to remain viable for the long term and so the products and services they provide to the com- munity and country remain available. BCP is the most effective way for businesses to pre- pare for emergencies because the process initiates a much greater understanding of how community risk affects the businesses and what will be required of the business (rather than being provided by traditional emergency responders or other entities). BCP, like all preparedness efforts, increases community-wide resilience, since the sooner the business sector is able to get back up and running, the sooner the community is able to recover. Business disaster planning first began with the information age, and preparedness focused primarily on information storage and retrieval. Since that time, the concept of con- tinuity has evolved in response to a changing environment. Major events have demanded that BCP encompass a growing number of concerns. The terrorist attacks of September 11 showed almost all businesses how a disaster can impact a country at a national level through the ripples of economic and psychological effects. Since 9/11, the following changes have occurred in the BCP sector: 1. Terrorism is given greater consideration as a threat by many businesses, regardless of the business focus or location. 2. BCP has expanded to include concern for the physical safety of employees. 3. BCP may involve the decentralization of business operations. 4. BCP may have to expand its sphere of concern to include the regional impacts of a disaster (including economic) to the area where a business is located. 5. The human relationships that a business depends on for its survival has become a more significant concern. 6. Businesses are striving for zero downtime during disasters by incorporating off-site operations capabilities. 7. Novel approaches are being taken with regards to critical data backup and retrieval. 8. Physical security has become a BCP concern. 9. There is an increased professionalization of the BCP industry, and more and more businesses are employing full-time emergency management and BCP staff.
CRITICAL THINKING
Why do you think the ODP focuses its preparedness efforts on terrorism? Should preparedness activities funded by ODP be all-hazards? Why or why not?
122 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
T he events of September 11 raised awareness of the fact that the survival of business depends on many external factors, such as critical infrastructure and transportation sys- tems. The federal government also recognized the importance of BCP because so much of the nation’s public infrastructure was privately owned and therefore independent of most government preparedness efforts. FEMA has begun to work more closely with busi- nesses to bring about preparedness, since businesses are not only the recipients of disas- ter assistance but are also the providers of many of the products and services needed in the lead-up to and aftermath of disaster events and therefore must be brought into the preparedness and planning process. The FEMA Private Sector Division in the Office of External Affairs leads up the devel- opment of this partnership and initiates various working groups that aim to bring about business sector preparedness and recovery planning activities. For instance, in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza outbreak, the Private Sector Division developed an H1N1 pre- paredness guide for small businesses, which were particularly susceptible to business closure from the flu outbreak because they depend on such a limited workforce. I n November 2009, FEMA announced the Voluntary Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation and Certification Program (PS-Prep). This program was mandated by leg- islation that followed 9/11. The PS-Prep Program was created to enhance private sector preparedness by providing a mechanism by which private sector entities could become certified as adequately prepared for disasters. This process involves the development of preparedness standards, of course, that did not exist previously. Participation in the program is completely voluntary, and the government maintains no authority to require businesses to comply with any standard adopted under the program. The following stan- dards were developed and/or adopted:
● ASIS International SPC.1-2009. Organizational Resilience: Security Preparedness, and Continuity Management System ● British Standards Institution 25999. Business Continuity Management: Part 1 (2006) and Part 2 (2007) ● National Fire Protection Association 1600: 2007. Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Program
T he ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) was selected to develop and oversee the certification process, manage the accreditation, and accredit qualified third parties to carry out the certification in accordance with the accepted procedures of the program. Private sector organizations, including businesses and critical infrastructure and key resource entities, may apply for certification to the applicable requirements of preparedness standards that have been developed or adopted. Certification, in the con- text of this program, is confirmation that an accredited third-party certification organi- zation has validated a private sector entity’s preparedness to a standard. DHS will then maintain and make public a listing of any private sector entity certified as being in com- pliance with PS-Prep if that private sector entity consents to such a listing, which would presumably instill greater public confidence in that company.
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 123
B usiness continuity planning, however, is chiefly driven by the private sector itself. For instance, DRI International (DRII), a business continuity planning institute, provides significant guidance on higher education programs on BCP, supports BCP research, and maintains a capacity to enable businesses to self-assess their preparedness capabilities. DRII, like FEMA, has a certification process through which businesses can prove that they have met a minimum level of preparedness for various hazard risks, thereby instilling con- fidence among investors and/or shareholders. Other organizations that provide a similar service include Disaster Recovery World, Nonprofit Risk, Business Continuity World, and the Public Entity Risk Institute.
Conclusion Preparedness consists of four basic elements: preparing a plan, acquiring equipment, training to the plan, and exercising the plan. Preparedness planning at the commu- nity level is critical to reducing the effects of disaster events. FEMA sponsors numerous planning, training, and education activities designed to assist communities and states in developing effective preparedness plans and training personnel to implement these plans. Through its National Preparedness Directorate, FEMA helps provide national-level preparedness guidance and significant funding to support preparedness efforts. B usiness continuity planning is a significant growth area for the emergency manage- ment community. The devastating impacts of September 11 have resulted in increased coordination and cooperation between business and emergency managers. The emer- gency management community has just begun to exploit this opportunity and more than ever before is encouraging businesses to become more active in supporting all phases of emergency management.
CASE STUDY: THE TSUNAMIREADY PROGRAM
TsunamiReady is an initiative that promotes tsunami hazard preparedness as an active collaboration among federal, state, and local emergency management agencies, the public, and the NWS tsunami warning system. This collaboration is dedicated to promoting better and more consistent tsunami awareness and mitigation efforts among communities at risk. Through the TsunamiReady program, NOAA’s National Weather Service gives communities the skills and education needed to survive a tsunami before, during, and after the event. TsunamiReady was designed to help community leaders and emergency managers strengthen their local tsunami operations (NOAA, N/D). The TsunamiReady program is based on the NWS StormReady model (which can be viewed at http://www.stormready.noaa.gov/ ). The primary goal of TsunamiReady is the improvement of public safety during tsunami emergencies. As just stated, TsunamiReady is designed for those coastal communities that are at known risk of the tsunami hazard (tsunami hazard risk maps can be seen at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami/time/ ).
124 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Traditionally , tsunami hazard planning along the U.S. West Coast and Alaska has been widely neglected because of the statistically low incidence of tsunamis. As result of that perceived rarity, many individuals and communities have not worked to become as “ tsunami-aware ” as they could and should be. Among those communities that are considered to be prepared, that level of exhibited preparedness varies significantly (NWS, N/D). However , as is true with the earthquakes and other rare events that generate tsunamis, avoidable casualties and property damage will only continue to rise unless these at-risk communities become better prepared for tsunamis. As previously mentioned, readiness involves two key components: awareness and mitigation. Awareness involves educating key decision makers, emergency managers, and the public about the nature (physical processes) and threat (frequency of occurrence, impact) of the tsunami hazard; mitigation involves taking steps before the tsunami occurs to lessen the impact (loss of life and property) of that event. As is true with earthquakes, there is no question that tsunamis will strike again. The National Weather Service (NWS) TsunamiReady program was designed to meet both of the recognized elements of a useful readiness effort. It was designed to educate local emergency management officials and their public and to promote a well-designed tsunami emergency response plan for each community.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES TsunamiReady promotes tsunami hazard readiness as an active collaboration among federal, state, and local emergency management agencies; the public; and the NWS tsunami warning system. This collaboration supports better and more consistent tsunami awareness and mitigation efforts among communities at risk. The main goal is improvement of public safety during tsunami emergencies. To meet this goal, the following objectives must be met by the community:
● Create minimum standard guidelines for a community to follow for adequate tsunami readiness. ● Encourage consistency in educational materials and response among communities and states. ● R ecognize communities that have adopted TsunamiReady guidelines. ● Increase public awareness and understanding of the tsunami hazard. ● Improve community preplanning for tsunami disasters.
Program Methodology The processes and guidelines used in the TsunamiReady program were modeled to resemble those of the National Weather Service “ StormReady ” program. TsunamiReady established minimum guidelines for a community to be awarded the TsunamiReady recognition, thus promoting minimum standards based on expert knowledge rather than subjective considerations. Communities that accept the challenge to become TsunamiReady and are deemed to have met these requirements set by the NWS TsunamiReady program are designated as “ TsunamiReady Communities. ” Guidelines to achieve TsunamiReady recognition are given in Table B-1 and discussed in detail in the sections that follow. Four community categories (based on the population of the community and provided in the table’s headings) are used to measure tsunami readiness.
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 125
Table B-1 Guidelines to Becoming a TsunamiReady Community Population Guidelines < 2,500 2,500 – 14,999 15,000 – 40,000 > 40,000
1: Communications and Coordination 24-hour warning point (WP) X X X X Emergency Operations Center X X X 2: Tsunami Warning Reception Number of ways for EOC/WP to receive NWS tsunami messages (if in range, one must be NWR with tone-alert; NWR-SAME is preferred) 3 4 4 4 3: Warning Dissemination Number of ways for EOC/WP to disseminate warnings to public 1 2 3 4 NWR tone-alert receivers in public facilities (where available) X X X X For county/borough warning points, county/borough communication network ensuring information fl ow between communities X X X X 4: Community Preparedness Number of annual tsunami awareness programs 1 2 3 4 Designate/establish tsunami shelter/area in safe zone X X X X Designate tsunami evacuation areas and evacuation routes, and install evacuation route signs X X X X Provide written, locality-specifi c, tsunami hazard response material to public X X X X In schools, encourage tsunami hazard curriculum, practice evacuations, and provide safety material to staff and students X X X X 5: Administrative Develop formal tsunami hazard operations plan X X X X Yearly meeting/discussion by emergency manager with NWS X X X X Visits by NWS offi cial to community at least every other year X X X X
126 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Note that Guideline 3 has been skipped because it refers exclusively to the StormReady program, which shares these guidelines with the TsunamiReady program. This is a key factor to consider, since it ensures by default that all communities that are StormReady will also be TsunamiReady (as of 2002) . As such, all communities being certified for TsunamiReady also must pass all StormReady criteria. StormReady requires access to local weather monitoring equipment (Guideline 2) and some further administrative requirements (Guideline 6). Other than that, the requirements are identical.
Guideline 1: Communications and Coordination Center It is well known that the key to any effective hazards management program is effective communication. This could not be more valid when considering tsunami-related emergencies, since the arrival of the giant waves can occur within minutes of the initial precipitating event. These so-called “ short-fused ” events, therefore, require an immediate but careful, systematic, and appropriate response. To ensure such a proper response, TsunamiReady requires that communities establish the following:
24-Hour Warning Point It is the NWS and not the community that determines a tsunami threat exists. Therefore, in order to receive recognition under the TsunamiReady program, an applying agency needs to establish a 24-hour warning point (WP) that can receive NWS tsunami information in addition to providing local reports and advice to constituents. Typically, the functions of this type of facility merely are incorporated into the existing daily operation of a law enforcement or fire department dispatching (ECC) point. For cities or towns without a local dispatching point, a county agency could act in that capacity for them. In Alaska, where there may be communities that have populations of fewer than 2,500 residents and no county agency to act as a 24-hour warning point, the community is required to designate responsible members of the community who are able to receive warnings 24 hours per day and who have the authority to activate local warning systems. Specifically, the warning point is required to have the following:
● 24-hour operations ● Warning reception capability ● Warning dissemination capability ● Ability and authority to activate local warning system(s)
Emergency Operations Center Agencies serving jurisdictions larger than 2,500 people are required to have the ability to activate an emergency operations center (EOC). It must be staffed during tsunami events to execute the warning point’s tsunami warning functions. The following list summarizes the tsunami-related roles required of the EOC:
● Activate, based on predetermined guidelines related to NWS tsunami information and/or tsunami events. ● Staff with emergency management director or designee. ● Establish warning reception/dissemination capabilities equal to or better than the warning point. ● Maintain the ability to communicate with adjacent EOCs/warning points. ● Maintain the ability to communicate with local NWS offi ce or Tsunami Warning Center.
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 127
Guideline 2: Tsunami Warning Reception Warning points and EOCs each need multiple ways to receive NWS tsunami warnings. TsunamiReady guidelines to receive NWS warnings in an EOC/WP require a combination of the following, based on population:
● NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) receiver with tone alert. Specifi c Area Message Encoding (SAME) is preferred. Required for recognition only if within range of transmitter. ● NOAA Weather Wire drop: satellite downlink data feed from NWS ● Emergency Managers Weather Information Network (EMWIN) receiver: satellite feed and/or VHF radio transmission of NWS products ● Statewide telecommunications system: automatic relay of NWS products on statewide emergency management or law enforcement system ● Statewide warning fan-out system: state-authorized system of passing messages throughout the warning area ● NOAA weather wire via Internet NOAAport Lite: provides alarmed warning messages through a dedicated Internet connection ● Direct link to NWS offi ce, such as amateur or VHF radio ● E-mail from Tsunami Warning Center: direct e-mail from Warning Center to emergency manager ● Pager message from Tsunami Warning Center: page issued from Warning Center directly to EOC/WP ● Radio/TV via emergency alert system: local radio/TV or cable TV ● U.S. Coast Guard broadcasts: WP/EOC monitoring of USCG marine channels ● National Warning System (NAWAS) drop: FEMA-controlled civil defense hotline
Guideline 3: Warning Dissemination Upon receipt of NWS warnings or other reliable information suggesting that a tsunami is imminent, local emergency officials must be able to communicate this threat information with as much of the population as possible. This is fundamental to making the preparedness program effective. As such, receiving TsunamiReady recognition requires that communities have one or more of the following means of ensuring timely warning dissemination to their citizens (based upon population, as described in Table B-1 ):
● A community program that subsidizes the purchase of NWR. (NWR receiver with tone alert. SAME is preferred. Required for recognition only if within range of transmitter.) ● Outdoor warning sirens ● Television audio/video overrides ● Other locally controlled methods, such as local broadcast system or emergency vehicles ● Phone messaging (dial-down) systems
It is required that at least one NWR that is equipped with a tone alert receiver be located in each critical public access and government-owned building and must include a 24-hour warning point, EOC, the school superintendent’s office, or equivalent. Critical public access buildings are defined by each community’s tsunami warning plan. Locations that are recommended for inclusion by the NWS include all schools, public libraries, hospitals,
128 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
fairgrounds, parks and recreational areas, public utilities, sports arenas, departments of transportation, and designated shelter areas. (SAME is preferred. This is required for recognition only if the community exists within range of a transmitter.) For counties and boroughs only, a communications network that conveys information to all cities and towns within those administrative borders must be in place. This would include provision of a warning point for the smaller towns and fanning out of the message as required by state policy.
Guideline 4: Community Preparedness Public education is vital in preparing citizens to respond properly to tsunami threats. An educated public is more likely to take the steps required to receive tsunami warnings, recognize potentially threatening tsunami events when they exist, and respond appropriately to those events. Therefore, communities that are seeking recognition in the TsunamiReady program must be able to do the following:
● Conduct or sponsor tsunami awareness programs in schools, hospitals, fairs, workshops, and community meetings (the actual number of talks that must be given each year is based on the community’s population). ● Defi ne tsunami evacuation areas and evacuation routes and install evacuation route signs. ● Designate a tsunami shelter/area outside the hazard zone. ● Provide written tsunami hazard information to the populace, including the following: ● Hazard zone maps ● Evacuation routes ● Basic tsunami information ● These instructions can be distributed through mailings (utility bills, for example), in phone books, and posted at common meeting points located throughout the community, such as libraries, supermarkets, and public buildings. ● Local schools must meet the following guidelines: ● Encourage the inclusion of tsunami information in primary and secondary school curriculums. NWS will help to identify curriculum support material. ● Provide an opportunity biennially for a tsunami awareness presentation. ● Schools within the defi ned hazard zone must have tsunami evacuation drills at least biannually. ● Provide written safety material to all staff and students. ● H ave an earthquake plan.
