Canton on Emergency Management

National Preparedness Report shows limited capacity for risk reduction

FEMA has just released the National Preparedness Report for 2012 and it makes for interesting reading. The NPR is intended to report on progress towards developing the capabilities outlined in the National Preparedness Goal. This is the second year that the report has been published.

What I found interesting was the summary of current capabilities. As will come as no surprise to those who have followed my blog for any length of time or have read my book, the summary demonstrates a clear focus on response at the expense of other areas of emergency management. Indeed, the five "high priority" capabilities are all response oriented.

This is neither surprising nor necessarily a bid thing. With limited resources, jurisdictions focus on developing the capacity to respond to the initial event and place reliance in mutual aid and the Federal government. This is borne out by another portion of the report that deals with addressing capability gaps and demonstrates a reliance on Federal support. However, several of the areas that are neglected (such as long term vulnerability reduction at 39%) can have a direct bearing on response capabilities.

What is surprising and disappointing to me is how low hazard identification and resilience assessment scored. Only 45-46% of the respondents rated this as a current capability. As I noted above vulnerability reduction (i.e. mitigation) scored even lower at 39%. These are core components of an emergency management program. All planning must begin with an understanding of risk in relation to the vulnerability of the community. If the states and territories that responded to the survey don't believe they have these capabilities, how can we expect local jurisdictions to do so?

If we truly want to achieve the National Preparedness Goal, we have to do better.

Emergency Management Solutions Newsletter May 2013

Emergency Management Solutions May 2013

Extreme Temperatures: Does your plan really work?

Download Extreme Temperatures May2013

Is San Francisco's New Fireboat a Political Football?

SFFD Proposed Fireboat (SF Chronicle photo)

According to an article in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle the San Francisco Fire Department has just lost out on a Federal grant for $7.8 million for a new fireboat because of "procedural delays." 

This is a big deal to us here in San Francisco. While others around the Bay have had to mothball their fireboats, SFFD has worked hard to maintain its capacity to respond to incidents on our waterfront and throughout the Bay Area. During the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake the fireboat Phoenix played a vital role in containing the fires in the Marina Distict.  A second boat, Guardian, was presented to the City a year later and is maintained in reserve status. Both boats have done yeoman work but they are both over 50 years old. The Phoenix was built in 1954 and the Guardian in 1951. We're past due for a new vessel.

So who's to blame for the procedural delays? Hard to say. The grant was awarded in the fall of 2009 and Homeland Security took until January 2011 to approve the use of a grant from Chevron as matching funds. The first contract for the design of the new vessel was challenged by one of the bidders, requiring the bidding process to be repeated. A second conttract for construction also ran into problems, causing further delays, and was finally in place in February. Unfortunately, the terms of the grant required that construction be completed by next month, a physical impossibility given the delays.

Granted that taking two years to get contracts bid and approved may seem excessive but that's not unusual for San Francisco, or, indeed, for many jurisdictions. Could we have done better? Given our byzantine contracting process, I'm sure we could have but that's not the point. There is no suggestion that anyone delayed or obstructed this project.

So here's my question: is Homeland Security really so out of touch with reality that it will withhold a vital resource over an administrative requirement? Apparently so, as the best efforts of Senators Boxer and Feinstein and House Minority Leader Pelosi have had no impact. It seems to me that San Francisco has made a good faith effort to meet the terms of the grant and any of us that have worked with Federal grants know that extensions are routinely granted. So what's the problem here?

Could it be that there's a political side to this? Silly question.

Emergency kits - do we need them?

One of the heroes of my teenage years was Doc Savage, a character from the age of pulp fiction who became popular through a re-release in paper backs. What was so great about Doc was that he was not a superhero but a man who had been trained to peak efficiency in all his faculties by his parents. He kept his skills current through a rigorous daily training program. The attraction for young people was the message that you could be great if you were willing to work at it.

One other thing that was interesting about Doc was that he never carried a gun. He abhorred the taking of a human life and believed that carrying a gun created a dependence on them. Mind you, he did wear a vest that put Batman's utility belt to shame but most of the time he got out of trouble by relying on his intelligence, physical strength, and keen senses.

These leads me to wonder if we are not doing ourselves a disservice by our emphasis on emergency kits rather than skills training. Now don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating that we not encourage the public to build emergency kits. Even Doc Savage occasionally used a gun (always to wound, of course). But I do have some concerns when "building a kit" forms the core of our preparedness message and serves as an indicator of how well our populations are prepared.

My first concern is that to the best of my knowledge there is no empirical research that shows the value of emergency kits as a measure of preparedness or if, in fact, they are actually used in disasters. Common sense suggests that they have utility but that can vary based on the nature of the disaster and the location. We just don't know.

Secondly, we base most of our kits on the 72 hour rule which is also not backed up by any empirical research. Indeed, we don't even know where the rule originated; I've heard quite a number of versions of its origins, ranging from the Cold War to the time needed to mobilize mutual aid. Nobody really knows why we use 72 hours as a baseline.

We also cannot agree on what the kits should contain. I've seen some kits small enough to be worn as a vest or carried in a handbag. I've also seen kits with enough material to outfit a MASH unit. 

Even the issue of water is problematic: we talk about 1 gallon per person for day, which totals 24 pounds for three days but the average adult needs can survive on 2 quarts per day, a more manageable 12 pounds. The other two quarts per day are usually allocated for cooking and hygiene but this is not always clearly stated. We also encourage people to purchase kits with only a few ounces of water in them. To add to the confusion, the need for water is dependent on the environment. We may well be telling people to stockpile more or less than they actually need.

Again, my point here is not to slam emergency kits (I own several) but rather to suggest that one-size does not fit all and that we should be teaching people how to survive in their unique environment. We should be teaching them to think and not just encouraging consumerism.

It's what Doc would do!

Emergency Management Solutions Newsletter - April 2013

Emergency Management Solutions April 2013