First Responders as Emergency Managers

I continue to see concern with first responders entering the field of emergency management, and with good reason. Of course, this does not apply to everyone who has made this transition. I’ve seen some incredible emergency managers who have first responder roots, and obviously we are all part of the public safety family with some tangible connections, but they really are two very different fields with very different skillsets. Throughout my career and as I continue to work with emergency managers across the country, I obviously continue to come across emergency managers who were or in some cases still are first responders. Those roots are very apparent in many of them and while some traits can be beneficial, others can very much be detrimental.

Several weeks ago, someone posted a question on LinkedIn questioning why there was still such a gap between public health and emergency management. While any relationship requires work by both parties, I think the strain in this relationship in most places strongly lies with emergency managers, with much of it due to emergency managers poorly suited for the position.

The knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes between first responders and emergency managers don’t organically have as much overlap as many people seem to assume. One of the most common words in job descriptions for emergency management positions is ‘coordination’. Coordination is a soft skill. A people skill. It takes knowledge and awareness of who the other parties are, what they do, and what their priorities are. It requires abilities associated with communication, negotiation, and the ability to connect. Perhaps most importantly, though, it requires a proper attitude; one that is open and not standoffish, indifferent, or otherwise off-putting to others.

There is an assumption within government administrations that continues to be perpetuated within the field of emergency management that there is a direct portability between being a first responder and being an emergency manager, thus why so many first responders continue to be hired into emergency management jobs. I recently ran a tabletop exercise with two emergency managers in the room, one who was still active in the fire service, the other who was still active in law enforcement. When they made statements, the body language of others in the room immediately changed. They were unnecessarily aggressive in their demeaner and shut down conversation rather than encouraging the exchange of ideas which was the purpose of the exercise. Unfortunately, this is a common personality train among first responders. Along with the people skills needed, emergency management is a very administrative field. I also recently met with a first responder turned emergency manager in a debrief talking about incident management. He directly expressed his disdain for the bureaucracy of incident management practices and the necessity for any measure of documentation. He’s a doer. I don’t knock his perspective, but his attitude isn’t aligned with the needs of emergency management.

Certainly, some first responders do have the acumen of emergency managers. They can see things big picture. They are able to step away from tactics yet benefit by their knowledge of tactics. They have the personality and people skills necessary to facilitate coordination, not just with first responder agencies, but with others. They seek knowledge and training beyond their first responder backgrounds, recognizing that they need to know more beyond response and beyond the discipline from which they come. These are the ones who will be more prone to success, for themselves, their agencies, and their jurisdictions.

I was a first responder for ten years, including time as a chief officer; much of this time prior to entering emergency management. While I’d like to think I was reasonably positioned to become an emergency manager when I did, I’m aware now that I certainly had some of these flaws early in my emergency management career that kept me from being the best emergency manager I could at the time. Fortunately, I had great colleagues and mentors who helped guide me. I also recognized some bad examples early on and saw how their interactions with others, especially those who weren’t first responders, were not as engaging or positive as they should have been.

Can first responders become successful emergency managers? Absolutely! But being a first responder, in most cases, should not be a prerequisite for emergency management positions. Also, hiring someone is not just about what’s on their resume. If a job requires people skills and interagency coordination, that should be a big part of the interview process. First responder or not, arms crossed with short responses or an aggressive attitude is not a good indicator of someone being a people person. As emergency managers, we are responsible for our own profession. We need to make the change from within and work with those on the outside (administrations, human resources departments, etc.) to ensure that the field continues to grow in a positive direction, ensuring success for the field of emergency management as well as the people who are brought into it.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

©2024 Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

Developing Incident After-Action Reports

Incident and event after action reports (AARs) are extremely important for identifying the successes and challenges we faced in our efforts. Just like our evaluation efforts in exercises, many valuable lessons can be learned and effective practices identified from incidents and events. Yet for as much as incident and event AARs are encouraged, there are often problems with how these are developed.

While the quality of exercise after action reports is often not up to par, a defined process of exercise evaluation along with a suggested AAR format has been available to us and engrained in emergency management practice for a long time via the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). While some concepts of exercise evaluation can be utilized for incident and event evaluation, we need to have a very different approach to be most effective.

FEMA has been promoting a Continuous Improvement concept for emergency management for several years. Incident and event evaluation is part of continuous improvement, though continuous improvement is intended to permeate much more of our daily and incident operations. While FEMA’s program has some good information that applies to incident and event evaluation, there are some important things I feel are missing.

Perhaps the most significant difference in our approach to incident and event evaluation vs exercise evaluation is the evaluation focus. Exercises, right from our very first steps of design, are designed explicitly for evaluation. The identification of capabilities and exercise objectives gives direction to our design and directly informs our evaluation of the exercise. Essentially, the intent and focus of evaluation is baked in from the start. For incidents and events, however, it is not.

