Harris County, Texas has recently released their After Action Report (AAR) for Hurricane Harvey that devastated the area last year. I applaud any AAR released, especially one for an incident of this magnitude. It requires opening your doors to the world, showing some incredible transparency, and a willingness to discuss your mistakes. Not only can stakeholders in Harris County learn from this AAR, but I think there are lessons to be learned by everyone in reviewing this document.
First, about making the sausage… The AAR includes an early section on the means and methods used to build the AAR, including some tools provided in the appendix. Why is this important? First, it helps build a better context for the AAR and lets you know what was studied, who was included, and how it was pulled together. Second, it offers a great example for you to use for future incidents. Developing an AAR for an incident has some significant differences from developing an AAR for an exercise. Fundamentally, development of an AAR for an exercise begins with design of the exercise and is based upon the objectives identified for that exercise. For an incident, the areas of evaluation are generally identified after the fact. These areas of evaluation will focus the evaluation effort and help you cull through the volumes of documentation and stories people will want to tell. The three focus areas covered in the AAR are Command and Control, Operations, and Mass Care and Sheltering.
Getting into the Harvey AAR itself… My own criticism in the formatting is that while areas for improvement in the AAR follow an Issue/Analysis/Recommendation format, identified strengths only have a sentence or two. Many AAR writers (for incidents, events, or exercises) think this is adequate, but I do not. Some measure of written analysis should be provided for each strength, giving it context and describing what worked and why. I’m also in favor of providing recommendations for identified strengths. I’m of the opinion that most things, even if done well and within acceptable standards, can be improved upon. If you adopt this philosophy, however, don’t fall into the trap of simply recommending that practices should continue (i.e. keep doing this). That’s not a meaningful recommendation. Instead, consider how the practice can be improved upon or sustained. Remember, always reflect upon practices of planning, organizing, equipping, training, and exercises (POETE).
As for the identified areas for improvement in AAR, the following needs were outlined:
- Developing a countywide Continuity of Operations Plan
- Training non-traditional support personnel who may be involved in disaster response operations
- Transitioning from response to recovery operations in the Emergency Operations Center
- Working with the City of Houston to address the current Donations Management strategy
If anything, for these reasons alone, the AAR and the improvement planning matrix attached should be reviewed by every jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions that I encounter simply don’t have the POETE in place to be successful in addressing these areas.
What is your biggest take away from this AAR?
© 2018 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP