Emergency Management
This document explains how the government plans to respond to emergencies. It is good to understand the role of government so that individuals and families know what they need to do to integrate their efforts with that of the government.
Content
Introduction to Emergency Management:
Emergencies have been in the news for the past couple years. Most people started thinking of them on September 11, 2001. They gained more currency in peoples’ heads as wildfires in California and hurricanes on the Gulf Coast broke into the news and the responses of government were often found wanting. Emergencies are not new, and neither are they a uniquely American concern. People have been dealing with them, to various degrees of success, since the dawn of time. Emergencies, or disasters, generate a lot of emotion. That emotion is often negative, and we all feel it as fear, uncertainty and doubt. Emotion can be good, if it generates positive action. There is a lot to learn about effectively dealing with specific types of emergencies as an individual or a family, but a lot can be done that will help one to deal with whatever happens. Knowledge drives out fear, and certain actions can overcome confusion. The purpose of this series is to help you understand what you can do, but more importantly why you should do it. Preparing for emergencies is not first and foremost an exercise in buying things. Knowing what risks you face, their specific hazards, and how your efforts can help yourself and integrate with any assistance from others are what you want to know before you go off on a buying binge. You will find that you will not need to spend a lot of money to be effectively prepared. There is a basic discipline that emergency managers follow to prepare for emergencies. It is a four phase approach. 1. Mitigation – Figuring out what hazards you may face, and doing what you can to avoid them or lessen their effects. 2. Preparation – Understand what you have to do, make a plan, and exercise that plan to ensure everyone knows what to do. 3. Respond – When an emergency happens, do what you need to do to keep you and others safe. 4. Recovery – Getting your family back to normal, and incorporating the lessons you learned dealing with a hazard. The government has a role in emergency management. That role is not to make certain you are not inconvenienced by a disaster. Politicians may desire us to think they can help us in every eventuality, but the reality is we must know what we can expect the government to do and when. Then, we know how our individual efforts can be complemented by government work. People who think the government will handle any and all emergencies will be disappointed. The next piece will deal with what the role of the government is, and how it came to be. With that understanding of the context, this series will teach how to use the four phases to prepare for emergencies. Specific hazards will then be addressed to understand their risk and how to mitigate them, prepare for them, and if necessary respond. Using this series, Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
a family will be able to develop an emergency plan and the knowledge and resources to take care of themselves in case of a variety of emergencies.
Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
Government Role in Emergency Management
The federal government is not charged with taking responsibility for emergency response. There is a hierarchy of who is responsible. It starts at the lowest level of government and works it way up. That means your local government is responsible for emergency management – of whatever type. The next level, depending on how governments are set up, would be either the county or region. Florida and California have strong county governments, while other states, like Connecticut, have counties but no effective county government. There may be regional groups coming together ad hoc to deal with emergencies. All states have emergency management roles. The big challenge at the state level is integrating the work of local and regional entities. States also band together in mutual assistance pacts, in order to share equipment and expertise if needed. States also strive to maintain the Federal government in a role that supports the state efforts. No one government entity willingly delegates its responsibility up to the next level, and if it does it will demand a continued role. We have seen instances where governments have not worked to integrate efforts, and the results have not been good. Hurricane Katrina is a case in point. A hurricane devastating New Orleans has been on the top five list of potential disasters for a long time. The city, parish, and state governments had never fully developed integrated plans, let alone practice them. The issue was effectively ignored. The Federal government response, which no one could excuse, was made worse because of the lack of coordination on the local, parish and state level. Looking at how local, county and regional governments perform in California to fight wildfires is an example of better preparation and coordination. The result is that often the only needed response from the federal government is an open checkbook to help pay for the response. The level of government ability is something anyone can quickly determine. If you are wondering if your town has an emergency plan, than there is an opportunity for your town to do a better job. Go on your town’s website, and see if there is any indication of effective emergency planning. During the height of the Cold War, there was a civil defense infrastructure. You can see relics; “Fallout Shelter” signs still can be seen on some buildings but the infrastructure has long since disappeared. After the World Trade Center attacks, there has been renewed efforts to build effective emergency management plans. Such plans are difficult to develop on any government level. There is a need for all involved to work together and compromise. That may be done well in short term Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
situations, like a fire or traffic accident. The real test is when the emergency is long-lived and widespread; e.g. a hurricane, earthquake or attack. Some local governments have full time emergency managers. Others may have a member of the police, fire or public health department with the emergency manager role as a secondary responsibility. Find out who they are and ask what the town’s plans are. All State governments have emergency management staff. Many used to have that role reside either in the National Guard or police. In the past few years, departments of homeland security have been established and emergency management established under them. In this, they have followed the Federal government. Until 2002, emergency management was the province of one agency; the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Department of Homeland Security was established and FEMA was subsumed. One reason for founding the DHA was to better coordinate emergency management with other complementary efforts from marine protection to immigration. The basics have not changed. Local governments are responsible for emergency management, of whatever type, and states are above them. The point to remember is that leadership and resources for emergency management will come first from your town and state. The Federal Government is not a passive player; it works to provide resources, education, training and coordination. The National Response Framework, put out in January 2008 is the latest manifestation of the thinking and planning of the Federal Government. We will cover that in the next piece.
Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
Addressing Emergencies: The National Response Framework
The last two pieces introduced emergency management and the role of governments. The point to remember is that emergency management responsibility starts at the local level and works up through the state to the Federal level. Local and state governments embrace their emergency management roles to different degrees. The Federal government has been working to effect better local and state efforts, and that work can be seen in the latest statement of their emergency management guidance; the National Response Framework. The NRF is the latest edition. Several years ago, there was the Federal Response Plan. That was the plan for the Federal government to act. That was replaced shortly after the World Trade Center attacks by the National Response Plan. The goal was to engage more levels of government and other organizations. That went through a couple editions and earlier this year, the NRF was published. It should be noted that what used to be a “Plan” is now a “Framework”. I think the Federal government is beginning to comprehend that it must get others involved and that it can not be effective in dealing with any disaster by itself. Unfortunately, there is a growing tendency to look to the Federal government as the first responder. The fact is there is local knowledge, capability and resource that must be engaged. The NRF works to do that. The National Response Framework has five core principles; 1. Engaged Partnership 2. Tiered Response 3. Scalable, Flexible and Adaptable Operational Capabilities 4. Unity of Command 5. Readiness to Act Engaged Partnership is the idea that leaders at all levels of government must develop shared response goals and integrate capabilities to ensure effective crisis response. This principle is meant as more than just governments. Local private and business resources need to be engaged, and not just at the point of a disaster. An example is the effort to engage local humane societies, veterinary clinics, veterinary schools and local volunteers to set up pet shelters in the event of a disaster. The goal is to keep any response to the lowest level possible. A Tiered Response is an effort to avoid unnecessary escalation. A great example of proper tiered response is when a large fire in one locality may begin to draw on help from surrounding localities in an orderly fashion. The goal is to not just avoid wasting resources, but to keep the response effective. More is not always better; people and resources can quickly get in each other’s way. Emergencies change. What may start out as a truck accident requiring fire and police may involve into a hazardous material spill requiring environmental protection. An effort Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
to evacuate a community in the face of a hazard requires a huge communication and transportation effort, and then work to house and feed people. To deal with these things, emergency response requires the ability to shift focus and to do it quickly. Only one person can be in charge, and as responses change so may the ultimately responsible party. At the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, it was the local fire department in charge initially. As the fires went out, the responsibility shifted back to the military. The Incident Command System, or ICS, was developed out of the need for those fighting California wildfires to shift responsibility as the fires evolved and traveled. Unity of command is never easy, but it must be the case for effective response. Readiness to act is easy when the emergency is evident; a fire, hurricane or flood will find no shortage of eagerness to act. The readiness to act must be utilized in planning and integration efforts before any emergency or disaster. It can be difficult to get various constituencies to plan and integrate. Action is not just response; it has to be channeled to all phases of emergency management; mitigation, preparation, response and recovery. The NRF is meant to give guidance to state, county and local governments – and also families, businesses and individuals. The message is that all work together, and all must be active in preparing for and responding to emergencies. The way to do that is to look at each of the four phases of emergency management and how they should be implemented at the family level.
Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
Next Pieces: 1. Mitigation Introduction a. Hazard Identification b. Vulnerability analysis c. Mitigation Measaurs 2. Preparedness Introduction a. Plan i. General versus Specific ii. Integration b. Basic Preparation i. Base on vulnerability ii. Think before buy c. Aspects i. Food, Energy, Transport, Communication It is possible to frame an individual family plan within a series of articles – it may be more palatable to write to the basics and have the plan format online. 3. Response a. Implement the plan b. What to expect from government 4. Recovery a. Identify Lessons Learned b. Act on lessons learned 5. Hazard Specific Pieces(dispassionate synopsis of potential emergencies) a. Natural b. Technological c. Man Made Disasters My expectation is that as the articles roll out, there will be feedback as to what people would like to see and where else the series could go.
Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
Emergencies have been in the news for the past couple years. Most people started thinking of them on September 11, 2001. They gained more currency in peoples’ heads as wildfires in California and hurricanes on the Gulf Coast broke into the news and the responses of government were often found wanting. Emergencies are not new, and neither are they a uniquely American concern. People have been dealing with them, to various degrees of success, since the dawn of time. Emergencies, or disasters, generate a lot of emotion. That emotion is often negative, and we all feel it as fear, uncertainty and doubt. Emotion can be good, if it generates positive action. There is a lot to learn about effectively dealing with specific types of emergencies as an individual or a family, but a lot can be done that will help one to deal with whatever happens. Knowledge drives out fear, and certain actions can overcome confusion. The purpose of this series is to help you understand what you can do, but more importantly why you should do it. Preparing for emergencies is not first and foremost an exercise in buying things. Knowing what risks you face, their specific hazards, and how your efforts can help yourself and integrate with any assistance from others are what you want to know before you go off on a buying binge. You will find that you will not need to spend a lot of money to be effectively prepared. There is a basic discipline that emergency managers follow to prepare for emergencies. It is a four phase approach. 1. Mitigation – Figuring out what hazards you may face, and doing what you can to avoid them or lessen their effects. 2. Preparation – Understand what you have to do, make a plan, and exercise that plan to ensure everyone knows what to do. 3. Respond – When an emergency happens, do what you need to do to keep you and others safe. 4. Recovery – Getting your family back to normal, and incorporating the lessons you learned dealing with a hazard. The government has a role in emergency management. That role is not to make certain you are not inconvenienced by a disaster. Politicians may desire us to think they can help us in every eventuality, but the reality is we must know what we can expect the government to do and when. Then, we know how our individual efforts can be complemented by government work. People who think the government will handle any and all emergencies will be disappointed. The next piece will deal with what the role of the government is, and how it came to be. With that understanding of the context, this series will teach how to use the four phases to prepare for emergencies. Specific hazards will then be addressed to understand their risk and how to mitigate them, prepare for them, and if necessary respond. Using this series, Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
a family will be able to develop an emergency plan and the knowledge and resources to take care of themselves in case of a variety of emergencies.
Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
Government Role in Emergency Management
The federal government is not charged with taking responsibility for emergency response. There is a hierarchy of who is responsible. It starts at the lowest level of government and works it way up. That means your local government is responsible for emergency management – of whatever type. The next level, depending on how governments are set up, would be either the county or region. Florida and California have strong county governments, while other states, like Connecticut, have counties but no effective county government. There may be regional groups coming together ad hoc to deal with emergencies. All states have emergency management roles. The big challenge at the state level is integrating the work of local and regional entities. States also band together in mutual assistance pacts, in order to share equipment and expertise if needed. States also strive to maintain the Federal government in a role that supports the state efforts. No one government entity willingly delegates its responsibility up to the next level, and if it does it will demand a continued role. We have seen instances where governments have not worked to integrate efforts, and the results have not been good. Hurricane Katrina is a case in point. A hurricane devastating New Orleans has been on the top five list of potential disasters for a long time. The city, parish, and state governments had never fully developed integrated plans, let alone practice them. The issue was effectively ignored. The Federal government response, which no one could excuse, was made worse because of the lack of coordination on the local, parish and state level. Looking at how local, county and regional governments perform in California to fight wildfires is an example of better preparation and coordination. The result is that often the only needed response from the federal government is an open checkbook to help pay for the response. The level of government ability is something anyone can quickly determine. If you are wondering if your town has an emergency plan, than there is an opportunity for your town to do a better job. Go on your town’s website, and see if there is any indication of effective emergency planning. During the height of the Cold War, there was a civil defense infrastructure. You can see relics; “Fallout Shelter” signs still can be seen on some buildings but the infrastructure has long since disappeared. After the World Trade Center attacks, there has been renewed efforts to build effective emergency management plans. Such plans are difficult to develop on any government level. There is a need for all involved to work together and compromise. That may be done well in short term Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
situations, like a fire or traffic accident. The real test is when the emergency is long-lived and widespread; e.g. a hurricane, earthquake or attack. Some local governments have full time emergency managers. Others may have a member of the police, fire or public health department with the emergency manager role as a secondary responsibility. Find out who they are and ask what the town’s plans are. All State governments have emergency management staff. Many used to have that role reside either in the National Guard or police. In the past few years, departments of homeland security have been established and emergency management established under them. In this, they have followed the Federal government. Until 2002, emergency management was the province of one agency; the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Department of Homeland Security was established and FEMA was subsumed. One reason for founding the DHA was to better coordinate emergency management with other complementary efforts from marine protection to immigration. The basics have not changed. Local governments are responsible for emergency management, of whatever type, and states are above them. The point to remember is that leadership and resources for emergency management will come first from your town and state. The Federal Government is not a passive player; it works to provide resources, education, training and coordination. The National Response Framework, put out in January 2008 is the latest manifestation of the thinking and planning of the Federal Government. We will cover that in the next piece.
Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
Addressing Emergencies: The National Response Framework
The last two pieces introduced emergency management and the role of governments. The point to remember is that emergency management responsibility starts at the local level and works up through the state to the Federal level. Local and state governments embrace their emergency management roles to different degrees. The Federal government has been working to effect better local and state efforts, and that work can be seen in the latest statement of their emergency management guidance; the National Response Framework. The NRF is the latest edition. Several years ago, there was the Federal Response Plan. That was the plan for the Federal government to act. That was replaced shortly after the World Trade Center attacks by the National Response Plan. The goal was to engage more levels of government and other organizations. That went through a couple editions and earlier this year, the NRF was published. It should be noted that what used to be a “Plan” is now a “Framework”. I think the Federal government is beginning to comprehend that it must get others involved and that it can not be effective in dealing with any disaster by itself. Unfortunately, there is a growing tendency to look to the Federal government as the first responder. The fact is there is local knowledge, capability and resource that must be engaged. The NRF works to do that. The National Response Framework has five core principles; 1. Engaged Partnership 2. Tiered Response 3. Scalable, Flexible and Adaptable Operational Capabilities 4. Unity of Command 5. Readiness to Act Engaged Partnership is the idea that leaders at all levels of government must develop shared response goals and integrate capabilities to ensure effective crisis response. This principle is meant as more than just governments. Local private and business resources need to be engaged, and not just at the point of a disaster. An example is the effort to engage local humane societies, veterinary clinics, veterinary schools and local volunteers to set up pet shelters in the event of a disaster. The goal is to keep any response to the lowest level possible. A Tiered Response is an effort to avoid unnecessary escalation. A great example of proper tiered response is when a large fire in one locality may begin to draw on help from surrounding localities in an orderly fashion. The goal is to not just avoid wasting resources, but to keep the response effective. More is not always better; people and resources can quickly get in each other’s way. Emergencies change. What may start out as a truck accident requiring fire and police may involve into a hazardous material spill requiring environmental protection. An effort Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
to evacuate a community in the face of a hazard requires a huge communication and transportation effort, and then work to house and feed people. To deal with these things, emergency response requires the ability to shift focus and to do it quickly. Only one person can be in charge, and as responses change so may the ultimately responsible party. At the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, it was the local fire department in charge initially. As the fires went out, the responsibility shifted back to the military. The Incident Command System, or ICS, was developed out of the need for those fighting California wildfires to shift responsibility as the fires evolved and traveled. Unity of command is never easy, but it must be the case for effective response. Readiness to act is easy when the emergency is evident; a fire, hurricane or flood will find no shortage of eagerness to act. The readiness to act must be utilized in planning and integration efforts before any emergency or disaster. It can be difficult to get various constituencies to plan and integrate. Action is not just response; it has to be channeled to all phases of emergency management; mitigation, preparation, response and recovery. The NRF is meant to give guidance to state, county and local governments – and also families, businesses and individuals. The message is that all work together, and all must be active in preparing for and responding to emergencies. The way to do that is to look at each of the four phases of emergency management and how they should be implemented at the family level.
Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
Next Pieces: 1. Mitigation Introduction a. Hazard Identification b. Vulnerability analysis c. Mitigation Measaurs 2. Preparedness Introduction a. Plan i. General versus Specific ii. Integration b. Basic Preparation i. Base on vulnerability ii. Think before buy c. Aspects i. Food, Energy, Transport, Communication It is possible to frame an individual family plan within a series of articles – it may be more palatable to write to the basics and have the plan format online. 3. Response a. Implement the plan b. What to expect from government 4. Recovery a. Identify Lessons Learned b. Act on lessons learned 5. Hazard Specific Pieces(dispassionate synopsis of potential emergencies) a. Natural b. Technological c. Man Made Disasters My expectation is that as the articles roll out, there will be feedback as to what people would like to see and where else the series could go.
Peter Van Loon January 25, 2009