Because evaluation is not a primary intent of incidents and events, we generally need to determine our evaluation strategy afterwards. The development of our evaluation strategy absolutely must begin with the identification of what we want to evaluate. This is a critical element not included in FEMA’s Continuous Improvement guidance. Without determining the focus of the evaluation, the discovery process lacks direction and may likely explore areas of incident/event operations that are lower priority to stakeholders. Determining what the evaluation effort will focus on can be considered similar to developing objectives, and as such should be specific enough to give proper direction to the evaluation effort. For example, having done numerous COVID-19 AARs, it’s not enough to say that we will evaluate ‘vaccination’. Vaccination is a very broad activity so we should determine specific aspects of vaccination to focus on, such as equity of distribution or vaccine point of dispensing (POD) operations. Obviously multiple focus areas can be identified based upon what is most important to stakeholders. And no, incident objectives should not serve as your focal points. These are operational objectives that have nothing to do with evaluation, though your evaluation itself may likely take the incident objectives (and associated actions) into consideration.

FEMA’s Continuous Improvement guidance provides a lot of great insight for the discovery process. The most common tools I use are focus groups, interviews, document reviews, and surveys. Focus groups and interviews allow people to tell their experiences from their perspectives. These offer a lot of insight and include facts as well as opinions, both of which are valid in the AAR process, as long as they are handled properly in the process, as discerning between the two is important.

Document reviews are also important. Typically I look at documents developed before the incident (mostly plans) and those developed during the incident (such as press releases, incident action plans, situation reports, and operational plans). While documents developed during the incident typically tell me what was done or what was intended to be done, the documents developed prior to the incident typically provide me with a standard from which to work.

There are a couple of important caveats with this:

1) Many plans are operationally inadequate, so they may not have been able to be followed.

2) Many organizations don’t reference their plans, regardless of quality.

As such, a big part of my document review is also determining the quality of the documents and if they were referenced during the incident or event. It may very well be that the actions taken were better than what was in the plans.

Surveys… so much to say about surveys that probably deserves its own blog post. Surveys can be great tools, but most tend to design poor surveys. They should be succinct and to the point. You will want to ask a lot of questions, but resist the urge to do so. The more questions you ask, the lower the rate of return on surveys. So focus on a few questions that will give you great data.

We then go to writing, which involves the organization of our information, formation of key observations (by focus area), a narrative analysis for each observation, and development of one or more recommendations for each observation. The analysis is an aspect that many AARs, including those for exercises, miss the mark. The analysis needs to contextualize the observation and justify the recommendations. It should provide sufficient detail for someone not knowledgeable in that observation (or of the incident) to have a reasonable understanding of the associated issues. Remember that an AAR may be referenced for years to come and can also be used to support budgets, grant applications, and obviously the corrective actions that are identified. A good analysis is necessary and should certainly be more than a couple of sentences. Be sure to identify strengths and effective practices, not just lessons learned and challenges.

I do not advocate using the HSEEP AAR template for incident and event evaluations. Beyond an awkward fit for some of the ‘fill-in-the-box’ information, the overall structure is not supportive of what an incident or event AAR needs to include. I suggest writing the AAR like a professional report. I’d include an executive summary, table of contents, research methodology, observations/analysis/recommendations, an incident or event timeline, and summary of recommendations (I do still like to use the traditional HSEEP improvement plan matrix for this). I tend to have a lot of citations throughout the document (typically I footnote these). Citations can include standards, such as NIMS, references (plans), media articles, and more.

A couple of notes: 1 – When planning our management of an event, we can be more proactive in evaluation by including it as a deliberate component of our efforts. 2 – Incident evaluation can begin during the incident by tasking an incident evaluator.

Incident and event evaluation can be daunting to approach. It requires endorsement from the highest levels to ensure cooperation and access to information. Honesty is what is needed, not sugar coating. Far too many AARs I’ve seen for exercises, incidents, and events are very soft and empty. Remember that we aren’t evaluating people, rather we are evaluating plans, processes, systems, and decisions. The final AAR should be shared with stakeholders so they can learn and apply corrective actions that may be relevant to them. Given most state public information laws, the AAR may need to be made available to the public, which is more reason to ensure that it is professionally written and that observations have quality analysis as members of the public may require context. I’ve also seen many elected and appointed officials (and legal counsels) be reluctant to have written reports or written reports with much detail because of freedom of information laws. While I understand that accountability and transparency can create challenges, we must remember that governments works on behalf of the people, and the acknowledgement of mistakes and shortcomings (as well as successes) is important to continuous improvement of the services we provide.

What is your approach with incident and event AARs? Where do you see that we need to improve this important process?

© 2024 Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

Join the International Public Safety Association

For the past few years I’ve been involved with the International Public Safety Association (IPSA). IPSA is a 501c3 non-profit organized to serve all of public safety. While it’s important for each discipline to have their own membership organization, it’s equally important for these disciplines to have one organization that supports the collective, encouraging and supporting partnerships and cooperation before, during, and after emergencies; discussing aspects of organizational management and leadership, incident management, service to our communities, and tactical cooperation.  

IPSA was founded ten years ago and has members from over 40 nations representing fire, police, EMS, emergency management, telecommunications, public health, public works, hospitals, and more. IPSA runs webinars throughout the year, publishes the IPSA Journal and industry relevant reports, and holds an annual conference.

I encourage everyone to become a member and consider the following highlighted events:

Transforming Public Safety Leadership webinar series (Beginning March 14^th – free of charge to everyone!)

2024 IPSA Annual Conference May 1-2 Mesa, AZ

If you have any questions about IPSA, please send me a message and I’ll be happy to help!

-TR

Stop Exercising Bad Plans

We know that the purpose of most exercises in emergency management (ref HSEEP) and related fields is to validate plans. That concept, though, is built on a fragile premise: that the plans are good.

Over the years, the more plans I see from various jurisdictions, the more disappointed I am practically to the extent of losing near-total faith in our profession’s ability to develop quality plans. Most emergency plans out there are crap. Garbage. Not worth the effort that has been put into them. Typically, they don’t have enough detail. Not that they need to have procedure-level detail (but those procedures should be found somewhere), but they are often written so high level that they are merely conceptual or policy-esque.

The premise that exercises are intended to validate plans would indicate a belief that the plans themselves serve as quality standards of practice for the organization(s) they are built for. The sad truth is that they are not. So, what are our exercises proving?

Gaps in exercise evaluation are a significant hurdle which are often based upon poor evaluation practices, poor AAR writing, and/or the assumption of quality plans. I find many AARs to be very superficial. They provide observations and recommendations, but no analysis. Without analysis we have no context for the observation and no examination of root cause or other contributing factors. Absent this analysis, the AARs aren’t able to truly identify what needs to be addressed. So, with the superficial, come the obvious statements and recommendations that communication needs to be improved, more ICS training is needed, etc.

What I don’t see enough of are observations, ANALYSIS, and recommendations that indicate:

1. Plans need to be drastically improved (updated and/or developed)
2. Responders need to actually be trained in their roles to support implementation of the plans (ICS does NOT teach us how to implement plans… in fact ICS training largely ignores the importance of existing plans)

What of the AARs that are better and actually do recommend improved plans? This leads us to the next potential point of failure: implementation of corrective actions. I see so many organizations are simply bad at this. They seem content to exercise over and over again (typically at the expense of taxpayer dollars) and come up with the same results. They largely aren’t fixing anything, or perhaps just the proverbial low-hanging fruit (i.e. more ICS training), but they aren’t tackling the harder-to-do, yet more impactful development of quality plans.

We need to stop assuming our plans are good. Exercising bad plans has little value to us and is typically more wasteful than beneficial.

Just like the potential causes identified above, there are numerous issues to be addressed. First of all, we need to recognize that not every emergency manager has the acumen for writing plans. The development of emergency plans is a hybrid of art and science. It includes hard and soft skillsets such as technical writing, systems thinking, organization, research, collaboration, and creativity. We have standards for developing plans, such as CPG101, which overall is a good standard (though it could be improved to help people use it). We have some training available in how to develop emergency plans, but there are some issues.

• The G-235 Emergency Planning course (now IS-235) was a great course, but the big push 15-20 years ago to put so many classroom courses online to make them more accessible and to save costs largely resulted in decreased learning outcomes.
• The classroom training in emergency planning has largely been replaced by the E103 Planning: Emergency Operations course, which is part of the Emergency Management Basic Academy. This is a pretty good course but being part of the Basic Academy (which is a great concept) also limits access to some people as the general practice is (understandably) to give registration preference to those who are taking the entire academy. Sure, the entire academy makes for more well-rounded EMs, but if someone wants to focus on emergency planning, some of the other courses, while complimentary, constitute a larger investment of time and possibly money.
• Finally, FEMA has the Planning Practitioner Program, which is a more intensive experience and certainly provides some improved learning outcomes, but with the expectation of a huge percentage of emergency managers (and those in related professions) to be proficient in emergency planning, this program simply isn’t available enough. (Note re training: yes, there are an abundance of other planning-related courses out there… I just highlighted these as examples).

I’ll also say that simply taking some classes does not make you a proficient emergency planner. Because there is art and science to it, it can’t simply be taught. It needs to be learned and experienced. Practice and mentorship are key – which is something else most EMs don’t have access to or even seek out. Training is not the only solution.

So, while this article started out with identifying the fallacy often seen in our exercise practices, I end up, once again, pointing out what I think is the biggest gap in the entirety of emergency management – bad plans. Plans are the foundation of our practice, yet we can’t seem to get it right. We are too dismissive of the necessity and process of plan development and upkeep. We are too accepting of inadequate plans that are not implementation ready. We don’t do enough to build personnel capability in plan development. So many of those who are writing plans, be they civil servants, consultants, or others, are simply bad at it. And while some have potential that is underdeveloped, others simply don’t have the acumen for it.

And the worst part about it all… we, as a practice and professional culture, are accepting it!

Many of my posts through the years have ended with a similar statement… we are treating emergency management like a game of beer league hockey. We aren’t taking it seriously enough. We need to do better and demand better. So what are you doing to support improved emergency planning practices?

© 2024 Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

An EM Mantra for 2024

As I was doing some cleaning and organizing in my office over the holidays, I came across a note from earlier in 2023 that had three words written on it:

• Flexibility
• Ingenuity
• Resourcefulness

Admittedly I don’t recall where those words specifically came from (likely an article I read), but it’s clear to me that I wrote them down because I felt them to be important to me and what I do. I think these words apply to all of us working in emergency management, regardless of our specific areas of practice. Consider making these words your professional mantra for the new year.

Flexibility – I don’t know who to credit it to, but for as long as I’ve been in emergency management, I was told that the EM slogan was ‘semper gumby’ (always flexible). In every facet of emergency management, even those that are strictly regulated or standardized, we need to always allow for flexibility. We never know what we will face, be it in steady-state operations or during disaster, and we must be able to adapt to get the job done. Those who hold too rigid become obstructionists to progress.

Ingenuity – Emergency managers must think creatively and solve problems as a matter of course. This should be in every emergency management job description. The management of crisis (and the activities that exist before and after) doesn’t always take a predictable linear path. There are challenges at every turn that require us to OODA Loop our way through to success.

Resourcefulness – The key to success in emergency management is relationships. We are a practice with so many facets, yet often so few resources of our own. Our success regularly comes from knowing who to call. Yes, as a specialized practice we do a lot of work on our own, but the quality of that work is often reliant on the input of others because we serve entire communities and organizations and must have that input to ensure that our efforts address all perspectives. Having the right connections to get the information and other resources needed, not just during times of crisis, is incredibly important. I often tell my EM students that I’m less concerned with them having rote recall of information and more with them knowing where to find the information. That also applies in practice.

As we head into a new year, let’s do so with some deliberate thought on how to turn these three words into actions to benefit our areas of practice within emergency management. Let us be flexible enough to face whatever may come at us. Let’s exercise ingenuity every day to not only overcome unique problems we may face, but to also think about how we can improve what we already do. And let’s be resourceful, leveraging the knowledge and capabilities of our partners toward common goals.

Wishing you all the best in the new year.

-TR

AHIMTA Incident Management Certification

I was very pleased to see last week’s announcement by the All-Hazards Incident Management Team Association (AHIMTA) about their certification services for incident management personnel. From their website, AHIMTA is utilizing the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the National Qualification System (NQS) as the baseline for their AHIMTA Incident Management Certification System (AIMCS). Information, including trainee application information can be found at https://www.ahimta.org/certification. In many ways, the AIMCS is a continuation of the Interstate Incident Management Qualifications System (IIMQS) Guide that AHMITA developed in 2012.

AHIMTA is providing a much-needed service, filling a vacuum that has always existed in the all-hazards incident management team (IMT) program in the US. While FEMA is responsible for maintaining the NQS, they have not actually provided certification or qualification of IMTs or IMT personnel. Last year it was decided that the US Fire Administration would discontinue their management of the AHIMT program. While the USFA didn’t provide any certification services, the program guidance they provided was valuable. They were also the primary federal agency doing anything with external AHIMTs. While some states have implemented the FEMA NQS standard for IMTs and associated positions, others have not. Even among the states that have, some have only done so, officially, for state-sponsored teams/personnel and not for those affiliated with local governments or other entities. Clearly gaps exist that must be filled. AHIMTA has continued to advocate for quality AHIMTs and personnel across the nation.

AHIMTA’s role as a third-party certification provider presents an interesting use case. While not unique, a third party providing a qualification certification (not a training certificate) based on a federal standard is not necessarily common. AHIMTA doesn’t have any explicit authority to provide this certification from FEMA or others, but as a respected organization in the AHIMT area of practice, I don’t think their qualifications to do so can be denied. Certification demands a certain rigor and even assumes liability. The documentation of the processes associated with their certification are well documented in their AIMCS Guide. While AHIMTA can’t require their certification, states and other jurisdictions may very well adopt it as the standard by which they will operate, and can make it a requirement for their jurisdiction. Aside from some very specific certifications that have existed, such as those for wildfire incident management personnel, much of AHIMT practices has been self-certification, which can vary in quality and rigor. The AIMCS program can provide consistency as well as relieve the pressure from states and other jurisdictions in forming and managing their own qualification systems. There will also be an expected level of consistency and excellence that comes from AHIMTA.

All that said, I continue to have reservations about membership organizations offering professional certifications. While membership organizations arguably have some of the greatest interest in the advancement of their profession and adherence to standards, as well as the pool of knowledge within their practice, the potential for membership influencing the process or injecting bias against non-members can never fully be eliminated. I feel that certifications should be provided by government agencies or fully independent organizations that are not beholden to a membership. Not wishing to stall AHIMTA’s progress or success in this program, I’m hopeful they may be willing to create a separate organization solely for the purposes of certification credentialing. I’d also love to see, be it offered in conjunction with this program or otherwise, an EOC qualification certification program, ideally centered upon FEMA’s EOC Skillsets, but with qualification endorsements for various EOC organizational models, such as the Incident Support Model.

I’m very interested to see the progress to be made by the AIMCS and how states and other jurisdictions adopt it as their standard. This certification should have significant impact on the continued development of quality all-hazard incident management teams.

What are your thoughts on this certification program?

© 2023 Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

2023 National Preparedness Report

Every year at this time of year, FEMA delivers the National Preparedness Report. Much like that one relative that is always a horrible gifter around the holidays, the infamous legacy of a long line of NPRs persists, reinforcing the waste of time, effort, and money through lack of value. It truly pains me to be so negative about these documents, but the disappointment of these documents pains me more. The development of the NPR is a great opportunity to provide analysis of meaningful information, yet it is consistently inconsistent in the style and format presented every year, and falls severely short of any potential this document could have. That said, there are always a couple of shining moments that each report has, if only they could embrace those and use them every year! If you would like a summary of the abysmal history of NPRs through the years, you can find my previous posts here.

The 2023 NPR (which is developed from 2022 data) kicks off in a laughable fashion in the Introduction and Executive Summary, which identifies four key findings:

1. Increasing Frequency, Severity, and Cost of Disasters
2. High Community-Level Risk
3. Ongoing Individual and Household Preparedness Gaps
4. Lack of Standardized Building Code Adoption

This is followed immediately by three recommendations:

1. Target Investments Towards Particular Core Capabilities and Mission Areas
2. Reduce All-Hazards Challenges Through Targeted Actions and Increased Coordination
3. Address National Gaps to Prepare for Catastrophic Disasters

Following the Introduction and Executive Summary, the report is structured with information on Risks, followed by what they claim are ‘trends’ in Capabilities, Focus Areas of certain Core Capabilities, and a conclusion. Let’s take a quick look at each.

A formatting issue that immediately struck me as I explored the sections was that they carried through numbering of sub sections which began in the Introduction. Seems minor, but it’s awkward and made me think in the first (Risk) section that I had missed something when the first numbered subsection (three pages into the section) started with 4. Overall, the section on Risks provides some good summaries and graphics that emphasize the increasing frequency, severity, and cost of disasters, providing both annual trend information (I like this!) as well as information specific to 2022. Page 10 of the document provides an interest graph derived from national 2022 THIRA/SPR data that lists hazards of concern. The top 5 hazards of concern listed are:

1. Cyber Attack
2. Pandemic
3. Flood
4. Active Shooter (can we PLEASE universally adopt the term Active Shooter/Hostile Event??)
5. Earthquake

Wanting to see if/how dots were connected, I read ahead a bit on these to see if there were any connections. In the Focus Areas section, Cybersecurity is prominently identified within the discussion on the Public Health, Healthcare, and EMS Capability as a threat to the healthcare sector. While this is true, the Cybersecurity threat permeates every other sector, which is only vaguely alluded to in the discussion on the Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction Capability. The Public Health, Healthcare, and EMS Capability did reinforce Pandemic preparedness needs, though the Active Shooter and Earthquake concerns had virtually no mention in the document beyond the Threat/Hazard discussion.

While I do appreciate the mention of the National Risk Index in this section (it’s a great tool), they miss the opportunity to really contextualize and cross reference threats and hazards of concern.

The section on Capabilities highlighted something I found both interesting and confusing…

In the Response mission area, communities report low levels of grant investment and lower target achievement in Mass Care Services and Logistics and Supply Chain Management. Communities also consider Mass Care Services a high priority capability. These capabilities and three of the four Recovery Core Capabilities fall within these ranges and may warrant increased grant investments.

My commentary: If communities are identifying Mass Care Services to be a high priority, why are they investing lower levels of grant funds into that capability?

The first subsection of the Capabilities section is Individual and Household Preparedness. While clearly an important area of discussion, it’s not a Core Capability, nor does the report associate any Core Capabilities with this topic. The next subsection on Community Preparedness does make some connections to Core Capabilities. It’s in this subsection that the updated chart of Grant Funding by Core Capability is provided. Yet again, the Housing Core Capability is among the loss leaders, with no sign of that ship being steered on the proper course. I find it interesting to note that Supply Chain Integrity and Security, and Economic Recovery are also among the lowest investments, despite some severe lessons learned from COVID-19 in those areas.

Among the leaders in Grant Funding by Core Capability are Planning, Operational Coordination, and Operational Communications. All that money spent, yet those areas continue to be consistently among the highest areas for improvement in after-action reports. I’d love to see an audit detailing more precisely what activities that money is being spent on within these Core Capabilities and what the outcomes of those activities are, as I suspect we are spending a whole lot of money with little resulting value. I’ll also note that this is only 2022 data. Every year I’ve written about the NPR I’ve suggested the need for multi-year analysis so we can actually identify trends, progress, and gaps over time. Single year snapshot-in-time data has such limited value.

The last subsection in the Capabilities Section is National Preparedness. Much of the information in this section is provided in a table on National-Level Capability Gaps and Recommendations. The table is organized by POETE but also includes areas on Capacity and Coordination (I’d suggest that the items contained in these two areas could have been placed within POETE). The introduction to this table states that the table summarizes high-level gaps and recommendations at the national level across all Core Capabilities. While in essence this something I’ve suggested in my commentary on previous year’s reports, this is TOO high level. It’s so high level that it is completely absent of any context or detail to really be meaningful. I’m also left wondering (doubting, really) if future grant funding will target any of these recommendations.

The next section is Focus Areas. This section highlights four specific Core Capabilities:

1. Fire Management and Suppression
2. Logistics and Supply Chain Management
3. Public Health, Healthcare, and EMS
4. Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction

While the reason for these four, specifically, to be covered is pretty evident based upon associated risk, threats, hazards, and needed improvements; I’m still left wondering why only these four, especially when significant gaps were identified in so many other Core Capabilities, as well as the lack of progress I noted earlier on other Core Capabilities despite extraordinary investment.

Each of these Core Capabilities is organized by a discussion of associated risk – which included some quality identification of trends, costs, and impacts; capability gaps; and management opportunities. Overall, the content in these areas is fine, but nothing really earthshattering. The Management Opportunities, which are mostly corrective actions, have focus ranging from federal, to SLTT, NGO and Private Sector, and Individuals and Households. Some good ideas are listed, similar to last year’s approach, but as with the previous section, I’m still left wondering if any of these actions will become funded priorities.

I noted in the Conclusion that the report does include an email address for feedback. I don’t think I ever saw this before, but I’ll be sending my collected commentary from this year and previous years to hopefully spur some changes to make the report more valuable than a superficial summary.

© 2023 Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

Gaps in ICS Doctrine and Documents

Last month I got to spend several days with some great international colleagues discussing problems and identifying solutions that will hopefully have a meaningful and lasting impact across incident management and emergency response. No, this wasn’t at an emergency management conference; this was with an incredible group of ICS subject matter experts convened by ICS Canada, with a goal of addressing some noted gaps in ICS doctrine, training, and other related documents. While the focus was specific to the documents under the purview of ICS Canada, most of these matters directly apply to ICS in the United States as well.

Overall, our doctrine, curriculum, etc. (collectively, documents) across ICS is a mess. Broadly, the issues include:

• Poor definitions of key concepts and features of ICS.
• Lack of proper emphasis or perspective.
• Lack of inclusion of contemporary practices. (management concepts, social expectations, moral obligations, even legal requirements, etc.)
• Lack of continuity from doctrine into supporting documents and curriculum. – Everything needs to point back to doctrine. Not that every tool needs to be explicitly included in the doctrine, but they should be based upon consistent standards.
• A need to support updated training to improve understanding and thus implementation.

As we discussed among the group and I continued thought on this, I’ve realized that ICS, as it relates to the US (NIMS) has so little doctrine spread across a few NIMS documents (the core NIMS doctrine, National Qualification System documents, and a few guidance/reference documents – which aren’t necessarily doctrine). In the US, via the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), we used to have a whole array of documents which could be considered ICS doctrine (in the days of NIIMS <yes, that’s two ‘eyes’>). When the responsibility for the administration of ICS (for lack of better phrasing) shifted to DHS, these documents were ‘archived’ by the NWCG and not carried over or adopted by the NIMS Integration Center (NIC) in DHS who now has responsibility for NIMS oversight and coordination. The NIC has developed some good documents, but in the 20 years since the signing of HSPD-5 (which created and required the use of NIMS) it seems the greatest progress has been on resource typing and little else.

Looking at current NIMS resources, I note that some are available from the core NIMS site https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/nims while others are available from EMI at https://training.fema.gov/emiweb/is/icsresource/. All these documents really need to be consolidated into one well organized site with doctrine identified separate from other resources and documents (i.e. job aids, guidance, etc.).

I thought it might be fun to find some examples so I decided to open up the ICS 300 instructor guide, flip through some pages, and look at a few concepts identified therein that might not have much doctrinal foundation. Here’s a few I came up with:

• Formal and Informal Communication
  • These concepts aren’t cited anywhere in NIMS documents. While superficially they seem to be pretty straight forward, we know that communication is something we constantly need improvement in (see practically any after-action report). As such, I’d suggest that we need inclusion and reinforcement of foundational communications concepts, such as these, in doctrine to ensure that we have a foundation from which to instruct and act.
• Establishing Command
  • This is mentioned once in the core NIMS doctrine with the simple statement that it should be done at the beginning of an incident. While often discussed in ICS courses, there are no foundational standards or guidance for what it actually means to establish command or how to do it. Seems a significant oversight for such an important concept.
• Agency Administrator
  • While this term comes up several times in the core NIMS doctrine, they are simple references with the general context being that the Agency Administrator will seek out and give direction to the Incident Commander. It seems taken for granted that most often the Incident Commander needs to seek out the Agency Administrator and lead up, ask specific questions, and seek specific permissions and authorities.
• Control Objectives
  • Referenced in the course but not defined anywhere in any ICS document.
• Complexity Analysis
  • The course cites factors but doesn’t reference the NIMS Incident Complexity Guide. Granted, the NIMS Complexity Guide was published in June 2021 (after the most recent ICS 300 course material), but the information in the Complexity Guide has existed for some time and is not included in the course materials.
• Demobilization
  • Another big example of the tail wagging the dog in NIMS. Demobilization is included across many ICS trainings, but there is so little doctrinal foundation for the concept. The core NIMS doctrine has several mentions of demobilization, even with a general statement of importance, but there is no standard or guidance on the process of demobilization beyond what is in curriculum – and training should never be the standard.

For ICS being our standard, we haven’t established it well as a standard. A lot of work needs to be done to pull this together, fill the gaps, and ensure that all documents are adequately and accurately cross-referenced. This will require a significant budget investment in the National Integration Center and the formation of stakeholder committees to provide guidance to the process. We need to do better.

What doctrine and document gaps do you see as priorities in NIMS?

© 2023 Tim Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC®

Ready for Anything: The Small Business Owner’s Guide to Crisis-Proofing Your Enterprise

Hi everyone!

As I’ve been swamped with work and life, I’m happy to welcome another guest post from Carla Lopez. Carla has posted on preparedness topics in the past. Please be sure to check out Boomerbig.org, a site she created for retirees who still desire to work and achieve, offering business resources for people in their golden years.

~~

The importance of emergency planning for small business owners can hardly be overstated. Many businesses focus on growth and profit, neglecting to prepare for unexpected crises that could severely disrupt operations or even force closure. Being prepared for the unexpected is not just a precaution; it is a necessity for business continuity. In this article shared below by Emergency Preparedness Solutions, we outline the crucial steps that can help small business owners prepare for a multitude of emergencies.

Recognize the Hazards

It’s essential to identify the unique risks that could potentially impact your business. These could range from natural disasters like floods and hurricanes to human-induced emergencies such as cyber-attacks or fire. Understanding these vulnerabilities helps you formulate targeted measures for each type of crisis. It also helps in resource allocation, ensuring you invest in the most critical protective measures for your specific business model.

Construct a Comprehensive Response Plan

Once you identify potential risks, the next step is to create a detailed emergency response plan. This should outline procedures for evacuations, lockdowns, or other responses tailored to different types of emergencies. Assign specific roles and responsibilities to employees so that everyone knows what to do in a crisis. A well-designed emergency plan can make the difference between controlled management and chaos when an emergency strikes.

Forge Efficient Communication Channels

Effective communication is paramount during any crisis. Establish a reliable emergency communication system that reaches all employees, customers, and other relevant stakeholders. This could be a messaging app, an email alert system, or a dedicated emergency phone line. Quick, transparent communication can help mitigate damage and ensure that everyone stays as safe as possible during an emergency.

Safeguard Your Data

In our digital age, data is often the lifeblood of a business. Ensure you regularly back up crucial information like customer records, financial documents, and employee data. To maximize security and availability, consider storing these backups off-site or in encrypted cloud storage. Data loss during an emergency can compound problems, hindering recovery and potentially leading to the loss of customer trust.

