Course Outline Emergency Management Planning Course - Course Treatments

Emergency Management Institute (EMI) Emergency Management Higher Education Project Development of a Course Outline for an Emergency Management Planning Course February 26, 2007 Submitted by: Bullock & Haddow LLC 315 Boyd Ave. Takoma Park, MD 20912 1 Emergency Management Institute (EMI) Emergency Management Higher Education Project Development of a Course Outline for an Emergency Management Planning Course February 26, 2007 Section 1: Documentation of the Existing Planning Process Emergency planning is loosely defined as the decisions made and actions taken by a community, in advance of large-scale non-routine emergency events, that serve to increase the community‘s resilience to the consequences of disasters. Emergency planning in the United States is, to an ever-increasing degree, guided by a standard yet ad-hoc structural template that has developed through decades of change. These developmental changes have been primarily event-driven, and have steered the perception of emergency management resource needs towards particular conditions or hazards (as reflected in funding, plans and action). While modern emergency management is clearly the product of the civil defense era, the planning that surrounds its practice has grown out of the knowledge, experience, and command and control approach of the emergency services – and as such planning has tended to closely mirror the capacities of those services while taking into consideration other needs and resources of the community only to a lesser, secondary degree. Through increased Federal guidance and mandate, improved cooperation between municipalities and States, and the advancement of the profession of emergency management, there has emerged standardization in the way emergency planning is carried out across all jurisdictions. At almost all government levels, in communities of all sizes, many strong similarities arise when emergency management systems and structures are compared. This structure is most appropriately termed ‗All-Hazards Comprehensive Emergency Planning‘ The degree to which a community is able to conduct comprehensive emergency planning is influenced heavily by the availability of financial and human resources, their access to planning knowledge and expertise, the political support of municipal executives, and a perceived need for such planning. The components of a jurisdiction‘s emergency management capacity that may be addressed by emergency planning include:        Hazards Risk Analysis Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Development, Testing, and Revision Development of appropriate emergency management statutory authority Development of sufficient response resources and capacity (including personnel, training & exercise, and equipment) Mitigation planning Recovery planning Preparedness planning 2 Central to any emergency planning effort is the development of an emergency operations plan (EOP), and virtually all incorporated communities - regardless of their size - have taken such measures. Emergency operations planning at the government level is a necessary and involved process that stipulates well in advance not only what responders will need to do but also how they will do it, what equipment they use, and how others can and will assist them. EOPs, when properly designed, can be scaled up or down depending upon the needs of the community and the disaster particulars, and are able to accommodate the complex and diverse needs of a full range of disaster response and recovery actions. The components of an effective emergency response plan include:    A basic comprehensive plan Functional annexes Hazard-specific annexes EOPs can only be assumed effective if they have been suitably tested, another important component of comprehensive emergency planning. Upon completion of a draft EOP, or during its development, the emergency manager identifies mistakes, shortfalls, inconsistencies, and planning conflicts through the use of the various testing mechanisms (including drills, tabletop exercises, functional exercises, and full-scale exercises). The outcome of these events furthers the planning process by allowing for revision of the plan, which ultimately results in a much more tailored, workable product for the community. Before an EOP can be created, however, a hazard risk analysis is performed. Different hazard types result in different consequences, therefore having a response mechanism that can accommodate a statistically-likely range of consequences ensures that each community makes the wisest use of their limited resources. By means of hazard identification and description, risk analysis, and risk assessment, disaster managers discover not only which hazards exist in the community but also how they affect the community – allowing them to prioritize hazards by their need for treatment. Generally, the steps included in the hazard analysis process are: 1. Identifying hazards: Developing a list of hazards that may occur in the community based on historical event data, existing hazard analyses, brainstorming, interviews, and other methods as required 2. Profiling hazards: Considering the severity, incidence, duration, seasonal pattern, and speed of onset of each hazard, and any other factors as required and relevant 3. Developing a community profile: Considering the geography, property, infrastructure, demographics, and response organizations, among other factors, for the community 4. Determining vulnerability: Merging information from the community and hazard profiles to focus on the hazards that present the highest risk 3 5. Prioritizing risks: Placing identified risks in priority order based upon the community‘s ability to mitigate them or upon the need for response mechanisms to address them should they occur Whereas the Emergency Operations Plan addresses the actions taken in the lead up to and response to a disaster, modern comprehensive emergency management addresses all phases of emergency; including preparedness, mitigation, and recovery in addition to response. Emergency planning, therefore, must address these functions as well, which many jurisdictions do by creating separate mitigation plans, recovery plans, and preparedness plans. Statutory authority, the legal basis for the funding, procedures and actions of emergency services and emergency management agencies and officials, is an integral component of emergency planning. To ensure that the emergency services have the authority to perform the duties required of them, emergency management must champion and drive the legislative processes grant them such powers. Statutory authority became of particular concern to the emergency services following the September 11 th terrorist attacks, as many jurisdictions that had not given sufficient legal consideration to terrorism as a hazard are now finding that local laws must be added or adapted to accommodate terrorism-driven changes to their responsibilities and requirements. Finally, emergency planning today addresses the need for the emergency services to be outfitted with sufficient human, financial and equipment resources, and for personnel to have adequate disaster management capacity. Through emergency planning, emergency managers identify needs, and match them with available grants and other funding programs that supply the necessary resources to fulfill these needs. The grant process is ongoing and ever-changing and requires a fairly constant level of planning on the part of the emergency manager and their staff. The range of functions for which emergency managers may address through comprehensive emergency planning can be expanded beyond that of response. Generally, the municipalities will first address their mitigation and preparedness planning needs, and if resources remain they will plan for disaster recovery. Mitigation plans are required of communities by the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 if they wish to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds. Mitigation plans build upon the findings of hazards analyses conducted during the planning process. Mitigation plans build upon these analyses by determining what hazards are best mitigated using the community‘s available funds through the use of cost-benefit and feasibility analyses. Preparedness planning builds upon the mitigation plan in that it addresses the actions that the emergency management office may take to help individuals, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, civic organizations, and other community stakeholders, to ensure that they are properly prepared should one of the community‘s identified hazards strike. 4 The final component of comprehensive emergency management planning – recovery planning – is the function least often conducted. Predisaster planning—sometimes referred to as ―Pre-Event Planning for Post-Event Recovery (PEPPER) — can reduce the risk of haphazard rebuilding. Though nobody can predict exactly how a disaster will affect a community, many processes are common to all disaster types, and they may be identified and studied in advance. Many decisions will have long-term repercussions and, as such, are better made in the relaxed, rational environment that only exists before the disaster occurs. Unfortunately most recovery planning is not conducted until after a disaster has occurred, when the plans discussed focus entirely upon the particulars of the disaster that has just occurred. Section 2: Why a New Planning Design Emergency management planning is conducted at each jurisdictional level of government. Experience has shown that vulnerability reduction, as a result of these planning efforts, can only be marginally achieved unless all players (―stakeholders‖) involved in emergency management‘s four phases are included. When these ideal inclusion levels are attained from plan conception onward, there stands the greatest likelihood that the resulting process and document will be consistent, comprehensive, and trouble-free. Unfortunately, this standard is not always realized. Emergency management, as a unique discipline, was preceded by the emergency services - namely fire, police, and emergency medical services. As such, when the need for a separate discipline addressing large-scale, non-routine events was recognized, that new capacity grew directly out of the capabilities and knowledge of the existing services. With this evolution came also a transfer in organizational culture and values, both of which are reflective of inward-looking rank and file systems that characterize each of the emergency services. It is inarguable that modern emergency management, as a result, depends first upon the capacities of the emergency services, and only second upon those of the other peripheral organizations and agencies that together make up a community. In recent years there have been several developments within the field and interest of emergency management that have demanded an expansion beyond the historical focus of emergency services for emergency planning efforts. These include, but are not limited to: 1. An increase in the frequency and severity of weather-relate disaster events 2. An increase in the general vulnerability of the population as a result of increased residential and commercial development in high risk areas (both along the nation‘s coastlines and elsewhere) 3. An increase in the profile of the terrorist hazard related to the September 11 attacks, most notably in light of the need to consider chemical, biological, explosive, nuclear and radiological weapons as a threat to all communities regardless of size 4. A recognition of the threat posed by pandemic flu and other major biological hazards, and the resulting importance of including elements of public health in the emergency management structure 5 5. A change in the way large-scale emergencies are managed at all jurisdictional levels, pursuant to both adjustments made to the National Incident Management System and the signing of the National Response Plan The acceleration of changes within the field of emergency management has been the direct result of individual events. Large-scale disasters, also referred to as ‗nationaldisasters‘ – including the September 11th terrorist attacks and the series of hurricanes that marked the 2005 season (most notably Katrina and Rita ) - exposed many of the oversights and shortfalls that presently exist in many if not most emergency plans. Each of these problems will need to be addressed before critical planning gaps are patched. Examples of problems that arose in the response to these disasters include:     There is a collective need for better understanding of the risks faced by a community‘s most vulnerable populations, such as the poor, elderly, disabled, immigrants, and children Crisis and disaster communication before, during, and after the disaster event, both within the responding organizational structure and outside of this structure to address the public at large, needs improvement The wide range of the community‘s stakeholders need to be involved in all phases of the emergency planning process from conception to completion Emergency management planners must make an effort to reach out beyond the traditional emergency services to other relevant parts of government such as planning, social services, environmental controls, public works, etc., in order to ensure their input into the emergency planning process The role that volunteers and non-governmental organizations play in regards to the community‘s emergency plans must be recognized and maximized Preparedness and mitigation activities must be expanded across all communities before the next disaster strikes The various forms of federal funding to support emergency management have changed, and continue to change, thus emergency management planning must incorporate the means to adjust to these changes and to benefit fully from the preparedness and other funding that is available State and Federal emergency management activities are always in support of local activities, and the arrival of this support cannot be assumed for a minimum of 48 to 72 hours following a disaster event – therefore local planners must look a wide-angle lens within their own communities to determine how the community can best prepare to respond to such large events within the bounds of their own capacity Emergency management funding, administration, and ultimate decision-making are each based upon the dynamic political, economic, and social climate that exists within the community – and as such these factors must be understood, respected, and accommodated by emergency planners if resulting plans are ever to succeed      The next generation of emergency plans must address these gaps in order to provide a community with a comprehensive plan that not only guides the emergency services 6 personnel in responding to a disaster event but that also informs and leads the way to reducing the impacts of future events and ensuring the full and timely recovery of the community. Section 3: Preliminary Course Outline Session 1: Introduction – Explanation of the goals and objectives of the course; goals and objectives of emergency planning; and, scope of the emergency planning process. Key terms and concepts defined.    Course Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives of Emergency Planning Scope of the Emergency Planning Process Session 2: Historical Context of Emergency Management Planning – Examine the basis of modern emergency management planning; explain key events that have guided the evolution of emergency management planning; define the various organizations historically involved in emergency management planning and present their contributions.    The early days of emergency management planning The recognition of a need and the events that contributed Key actions and players in the evolution of emergency management planning Session 3: Statutory Authorities – Examination of the Federal, State and local authorities that support emergency management activities including those authorities that guide emergency response; regulate land use, development and growth patterns in communities; define eligibility for Federal disaster relief funding; define flood risk in a community; etc.    Response Authorities Recovery Authorities Mitigation Authorities Session 4: Stakeholders – Examination of the community stakeholders who should be involved in the emergency planning process; methods for involving stakeholders in the planning process; and, case studies of community involvement in the planning process.    Identifying Community Stakeholders Methods for Involving Community Stakeholders Case Study: Tulsa, OK; Napa, CA; Project Impact 7 Session 5: Public Agencies – Discussion of those Federal, State and local government agencies that should be involved in the planning process including emergency services and others that bring statutory authority, resources and direction to the emergency planning process.    Emergency Services Agencies Regulatory Agencies Resource Agencies Session 6: Volunteers, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and the Private Sector – Discussion of the roles of volunteers, NGOs and the private sector in the planning process and what capabilities, resources and leadership they can bring to the process.    Volunteers NGOs Private Sector Session 7: Vulnerable Populations – Examination of the factors that contribute to the vulnerability of various populations in the community including location, residential and commercial construction, socio-economic status, physical abilities relevant to age or handicap, gender, legal status, and others; the inclusion of special needs populations or representatives of those groups in the planning process.    Traditional Vulnerability Factors Socieo-Economic factors Special Needs Populations Session 8: Risk Management – Discussion of current risk management theory and practice, the role of risk assessment and analysis in the emergency planning process and case studies in risk management.    Risk Management Theory and Practice Risk Assessment and Analysis Case Study: Australia, New Zealand Session 9: Mid-Term Exam Session 10: Elements of Emergency Planning – Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) – Discussion of the components of an EOP in guiding the community‘s response to a disaster event.    Basic Comprehensive Plan Functional Annexes Hazard Specific Annexes 8 Session 11: Elements of Emergency Planning – Mitigation Plan – Examination of the development of a community mitigation plan; role of the mitigation plan in the emergency planning process; and, how communities generate public, political and financial support for the implementation of mitigation actions.    Mitigation Plan Development Integration of Mitigation Plan in the Community Emergency Plan Support for Mitigation Actions Session 12: Elements of Emergency Planning – Preparedness Planning – Examination of the components of a preparedness plan including identifying target audiences, developing risk-based messages and delivering messages to the public.    Targeted Audiences Risk-Based Messages Delivery Systems Session 13: Elements of Emergency Planning, including: funding emergency preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery; disaster communications; discussion of the role of communications in the development of the emergency plan; managing response actions by emergency services; delivering recovery assistance.     Emergency Management Funding Options and Strategies Emergency Plan Development Disaster and Crisis Communications Community Recovery Networks Session 14: Course Wrap-Up – Review of course materials and topics. Session 15: Final Exam Section 4: Sources To Be Considered for Course Development Ansell, J. and F. Wharton. 1992. Risk: Analysis, Assessment, and Management. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester. Bokman, Lloyd. (March 2003) All Hazards Planning, What Does It Mean, inn the Natural Hazards Observer. URL: http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/maro03/maro03f.htm Britton, Neil R. 1998. Managing Community Risks. Ministry of Civil Defense, New Zealand, 2 nd Edition. Broadleaf Capital International. 1999. The Australian and New Zealand Standard on Risk Management, AS/NZS 4360:1999. Broadleaf Capital International. Pymble, Australia. 9 Connor, Desmond M. No Date. Model Approaches for Public Participation. Connor Development Services, Ltd. Constructive Citizen Participation Newsletter. http://www.islandnet.com/connor/model_approaches.html Copenhaver, John. 2000. The Future of Disaster Preparedness in America. http://www.disasterresource.com/articles/future_dis_prep_america_copenhaver.shtml Copenhaver, John. 1997. From a Business Perspective: Government and Business Working Together in Emergency Management. http://www.disasterresource.com/articles/from_business_perspect_copenhaver.shtml Emergency Management Australia. 2000. Emergency Risk Management: Applications Guide. Dickson, Australia. Enders, Jessica. 2001. ―Measuring Community Awareness and Preparedness for Emergencies.‖ Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Spring, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 52–59. FEMA. 2006. Emergency Planning. Independent Study Course 235. Emergency Management Institute. http://training.fema.gov/EMIweb/IS/is235.asp FEMA. N/D. Building Disaster Resilient Communities. FEMA Higher Education Project. http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/sum_buildingDRC.asp FEMA. 2006. Hazard Mapping and Modeling. FEMA Higher Education Project. http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/hmm.asp FEMA. 2006. Fundamentals of Emergency Management Online Textbook. FEMA Higher Education Project. http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/fem.asp FEMA. 2003. Hazards Risk Management Course. FEMA Higher Education Project. http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/hram.asp FEMA. 2003. Social Vulnerability Approach to Disasters. FEMA Higher Education Project. http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/downloads/CD%20FINAL%20%20FEMA.zi p FEMA. 2002. Mitigation Planning Workshop for Local Communities. Instructor Guide. DMA 2000 State and Local Plan Interim Criteria. FEMA. Washington, DC. http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning_toc4.shtm 10 FEMA. 2001. State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide: Getting Started Building Support for Mitigation Planning. FEMA. Whole document. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/howto1.pdf FEMA. 1998. The Political and Policy Basis of Emergency Management. FEMA Higher Education Project. http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/downloads/politic.zip FEMA. 1998. IS393 Introduction to Mitigation. Emergency Management Institute. < http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is393lst.asp> FEMA. 1998. Project Impact: Building a Disaster Resistant Community.‖ FEMA. FEMA. 1997. MultiHazard: Identification and Risk Assessment. FEMA. Washington, DC. FEMA. 1996. FEMA Guide for All Hazards Emergency Operations Planning. State and Local Guide (SLG) 101. September. http://www.fema.gov/plan/gaheop.shtm Fiorino, D.J. 1990. Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values. V.15. Pp. 226243. Glicken, Jessica. 1999. Effective Public Involvement in Public Decisions. Science Communication. Thousand Oaks. V20, No.3. March. Pp. 298-327. Haddow, George and Jane Bullock. 2005. Introduction to Emergency Management. Butterworth Heinemann Press. Burlington. International Finance Corporation. 1999. Doing Better Business Through Effective Public Consultation and Disclosure. The World Bank. http://www.ifc.org/enviro/Publications/Practice/practice.htm Lindell, Michael K., and Ronald W. Perry. 1992. Behavioral Foundations of Community Emergency Planning. Washington, D.C. Hemisphere Publishing Corp. Lunn, John. 2003. ―Community Consultation: The Foundation of Effective Risk Management.‖ Journal of Emergency Management. V.1, No.1, Spring. Pp. 39-48. Lynn, Frances M. 2003. Public Participation in Risk Management Decisions: The Right to Define, the Right to Know, and the Right to Act. Risk. V.1. Spring. MN Planning. 2002. Creating a Community Assessment. Minnesota Planning and the Division of Emergency Management. (http://www.lpa.state.mn.us/HazardMitigation/index.html) 11 Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) and the Hazard Center. 2001. Holistic Disaster Recovery. PERI. Fairfax. Raphael, B. 1986. When Disaster Strikes: How Individuals and Communities Cope with Catastrophes. New York. Basic Books. Reiss, Claire Lee, J.D. 2001. Risk Identification and Analysis: A Guide. Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI). Fairfax. Smith, Keith. 1992. Environmental Hazards: Assessing and Reducing Disaster. London: Routlege. State of Minnesota. 2002. Creating a Community Assessment. MN Planning. St. Paul. Tierney, Kathleen L., Michael K Lindell and Ronald W. Perry. Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the U.S. (Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press) 2001. Wagoner, William D. ―Hazard Mitigation/Comprehensive Plan Interface, Integration of Emergency Management into The Community Planning Process. G626 Student Manual‖. Michigan Department of State Police Emergency Management Division. 2002. pp. SM I - 4,5. Waugh, William L. Jr. 2000. Living With Hazards Dealing With Disasters. NY. M.E. Sharpe Co. Young, Elspeth. 1998. ―Dealing With Hazards and Disasters: Risk Perception and Community Participation in Management.‖ Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Winter. 12