Guideline 5: Administrative No program can be successful without formal planning and a proactive administration. The following administrative requirements are necessary for a community to be recognized in the TsunamiReady program: ● A tsunami warning plan must be in place and approved by the local governing body. This plan must address the following: ● Warning point procedures ● EOC activation guidelines and procedures
Chapter 4 ● The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness 129
● Warning point and EOC personnel specifi cation ● Hazard zone map with evacuation routes ● Procedures for canceling an emergency for those less-than-destructive tsunamis ● Guidelines and procedures for activation of sirens, cable TV override, and/or local system activation in accordance with state Emergency Alert System (EAS) plans, and warning fan-out procedures, if necessary ● Annual exercises ● Yearly visits or discussions with local NWS forecast office warning coordination meteorologist or Tsunami Warning Center personnel must be conducted. This can include a visit to the NWS office, a phone discussion, or e-mail communication. ● NWS officials will commit to visit accredited communities, at least every other year, to tour EOCs/warning points and meet with key officials.
Benefits of the TsunamiReady Program The benefits of participating in the TsunamiReady community program include the following:
● The community is more prepared for the tsunami hazard. ● Regularly scheduled education forums increase public awareness of existing dangers. ● Contact with experts (emergency managers, researchers, NWS personnel) is increased and enhanced. ● Community readiness resource needs are identifi ed. ● Positioning to receive state and federal funds is improved. ● Core infrastructure to support other community concerns is enhanced. ● The public is allowed the opportunity to see fi rsthand how their tax money is being spent in hazard programs.
Conclusion Through the TsunamiReady program, NOAA’s National Weather Service gives communities the skills and education needed to survive a tsunami before, during, and after the event. TsunamiReady helps community leaders and emergency managers strengthen their local tsunami operations. Tsunami Ready communities are better prepared to save lives from the onslaught of a tsunami through better planning, education, and awareness. Communities have fewer fatalities and property damage if they plan before a tsunami arrives. No community is tsunami-proof, but TsunamiReady can help communities save lives.
Sources : FEMA. 2004. Fact Sheet: Tsunamis. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1104/111804h1.htm . F olger, Tim. 1994. “ W aves of Destruction,” Discover Magazine , May, 69 – 70. NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration). N/D. The National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program Brochure. http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/tsunamiready/trbrochure.pdf . NTHMP (National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program). 2003. Frequently Asked Questions. http://www .pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami-hazard/tsunami_faqs.htm . NWS . N/D. TsunamiReady; The Readiness Challenge. http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/tsunamiready/ tsunami_ready_full_document.pdf .
130 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Important Terms Business continuity planning Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) Drill Full-scale exercise Functional exercise Preparedness Tabletop exercise
Self-Check Questions 1. What kinds of organizations must consider disaster preparedness? 2. What is the difference between mitigation and preparedness? 3. What are the steps involved in the preparedness cycle? 4. According to Ready.Gov, what are the three basic steps people can take to prepare for any type of disaster? 5. What are the seven key elements that can be used to measure the comprehensive nature of an evacuation plan? 6. Name five special needs populations, and describe what makes their disaster planning needs unique. 7. Why is it important to involve representatives from all stakeholders in the disaster planning process? 8. What kinds of training opportunities are provided by the federal government? What agencies provide these courses, workshops, and other programs? 9. What are the four types of disaster exercises? What does each involve? 10. Name the ways that the National Preparedness Directorate guides national preparedness efforts.
Out-of-Class Exercises 1. Create an individual or family plan using the guidance provided in FEMA’s Are You Ready publication ( http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/ ). Did you find any shortfalls in this program? What did you learn by using the publication? 2. Contact your local office of emergency management and find out if there is an evacuation plan for your local community. What must occur for an evacuation to be ordered? Who has the authority to issue that order? 3. Determine what special needs populations exist in your community. Select one, and find out whether special preparedness and emergency planning considerations have been made to accommodate their unique needs.

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!