Digitize Important Documents

For businesses heavily reliant on paper records, here’s an option: digitize essential documents to ensure their safety and accessibility. Scanning and saving them as PDFs allows for secure, uniform storage that can be easily backed up and accessed remotely. This not only protects your records but also facilitates business continuity should physical access be restricted.

Educate Your Team

Employee training is a cornerstone of effective emergency management. Conduct regular training sessions to ensure that staff are familiar with emergency procedures and know how to use safety equipment like fire extinguishers or first-aid kits. Knowledgeable employees can act quickly in a crisis, helping to minimize damage and even save lives.

Stock Up on Essential Supplies

It’s easy to overlook, but keeping a well-stocked emergency supply kit can be a lifesaver. This should include first aid supplies, flashlights, extra batteries, and a supply of food and water. Ensure these supplies are easily accessible and that all employees know where to find them. Such provisions can provide invaluable support during extended emergencies like power outages or severe weather events.

Keep Your Plan Current

The world changes, and so do the types of risks your business might face. Regularly review and update your emergency plan to adapt to new circumstances. For instance, if your business expands to include more physical locations, your plan will need adjustments to account for this growth. Keeping your emergency plan up-to-date ensures its effectiveness and relevance.

Emergency planning is not a one-off task but an ongoing commitment. This article has detailed the importance of recognizing risks, constructing comprehensive plans, establishing communication systems, and ensuring both data safety and employee preparedness. In the face of a crisis, a well-prepared business stands a much greater chance of weathering the storm and emerging more resilient on the other side.

Why Being Prepared for Natural Disasters Is More Important Than Ever

Guest post!

I’m happy to have Carla Lopez return as a guest blogger, reminding us of the info we should be communicating to everyone about preparedness.

About Carla – Carla Lopez kept her entrepreneurial spirit even after retiring a couple years ago. She created Boomerbig.org for retirees who still desire to work and achieve – a site that offers business resources for people in their golden years.

~~

Natural disasters can strike at any time, leaving communities devastated and struggling to recover. While it’s impossible to prevent these events from happening, there are steps you can take to minimize their impact on your life. Being prepared for a natural disaster can help you stay safe, protect your property, and recover more quickly. Emergency Preparedness Solutions shares some of the benefits of being prepared.

Investing in Flood Insurance

One of the most important steps you can take to prepare for a natural disaster is to purchase insurance. This is especially true if you live in an area that is prone to flooding. Floods can cause significant damage to homes, businesses, and infrastructure, and without insurance, it can be difficult to recover. If you live in a flood-prone area, make sure you have flood insurance to protect your property.

Having a Plan in Place

When a natural disaster strikes, safety should be your top priority. When you’re prepared, you’ll be better equipped to protect yourself and your loved ones. This might mean having an emergency kit with food, water, and other supplies, or having a plan in place for where you’ll go if you need to evacuate. Being prepared can help you stay calm and focused during a crisis, which can make all the difference in staying safe.

Less Stress

There’s nothing more stressful than feeling unprepared for a natural disaster. When you take steps to prepare, you’ll enjoy greater peace of mind knowing that you’re ready for whatever comes your way. This can help you feel more in control during an emergency, which can reduce feelings of panic and anxiety.

Easier to Get Back on Your Feet

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, recovery can take weeks, months, or even years. Being prepared can help you recover more quickly by giving you the resources and tools you need to start rebuilding. With a plan in place, you’ll be able to make decisions more quickly and efficiently, which can help you get back on your feet faster.

Setting Aside an Emergency Fund

Natural disasters can have a significant impact on your finances. When you’re prepared, you’ll be better equipped to handle the financial fallout of a disaster. This might mean having an emergency fund set aside for unexpected expenses or making sure you have insurance coverage for different types of disasters.

Decreased Property Damage

When you’re prepared for a natural disaster, you’ll be better able to protect your property. This might mean taking steps to reinforce your home against high winds or flooding, or securing valuables so they don’t get damaged during a storm. By being proactive, you can reduce the amount of property damage that occurs during a disaster.

Improved Health

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, it’s not uncommon for people to experience physical and mental health issues. Being prepared can help you stay healthy by ensuring that you have access to clean water, food, and medical supplies. Additionally, having a plan in place can reduce feelings of stress and anxiety, which can take a toll on your mental health.

Natural disasters can be unpredictable and devastating, but being prepared can help you weather the storm. By taking steps to increase your safety, protect your property, and prepare for the financial fallout of a disaster, you can minimize its impact on your life. Whether you live in a flood-prone area or a region with frequent hurricanes, taking the time to prepare for a natural disaster is an investment in your future.