The City of Pittsburgh recently lost an effort to require emergency preparedness training for security officers and building service employees. The Commonwealth Court ruled that the City did not have the authority to require such an ordinance. This is just another example we’ve seen with difficulties across the US with requirements for preparedness measures. Why is it so challenging? It often comes down to the legality of the requirement.
When it comes to the interface of local jurisdictions with states, we often see the concept of home rule providing one of the greatest challenges. Some interpretations of home rule laws identify that states can’t require local (often to include county) jurisdictions to conduct certain activities, such as have certain plans, attend training, or conduct exercises. In some states, we see law or regulation that states that if a jurisdiction is to have an emergency plan, then there is a required format of said plan. But if there is no stick, there is often a carrot.
If requirements can’t be established, then incentives are often the best alternative. Again, in the local/state relationship, states have grant allocations which can be provided to local governments. Grant rules can be established that identify certain requirements as conditions of funding. This tends to be highly effective, especially when funding is expected to continue year after year, and the grants continue to reinforce sustained maintenance on these requirements, such as periodic updates to emergency plans. Generally, I see no down side to this alternative, so long as the required initiatives are well thought out and realistic given the amount of funds the jurisdiction is receiving. To ensure effectiveness, however, there must be accountability and quality control measures in place to monitor execution of these requirements; such as reviewing plans, After Action Reports, and auditing training programs. This same methodology is typically how DHS/FEMA is able to get states and funded urban areas (UASIs) to comply with their wishes for various initiatives.
Outside of government, requirements can still be difficult. While regulations may be put into place for certain industries and under certain conditions, we often have to rely on other, more practical, means of getting businesses, industry, and even not for profits on board. This often comes with certifications. An example would be ISO certifications, which some businesses and industry need to compete in certain markets. Yes, there is even an ISO standard for emergency management.
Unfortunately, many entities, be they public, private, or even individuals, don’t want to be bothered with preparedness. Most will agree that it’s a good idea, but it takes time, money, and effort. It’s long been said that you can’t legislate preparedness, and that is often true. Even if a requirement is able to be established, the extent of implementation can range widely, depending on the internal motivations and resources available to the entity. Establish whatever requirements you want, but I guarantee there are some that will barely meet those requirements, and in doing so likely not meet the actual intent of the requirement; while others who are believe in the requirement and have available resources, will exceed the requirement. Largely, organizations are motivated by funding and certification standards.
I’m interested in the perspectives you have on requiring preparedness, both in the US as well as other nations.
© 2017 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP