Canton on Emergency Management

06/28/2024

Building Your Professional Library

Back in the day when rocks were soft and dinosaurs roamed the earth, people like me came to emergency management as a second profession. We brought with us a considerable amount of experience in our previous jobs but had very little real knowledge of emergency management. This was not a particular drawback as our focus was largely on the development of emergency plans.

Then came the great awakening. I remember reading a paper by Dr Enrico Quarantelli and thinking, “This guy has finally got it! About time someday figured this out.” I then looked at the date on the paper; it was written the year I was born. It was my introduction to a whole range of books, research papers, and articles on emergency management that I didn’t know existed.

This became more and more important as emergency management evolved from an operational to a strategic emphasis and sought recognition as a profession. One of the principal requirements of a profession is a specialized body of knowledge yet it is only recently that we have begun to recognize this and seen the emergence of academic disciplines designed to provide embryonic emergency managers with access to this body of knowledge.

This is incredibly important. The past is an indicator of what has occurred and may reoccur. Coupled with social science research, it shows how others have solved problems in the past and how people are likely to behave in a crisis. For too long we have been basing emergency plans on disaster mythology and how we assume people will react rather that what history and research teach us are more realistic and likely reactions.

In addition, there is evidence that increasing your knowledge base can improve your ability to make decisions in a crisis. In his book, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions, Dr Gary Klein argues that crisis decision making is based on pattern recognition. He notes that the patterns available in a decision maker’s knowledge base can be increased not only through experience but through simulation exercises, reading, and viewing videos.

Since the type of information of use to emergency managers is not always easy to find and may be drawn from numerous disciplines, I have found it useful to develop a personal reference library. The content of your library is your choice. There are numerous suggested reading lists floating around but the best reading list if the one you develop for yourself. For example, if you’re just getting started in emergency management, you might start with books and papers that form the foundation of modern emergency management theory. If you’re looking to improve your ability to deal with disaster, you might choice to look at books and studies related to historical disasters. However, the one thing to avoid is limiting your reading to just emergency management. There is a wealth of information available in other disciplines that have direct bearing on emergency management such as readings in politics, law, political economics, climatology, and so forth.

The obvious starting point in building your library is, of course, to buy books. But many of the books that we find useful are based on academic research and have a limited market and, therefore, a high price. Fortunately, there are opportunities to purchase books second hand and you will often be surprised at the relevancy of some of the older books you find. Never pay full price for a book if you can avoid it. Online and second-hand bookstores are your friends.

Don’t neglect your local library either. Many libraries make books available in electronic format as well as hard copies, making them easy to access when traveling or doing late night research. You can also access materials not in the local library’s collection through inter-library loans. If you are an alumnus or alumna of a nearby university, you can generally gain access to the university library and its resources. This may allow you to access academic journals that would otherwise be too costly to access. Another way is to access academic journals is to volunteer to serve on their editorial board.

Depending on your work environment, you may be able to help your organization build a small reference library for you team. I was successful in this for several organizations with whom I was associated. The plus was that my team had access to the materials, and it was something that could be useful to my successors.

Fortunately, some of the best material is readily available online for free. The University of Delaware’s Disaster Research Center houses the E.L. Quarantelli Resource Collection consisting of hundreds of documents. The Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado also offers access to disaster research papers. FEMA’s Higher Education Program used to have a considerable amount of papers and textbooks available for download but their webpage is under development at this writing and a selection of materials can be found at the National Emergency Training Center (NETC) Library. Aside from sites such as these, even a basic search will turn up many resources, including primary resources, after-action reports, and academic papers.

The advantage of internet resources is that many of them can be downloaded without the storage requirements of hard copies. The secret is to have a system that allows you to be able to retrieve a specific document. You don’t want to know how many times I’ve had to search for and retrieve a document because I couldn’t remember if or where I’d stored it.

Not everyone is a reader and not all books and papers are easy to read. But expanding your knowledge base increases your ability to deal with crisis. Remember, emergency managers are generalists, not specialists. We are expected to know a bit about a broad range of topics in way that allows us to engage in strategic thinking. The broader our knowledge base, the more effective we are.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 06/28/2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

05/23/2024

What Makes an Emergency Manager Unique?

In last month’s featured article, First Responders as Emergency Managers, my colleague Tim Riecker wrote about the difficulties many first responders have in transitioning to emergency management. Tim makes the point that first responders and emergency managers are from different fields that require different skill sets that don’t often overlap. Hence, having a first responder background should not be prerequisite for an emergency management position nor is it an automatic guarantee that the candidate will be a successful emergency manager.

My experience mirrors Tim’s and I’d like to expand on this theme a bit as to why I think emergency managers are unique.

When I first came to emergency management, there was no definition as to who emergency managers were or what we did. Indeed, there was no real definition for emergency management. Instead, emergency management was defined by the tasks it was expected to accomplish, as codified in a list of basic preparedness functions. These included tasks such as the mobilization of resources, public warning, caring for victims, damage assessment, and so forth. Emergency managers were defined by the skills needed to perform these tasks.

However, if we look closely at these tasks, it becomes obvious that emergency managers do not perform these tasks. Instead, they ensure that they are performed. Consider, for example, the establishment of emergency shelters. Most emergency plans have a table of some sort designating primary and supporting agencies for emergency functions such as sheltering. I submit that, with a few extremely rare exceptions, none of those tables have the emergency management office as the lead agency for sheltering. Instead, sheltering is usually performed by a team comprised of experts in the various aspects of sheltering, such as shelter management and congregate care. The same can be said of almost all the tasks considered basic preparedness functions.

If emergency managers don’t perform basic preparedness functions, what is it that we contribute to the communities we serve? To explain this, let’s consider an example from the medical profession. Medical professionals can be roughly divided into two very broad categories: generalists and specialists. A general practitioner requires a very broad range of knowledge that allows them to diagnose a patient’s condition. If the patient’s problem is within the physician’s area of practice, they provide treatment. But since their knowledge base is broad but not necessarily deep in some areas, the general practitioner may recognize the need for a referral to a specialist with a deeper understanding of the patient’s condition.

Here's an example of how this works. A patient discusses concerns about the signs of potential heart disease. The general practitioner examines the patient, runs a few tests, and determines that there may be issues with the patient’s heart. The general practitioner refers the patient to a physician specializing in heart disease who confirms a serious problem and refers the patient to a surgeon who specializes in heart operations. During the operation through recovery, the surgeon is supported by a team of other specialists, such as endocrinologist, anesthesiologists, surgical nurses, etc.

Now apply this same concept to emergency managers. We are expected to have a broad range of knowledge that encompasses emergency theory and practices, disaster legislation, historical examples, available resources, and more. More importantly, we need to be able to see the big picture, to think strategically, and to be able to integrate the work of the many specialists with whom we work. Above all, we must be generalists and not let ourselves be distracted by trying to do the tasks that can be better done by a specialist.

Understanding that we are generalists changes the dynamic. Where the old paradigm focused on the what (the basic preparedness functions), being a generalist focuses us instead on the why, which in turn leads to the how and the who. It also shifts us away from the need for just technical competence to include managerial competence and the perception of adding to public value. This in turn demands we develop the competencies that Tim discussed in his article: the personality and people skills needed to support coordination, constantly seeking additional knowledge and training, going beyond a single focus on response, and administrative competency.

There is research to back up this unique view of emergency management. More importantly, we now have an accepted definition of emergency management that focuses on this more proactive role:

Emergency management is the managerial function charged with creating the framework within which communities reduce vulnerability to threats/hazards and cope with disasters.

Note the emphasis on management and on the development of community capacity rather than just on tasks. Being a generalist is more challenging and demanding than being a specialist in many ways. I believe that it is what makes us unique among the many organizations with whom we work.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 05/23/2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

04/25/2024

But That Plan Is Just for Disasters!

Shortly before the recent eclipse, I saw a brief article about several small jurisdictions in Texas who were activating their emergency operations centers during the event. No, this was not in response to the numerous doomsday conspiracy theories that were making the rounds prior to the eclipse. Rather, it was in response to a well-reasoned risk assessment. The jurisdictions were in the path of the eclipse and realized they would be inundated by sightseers who generate a potential for traffic congestion, shortages of food, fuel, and lodging, increased medical emergencies and so forth. In short, while it would not necessarily rise to the level of a disaster, it would provide a risk to the community that could be best handled through a coordinated interagency response.

We sometimes think that emergency management is limited to disasters and that our plans are intended specifically for that purpose. Even if we don’t, this is often the perception that others have. During the after-action review of a major residential hotel fire that displaced just over a hundred residents, I asked why we had not used the shelter plan laid out in the city’s Emergency Operations Plan. The reply I received was that the plan was only for disasters. It took several years and a lot of work to reverse that attitude. Following that painful process, we ended up with a much-improved shelter plan that could be used in both emergencies and disasters.

Closely associated with this attitude is a narrowness of vision. We tend to think that the hazards we deal with are the big-ticket items, things like earthquakes, fires, floods, terrorist attacks, and chemical spills. Yet experience teaches us that disasters, while common in the aggregate, are relatively rare in any given jurisdiction. However, that same jurisdiction daily faces a high risk of an emergency that requires a coordinated inter-agency response. We need to broaden our vision to include any hazard that places those we serve at risk.

Changing your perspective from a focus on disasters to one based on risk can have a positive impact on your relationship with senior officials and their staff. Early in my time at San Francisco, we were faced with a major garbage strike. Since it wasn’t a “disaster,” my office wasn’t privy to the planning being done by the mayor’s staff. At the last minute, I was asked to help by providing maps of the city and, when it was learned I was a native, some advice on potential collection points. As I was about to leave the meeting, there was a discussion on how the city could perform all the necessary inspections of the collection points and identify what city resources would be needed to support them. After eavesdropping for a bit, I suggested that what was needed was an inter-agency team, which was something my office did routinely. My staff wasn’t too happy about this “non-disaster” work but in a matter of hours we had identified and staged the teams using elements of our EOP.

The result of this brief participation in the garbage strike was that my office was acknowledged as a productive member of the mayor’s staff and that we had skills and resources that could be used to support a variety projects. In essence, we were part of the team and not just “plan checkers.” We began to get requests to help support other initiatives. For example, we worked closely with the Mayor’s Office on Homelessness on emergency winter sheltering planning and with the police department on developing a response to child abduction. Our EOC was frequently activated in anticipation of potential civil disturbances, demonstrations, or large civic events. We were the lead for the response to the power emergencies, an event that didn’t pose a great risk but generated a tremendous amount of public concern. Our approach was that if it potentially affected the well-being of our citizens, we were involved, even if only peripherally.

We were not unique in this. One of my colleagues became concerned about rumors of an impending financial crisis and after performing a risk assessment, started developing plans to deal with the potential impact in his jurisdiction. Before it became generally accepted, another colleague began pushing for development of a recovery plan for his jurisdiction. Both met with resistance, both from their own staff and plan stakeholders.

The resistance is understandable. Emergency managers are most comfortable dealing with operational issues and hierarchical organizations. Moving beyond the operational means developing a more strategic viewpoint. It requires developing new skills in uncomfortable areas such a politics and finance. It involves learning to work with a whole range of new stakeholders, many of whom are not used to the hierarchical approach with which we tend to work. Our work on the shelter plan, for example, required working with many small community organizations, many of whom were mistrustful of government.

How do you take on all this additional work with limited resources? You do it by recognizing that this is not in addition to your work but part of your work. Every project you take on is an opportunity to test and improve components of your plan. Every new plan you develop is an opportunity work with new stakeholders and to develop relationships that will be essential in a disaster. Every time you activate an EOC is an opportunity test systems and train first-time attendees.

However, the most important benefit is the visibility these opportunities provide. Ultimately, your goal is to be recognized as something beyond just a type of fire extinguisher that is only used in a disaster. Instead, you need to be able to influence events rather than being controlled by them. You need to be viewed as a key staff member and trusted advisor. Demonstrating you are part of the team of decision makers and advisors is critical to your success.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 04/25/2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

03/26/2024

Do You Really Want a Robot to Write Your Emergency Plan?

Robot typing keyboard. 3d rendering robot hand working with computer keyboard , #Sponsored, #keyboard, #rendering, #… | Keyboard typing, Keyboard, Computer keyboard
In one of the discussion groups I follow, someone asked about the possibility of using artificial intelligence to write emergency plans. After my initial reaction of, “Are you serious?” I realized it is a reasonable question to ask, given all the hype surrounding AI. Emergency managers are always seeking ways to improve and are quick to embrace new technologies. So, are we missing a bet here?

Let me raise two caveats. The first is that I am by no means an expert in artificial intelligence. My thoughts on the matter are more philosophical than technical. The second caveat is that the field is incredibly dynamic and changing almost daily, both in terms of technology and in terms of legal and economic factors. Whatever I write today could be out of date by the time you read this article.

Part of the problem with AI is the name itself. Despite conjuring science fiction images of the end of society at the hands of intelligent robots, AI is not intelligent, it is imitative. It can acquire vast amounts of data very quickly, recognize patterns and predict associations based on those patterns. This adapts well to things like speech recognition and language translation. However, I get a bit skeptical when its proponents claim AI is capable of decision-making. There is a big difference between the decision-making capacity required for sorting boxes in a warehouse and that for deciding the assignment of resources in a crisis. Since those decisions are based on the input data, I am reminded of the old programmer’s warning, “Garbage in, garbage out.”

Part of this skepticism is based on the overwhelming hype surrounding the use of AI to essentially replicate things that are already in use. Both Google and Bing have incorporated AI into their search functions, with sometime hilarious results. Unfortunately, some of the results have also included potentially serious results, such as incorrect medical advice. AI recognizes patterns; it does not analyze or understand context.

Which brings us to its use in emergency planning. Over the years, I have conducted the review of numerous plans at multiple levels of government and private sector organizations. After a while, they all begin to look much the same. The reason for this is that we have pushed hard to standardize our emergency plans through the development of doctrinal documents such as Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans. This is not a bad thing in itself. Standardization allows for a common approach to operations and the integration of supporting elements. However, we have pushed beyond standardizing concepts to developing way too much minutia in initiatives such as the national qualification system. The end result is that many plans are now written to conform to doctrine rather than for the convenience of the user.

However, between all this doctrinal information and the hundreds of existing plans, there is a large pool of material that would probably be sufficient for Chat GPT or one of the other AI systems to develop an emergency plan for a given jurisdiction that would conform to all existing requirements. The question is, “Why would you want to?”

Several years ago, I was part of a team helping a major city with its evacuation planning. My job was to review their evacuation plan. It was a thing of beauty: the concept was solid, all the elements needed were addressed, and all supporting elements were integrated into the plan. However, it didn’t take much digging to find out that the plan had been written in week by a single individual and that nothing in the plan had ever been coordinated with the supporting agencies or with the host jurisdictions receiving the evacuees. The plan was useless.

Similarly, I once unsuccessfully bid on a multi-jurisdictional project to assist with their emergency plan development. The budget was tight, so I was careful to propose only the minimum process necessary to formulate the plans. When I asked for suggestions on how to improve future proposals, I was told that it looked like I wanted them to do a lot of work. Apparently, they were looking for a fiction writer and not a planning consultant.

My point here is that it is not the writing of the document that is important but the process of developing the plan, something that any emergency manager worth his or her salt understands. I’m not sure that AI offers much beyond the many templates or plan writing programs already available online or the many samples your colleagues are willing to share for free. If AI floats your boat, give it try. Just don’t expect it make decisions for you and don’t expect your plan to be user-friendly. I suspect that the time you save in writing will be eaten up in proof reading and correcting contextual issues. Never forget that the process of planning is important, not the end result.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 03/26/2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

02/27/2024

Who Writes This Stuff Anyway? How Federal Guidance Gets Developed

In a recent article titled Gaps in ICS Doctrine and Documents my colleague Tim Riecker points out the lack of cohesive doctrine in the Incident Management System. He writes that while we have some basic guidance in documents such as the National Incident Management System document and the National Qualification System, there is a lack of definition of key concepts, inclusion of contemporary practices, and continuity from doctrine into supporting documents and training.

As is usually the case, I agree with Tim completely on his assessment. Further, his article sparked some ideas about why this is the case. I suggest that it comes down to three factors: the use of consultants to develop much of our guidance documents, the project managers who oversee their work and our own lack of involvement in the process.

Before you think I’m going to hammer on consultants, let me remind you that I have been a consultant for over twenty years and have been fortunate to work with exceptional individual consultants and with several reputable firms. The issue is not necessarily the consultants but the government’s system of breaking initiatives into multiple projects. This means that frequently consultants are called on to build on work done by a previous consulting team, whether they agree with the previous approach or not. Often you find yourself working on a project that might affect or be affected by one handled by another consulting team without knowing that project exists. There is also the problem with changes to the project management team where the new project manager may want to take things in a different direction or chooses not to accept your advice on how best to achieve the project goals.

As a consultant I usually perform one of two roles. I may be part of a team as a subject matter expert because of my knowledge of an issue or possession of a specific technical skill. As a solo consultant, I am what is known as a process consultant. I guide clients through the development of policies and procedures to achieve their desired goals. Understanding this will help you understand why we are weak in the development of ICS doctrine.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, we can define three very broad categories when dealing with disaster response planning: strategic, operational, and tactical. Strategy provides the overall context in which other plans function. The operational level translates strategy into action by coordinating the resources needed to achieve goals and objectives. The tactical level is where the actual provision of services takes place. In terms of emergency response, the tactical level is the on-scene response, the operational the emergency operations center, and the strategic the Multiagency Coordination Group or policy group. Problems arise when you mix up the roles of the various levels in plans or guidance documents.

If we look at documents such as the National Response Framework, these are strategic documents. They establish the operational context that will drive the development of supporting plans and documents. They deal with concepts rather than specifics. For a process consultant, this is the type of project we love. While it can be complex and challenging depending on the stakeholders involved, the methodology and end product are similar to previous projects.

Jumping ahead to the purely tactical, we have an excellent example in the National Qualification System. This type of project is also one that consultants enjoy because a lot of the work is repetitive and can be done by entry-level consultants or clerical staff with work laid out and verified by subject matter experts. Like strategic projects, the work can be complex and sometimes tedious but is well within the capabilities of consulting teams and plays to their strengths.

The operational becomes more problematic, however. A strategic document is by nature a “one size fits all” document. The same can be said of a tactical document like the NQS where the intent is to standardize the requirements for anyone filling a specific position. An operational document does not share this “one size fits all” trait. It must be generic enough to provide for the standardization called for in NIMS yet flexible enough to allow modifications to adapt to local circumstances. Developing these documents usually involves significant input from subject matter experts, which increases the cost and complexity of the project. It is no wonder then that we see a gap within operational guidance.

Given these limitations on consultants, the role of the program managers overseeing their work becomes extremely important. However, one cannot assume that these program managers always have sufficient knowledge and experience to guide these complex programs. Practical field experience in emergency management is not a qualification a position in FEMA. There are exceptions, of course, and this is not intended to denigrate the hard work done of these projects by agency staff who are forced to learn on the job. It is instead an acknowledgement of problems in the system.

How do we correct this? Actually, the approach that FEMA uses is a good one - ask those who will use the product. FEMA releases draft documents for public comments. However, my experience is that many emergency managers are not signed up to receive notifications and those that do are frequently too busy to take the time to read and comment on drafts. We need to do better at pushing back on proposed guidance or doctrine that do not tally with our practical experience.

More importantly, we need to recognize that much of what we assume is doctrine is, in fact, guidance. Many existing documents provide principles rather specific direction and provide a degree of flexibility in following those principles. Slavishly conforming to a guidance document to the detriment of your ability to adequately respond to a crisis does no one any good.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 02/27/2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Canton on Emergency Management

Categories

Search

Follow Me

06/28/2024

Building Your Professional Library

05/23/2024

What Makes an Emergency Manager Unique?

04/25/2024

But That Plan Is Just for Disasters!

03/26/2024

Do You Really Want a Robot to Write Your Emergency Plan?

02/27/2024

Who Writes This Stuff Anyway? How Federal Guidance Gets Developed

Disaster Preparedness Video Series

Search

Follow Me

06/28/2024

Featured Articles

05/23/2024

Featured Articles

04/25/2024

Featured Articles

03/26/2024

Featured Articles

02/27/2024

Featured Articles

Disaster Preparedness Video Series