• About Todd
  • Best of the Blog
  • Memes
  • Reading List
  • Todd’s Publications

toddjasper

~ Amat victoria curam

toddjasper

Category Archives: RECOVERY

Review of Recently Released CERT Liability Guide

23 Monday Jul 2012

Posted by toddjasper in EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, PREPAREDNESS, RECOVERY, RESPONSE

≈ Leave a comment

Recently, several local agencies partnered with the national CERT program to release the CERT Liability Guide: A Risk Management Overview for Local CERT Programs. I’ve been a volunteer with the Montgomery County, MD Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) since March of this year and recently completed the CERT instructor course. I think the CERT program is one of the most proactive training and outreach programs available to local government and I firmly believe in the potential for CERT to expand and mature in the future.

As a relatively new program though, CERT is still developing infrastructure, foundational doctrine, and other best practices. The recently released CERT Liability Guide was sorely needed. I summarized the key points below:

“CERT program activities can create risk and adverse consequences; however, perceptions about liability may be a larger barrier for CERT formation, activities and partnerships than is justified by reality. There is no indication that CERT programs have any unusual liability experience.” (Page 1)

  • In other words, currently there’s no evidence that CERT programs are more prone to lawsuits or liability than other similar volunteer programs within local government.

“Unfortunately, there is no simple, complete, and uniform remedy to address liability. Various state laws provide some relief, but many laws have detailed requirements and exclusions. Liability protections differ significantly from state to state… Even the Federal Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (VPA) provides only limited protection, which leaves much control in the hands of the states. Thus, for the present, liability protection for most CERT members is likely to remain primarily at the state level.“ (Page 2)

  • It’s probably best if the emergency management agency for each state were to conduct a review (usually with the Attorney General) of the liability implications for CERT programs and issue guidance using the specific laws, requirements, and exclusions specific to the respective state.

Benefits of Risk Management (Pages 3-4) include “confidence in the program, positive public image, reduced expenses, reduced insurance costs, preservation of the CERT program’s investment in members, increased participation in CERT”.

  • There is little doubt that having a formal risk management process is helpful to an agency–if continued conscientiously. Many times volunteer agencies can suffer lulls in operational tempo, thus it is important to ensure certain activities/processes are given high priority. I would assert that a risk management program ought to be considered a high priority within volunteer organizations active in disaster, such as CERT.

The liability guide provides “Five Steps for Managing Risk” (page 4-32)

  • Step #1: Get Leadership Support
  • Step #2: Gather Information
  • Step #3: Identify and Analyze Risk
  • Step #4: Adopt Strategies to Manage Risk
  • Step #5: Maintain the Momentum

I’ll review each step below

Step #1: Get Leadership Support

  • “Leaders who oppose the use of non-professionals–especially in operational activities — may see liability as an argument against starting or maintaining a CERT program. Not everyone understands the role and importance of CERT, therefore, it helps to begin with leaders who already support the CERT program and appreciate its value to the community.” (page 5)

Step #2: Gather Information 

  • “Gather documentation about current and past volunteers and review past claims, losses, or “near-miss” events that can help identify the CERT program’s liability exposures.” (Page 7)
  • “A CERT program that has members under the age of 18 may have to comply with child labor law and must train its personnel about special issues related to interaction with minors, adapt its procedures to protect minors, and document parental consent for their participation in the program.” (Page 7)
  • “CERT Basic Training provides forms that are designed to document operational activities and communicate necessary information. Individual CERT programs may adopt other forms as well. Consistent use of adopted forms is important, so gather a complete set.” (Page 7)
  • Are the members of a CERT program sponsored by a fire department identified as “members” in the fire department’s by-laws? Identification as members of a fire department may entitle volunteers to different protection under the law or the department’s insurance in some circumstances.” (Page 7)
  • Does CERT have a safety officer?
  • Are written training records kept for all volunteers?
  • “Does the CERT program deploy teams to other states to assist in disaster response? If yes, find out whether the program works with state emergency management officials to ensure that CERT members are designated as part of the state’s response force under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC).” (Page 7)

Step #3: Identify and Analyze Risk

  • Civil Liability: Different types of civil liability: negligent acts or omissions, intentional acts, strict liability, liability for the acts of others
  • Non-Operational Risk: Consider the non-operational community service opportunities that are not described in CERT Basic Training, because they also have risks, for example, lifting heavy — or not so heavy — boxes of brochures, driving motor vehicles, helping to manage crowds or traffic, distributing materials from house to house…
  • Standard Operating Procedures: Standard operating procedures and rules of conduct minimize liability by instructing CERT leaders and members how to carry out their responsibilities
  • Absence of Procedures…the absence of procedures for and documentation of activation, assignment, and deactivation is also a risk.

Step #4: Adopt Strategies to Manage Risk

  • Job Descriptions: Position or job descriptions are important risk management tools for most organizations. They help the organization identify risk and ensure the best fit between applicants and jobs.
  • Managers Assume Broader Liability: Some CERT members may assume managerial responsibilities. These include the CERT leader and any section chiefs designated by that leader during an operational response. Their responsibilities require additional management, communication, documentation, and organizational skills, and their decisions may affect the safety of more people. Consequently, their liability exposures are broader than those of team members who are assigned to individual tasks.
  • Standard Application Process: Using a standard application form helps the program collect consistent information about each [CERT] applicant…Avoid including questions that could lead to actions that would be discriminatory in an employment setting (for example, questions about age, race, religion, national origin, pregnancy, disability, health problems, and prior workers’ compensation claims)
  • Written Permission for Minors to Join CERT: Programs that accept participants under the age of 18 should also require the youth to provide a parent’s or guardian’s written permission to participate.
  • Waiver of Liability: Require any participant and, if the participant is a youth, his or her parents or guardians, to sign a written waiver of liability that describes the risks of the CERT program’s activities. Waivers of liability are often not enforceable under a state’s laws, especially against minors, however, a waiver that describes the activities and associated risks shows that the volunteer (and his or her parents) knew of the risks and chose to participate.
  • Screening: To avoid claims of wrongful discrimination, screen all applicants in the same manner. Identify in advance how the program will address specific findings and equally enforce those consequences with all applicants. To avoid liability for failure to identify an applicant who poses a risk, be certain to meet state requirements for screening individuals who will work with vulnerable populations. Keep complete records of all screening results for both accepted and declined applicants, and be certain those results are addressed consistently with each applicant.
  • Written Offer Letter: The program can avoid possible misunderstandings by putting information into a written offer letter or service agreement to be signed by the member and the member’s parents, for minors.
  • Uniform: Require that CERT members wear ―uniforms‖ and carry program identification while they are participating in CERT activities.
  • Reporting Injuries/Accidents/Illness: Require CERT members to report any injuries or illnesses they believe to be related to their CERT activities
  • Statements to Media: Require that CERT members refer media representatives to a designated public relations contact.
  • Confidentiality and Privacy:Prohibit disclosure of confidential or private information about the program, its members, the sponsoring agency and its employees, members of the public, and others.
  • Wrongful Discrimination: Prohibit discrimination, including but not limited to discrimination based on race, gender, religion, color, national origin, age, marital status, disability, and sexual orientation.
  • Harassment (Sexual and Other): Prohibit all harassment as well as the display of sexually suggestive or other offensive materials.
  • Alcohol and Drug Use: Prohibit the use of alcohol, drugs, or substances that can impair physical or mental functioning while participating in CERT activities.
  • Smoking: Prohibit smoking while participating in CERT activities.
  • Carrying Weapons: Prohibit members from bringing weapons to CERT activities unless they are sworn law enforcement officers and carrying the weapon is part of their job.
  • Reporting Changes in Driving Record, Criminal Background, or Professional Licensure Status: Require members to report any change in their driving record, criminal record, professional licensure, or other record required for the position they  hold.
  • Supervision: Every CERT program should assign a supervisor for its members.
  • Discipline and Termination: A procedure for progressive discipline and termination will help the CERT program manage these situations consistently and successfully. The program should develop the procedure with the advice of an employment attorney or skilled human resources professional.
  • Self-Activation May Not Reduce Liability: Self-activation may be pursuant to a standing order, and not all that different – for liability purposes – from an order to activate issued at the time of an emergency… By accepting members and instructing them to self-activate, some might argue that the CERT program has implicitly made a decision that the members are capable of responding without supervision
  • Workers’ Compensation: Occasionally workers’ compensation protection will be available because the state’s workers’ compensation statute specifically includes emergency volunteers in its definition of ―employee.‖ Benefits for emergency volunteers may be subject to limitations or contingencies that do not apply to regular employees.
  • Volunteer Protection Laws: The federal and many state governments have adopted volunteer protection laws that provide certain volunteers with limited immunity. The protection offered by state laws can differ, so this discussion is based on the federal Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (VPA).
  • Good Samaritan Laws: ―Good Samaritan law‖ is the popular name for statutes that provide limited immunity to individuals who, in good faith, without a duty, and without compensation, help a person who is experiencing a health emergency in a setting where there is no ready access to professional care. Protection is not limited to declared emergencies, so Good Samaritan laws can protect people who happen to be present at the scene of an emergency as well as CERT members or teams who self-activate, if they meet the other requirements of the statute
  • Interstate Mutual Aid & EMAC: Some CERT programs operate teams that are capable of responding to disasters across state lines. Activities outside the home state often raise concerns about the adequacy of liability protection in the state where the aid is being provided. These concerns can be warranted, because protection varies from state to state, and CERT members are protected outside their home state only to the extent that the other state has adopted protection for emergency management volunteers. Many states’ emergency management laws protect emergency workers from other states who are responding to an official request for assistance. It pays to be familiar with the liability protection provided by the states to which the CERT(s) responds, but this can be difficult due to variation in state laws and the speed with which response takes place in the aftermath of a disaster. The Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) is a partial remedy to this challenge, but its effect is limited. Under EMAC, a responding state and its officers and employees are protected from liability.
  • Liability Insurance: Liability insurance that covers emergency management volunteers is less likely to have some of the exclusions and limitations that leave gaps in the protection offered by immunity statutes, and, unlike immunity laws, liability insurance also provides funds to pay defense costs, settlements, and judgments.

Step #5: Maintain the Momentum

  • Working through the five steps every few years –especially with new participants – gives the program a fresh perspective on vulnerabilities and new ideas about strategies. Secondly, the five steps suggest how the organization can incorporate managing liability into its ongoing operations, ensuring that everyone from the chief to the newest volunteer thinks about liability when working.

The guide was an excellent resource for non-lawyers because it did a great job of explaining legal concepts in a way that laypersons can understand. For example, when explaining the differences between immunity and indemnity, the guide takes only a few sentences to clearly detail both concepts in an easy-to-understand way: “immunity and indemnity are complementary. Immunity limits an injured person’s legal right to recover damages from the volunteer, but does not pay any costs to defend the volunteer. Indemnity does not limit the injured person’s rights to recover, but it provides the volunteer with a legal defense and pays judgments and settlements, if necessary…”

I would definitely recommend that CERT Program Managers read this guide in full–but not stop there. Then CERT PMs ought to take this guidance to their agency’s HR department and counsel to determine how to implement a robust risk management program for their volunteers. Most importantly, the conversation can’t stop there. There must be a risk management cycle that continues so that conversations about risks are common and routine. Just because CERT is volunteer-driven doesn’t mean we can ignore the risks, the liability, or legal implications of our actions.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

Avoiding the Fate of Napoleon (Arkansas): Designing Successful Recovery Efforts

01 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by toddjasper in PREPAREDNESS, RECOVERY

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Arkansas, ESF-14, FEMA, long-term community recovery, LTCR, Napoleon, national disaster recovery framework, NDRF, recovery, whole community

I spent yesterday in Harrisburg, PA at the Region III National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) Stakeholder Engagement Workshop. While it was great to see so many emergency management professionals dedicated to recovery, it was also quite clear that these types of discussions about recovery are just the beginning of crucial recovery planning at every level. Collectively, we’ve spent enormous resources on response and now, with the NDRF, our focus is being re-adjusted to better understanding–and planning–recovery.

In 1884, a flood inundated the town of Napoleon, Arkansas. The flood occurred before the Stafford Act, no significant recovery operations were implemented, and the town never recovered. In fact, they say during low tide you can still see remnants of Napoleon in the sandbars of the Mississippi River near where the town originally stood. The fate of Napoleon, Arkansas is a symbol of failed recovery.

As our capabilities, technology, and institutions of government have matured, the processes for federal assistance for disaster relief and recovery were codified and they seemed to work well. Hurricane Camille, the 1993 “Storm of the Century”, the 1972 Rapid City Flood (which claimed 238 lives), and the Northridge Earthquake all received disaster declarations and required major disaster relief by the United States Federal government.

The prolonged suffering after Hurricane Katrina re-enforced the moral imperative of well-designed recovery–at every level. Katrina was the catalyst for the entire emergency management industry to re-examine and redefine recovery. It’s taken years but we are now advancing new concepts and completely new schools of thought regarding recovery. ESF-14 Long-Term Community Recovery (LTCR) was the first formal promulgation of strategy for implementing untraditional methods of recovery.

LTCR is a community-driven post-disaster planning process that articulates ideas and priorities expressed by the community for recovery. The LTCR process relies on community consensus as a feedback loop to innovative community development and strategic application of grants and governmental programs. The following plans are examples of the LTCR planning process:

  • Chambers County, Texas (2009)
  • Gays Mills, Wisconsin (2008)
  • Charlotte County, Florida (2004)

While LTCR is emblematic of the Whole Community approach, is still a very reactive process. NDRF takes most of the principles of LTCR and shapes the implementation of those principles into a recovery continuum. The NDRF encourages proactive, pre-disaster planning at all levels of government.

By proffering recovery support functions, the NDRF formalizes recovery lines of operation, such as:

  • Community Planning and Capacity Building
  • Economic
  • Health and Social Services
  • Housing
  • Infrastructure Systems
  • Natural and Cultural Resources

While the annexes for each of the RSFs are in the works, there is still an enormous amount of effort needed to develop pre-disaster recovery plans at all levels of government and community development. In order to avoid future Napoleons, we must prepare for a meticulously well-designed recovery.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Integrated Planning System (IPS): The Best Kept Secret in Planning

09 Monday Jan 2012

Posted by toddjasper in CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, HOMELAND SECURITY, PREPAREDNESS, RECOVERY, RESPONSE

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

department of homeland security, hierarchy of plans, secretary of the department of homeland security, vertical and horizontal integration

Never heard of IPS?
In December 2003, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 8 was signed by the President, and, among other things, included a requirement for the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop an integrated planning system (IPS) (released in January 2009)

IPS was designed to include six areas of importance: national planning doctrine, a system for identifying courses of action, a standard method for incorporating lessons learned, a process for linking tribal, local, state, and regional plans with Federal planning, a process for fostering vertical and horizontal integration of planning with all levels of government, and finally, a guide for for all-hazards planning. Incredibly, IPS accomplished its mission! 

NIMS references IPS, explaining that “while it is recognized that jurisdictions and organizations will develop multiple types of plans, such as response, mitigation, and recovery plans, it is essential that these plans be coordinated and complement one another. State, tribal, and local governments are encouraged to comply with the Integrated Planning System…” The only problem: IPS is so technical that few can stomach it. IPS never really caught on. Few people have implemented it.

How I learned to love IPS:
After Hurricane Ike in 2008, I was a contractor for FEMA using a draft version of IPS to perform strategic recovery planning at the JFO in Austin, TX. As a planning geek, I really like IPS. I liked it so much, that after our team wrapped up in Austin, I continued work at FEMA HQ in DC to develop a strategic recovery planning toolkit based on operationalizing IPS.

I discovered that IPS held a powerful framework and process for planning that provided insight to some the problems I’d experience with planning. As any planner will tell you, in large organizations, one plan seems to beget another plan, which begets yet another plan. Developing a hierarchy of plans is important for vertical integration–especially for large agencies or organizations with complex missions. But without IPS, there was no standardization in the Federal government emergency management plans.

But at less than 100 pages, IPS was a very brief adaptation of military planning doctrine, mainly the Joint Operational Planning and Execution System (JOPES). JOPES is the framework by which the US armed services plan operations together. For example, let’s say a mission in Adversariland was needed that required the Air Force to provide air cover, the Navy to soften beach defenses, Marines to create a beachhead, and soldiers to capture and hold a certain area. That “operation” is considered “joint” because it includes several different branches of the military. In my opinion, if JOPES is able to get marines, soliders, sailors, airmen, and coasties to all talk to one another and plan operations (even if it is only implemented at the highest ranks), it seems like it must have lessons that civilians could learn as well.

Vertical Integration:
In order to better understand IPS, I researched JOPES by reading publicly accessible JOPES training documents and manuals, such as the user guide for JOPES and the precursor to Joint Publication 5-0. JOPES can help civilian planners understand the various levels of planning (see above for the colorful table I made) and how plans that jumble all the levels together are poorly written and disjointed. A plan that drops from strategic level to tactical level is like an elevator without brakes. Vertical integration among complex, disparate organizations takes a strong foundation (found in IPS).

Whole Community = Comprehensive EM + Vertical Integration
For the FEMA “Whole Community” approach to work (which, at its core is decades of refining “comprehensive emergency management”), vertical integration is required. How can local plans integrate with regional plans, which integrate with state-level plans, which integrate with Federal plans and the 15 National Planning Scenarios? An integrated planning system accomplishes this audacious feat. Just when this whole system was about to work and progress the “whole community” ideology…

IPS…Gone, but not Forgotten…
At the end of March 2011, Presidential Policy Directive-8 (National Preparedness) was signed, rescinding HSPD-8 (the foundation of IPS). Although PPD-8 calls for the development of the National Preparedness Goal (released in Sept 2011) and the National Preparedness System (description released in Nov 2011), the foundational elements of IPS are lost. In its place are core capabilities, which are generic program elements, such as Planning, Public Warning and Coordination, and Operational Coordination. While I understand the change and I can appreciate the gained ease-of-use of some parts of the National Preparedness System (by the way, now we’re going to be getting National Planning Scenarios and the National Preparedness System confused…), I feel a tinge of loss for IPS. IPS is sound planning doctrine and provides an introduction to planning that the next generation of planners and emergency managers ought to have the benefit of learning.

Let’s hope the National Planning System can catch the attention of more planners and become the accepted standard that IPS wasn’t. If “whole community” is to be a reality, it will take a strong, integrated planning system.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Need for Campus Emergency Planning Scenarios

28 Wednesday Dec 2011

Posted by toddjasper in CAMPUS SAFETY, SECURITY, & PREPAREDNESS, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, PREPAREDNESS, RECOVERY, RESPONSE

≈ Leave a comment

In March 2006, the Federal interagency community released its updated fifteen all-hazards planning scenarios entitled the “National Planning Scenarios” or NPS. NPS are planning tools that are representative of the range of potential terrorist attacks and natural disasters and the related impacts that face our nation. The objective of the NPS was to develop a minimum number of credible scenarios in order to establish the range of response requirements to facilitate preparedness planning at the Federal level.

NPS were used in the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-8, “National Preparedness,” including the development of the National Preparedness Goal and National Exercise Program (NEP). In helping to develop the National Preparedness Goal, NPS provided the foundation for identifying the capabilities across all mission areas and the target levels of those capabilities needed for effective prevention, response, and recovery to major events, such as those outlined in the NPS.

While documents like NPS, the National Preparedness Directive, and National Preparedness Goal constitute the foundation of planning and preparedness for Federal planners, very few foundational documents exist for our Nation’s most vulnerable citizens: our children.

With that in mind, I propose (in draft form) the following Campus Emergency Planning Scenarios (CEPS), sorted by natural hazards and man-made hazards:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the perfect world, each school would have an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) with hazard-specific annexes (taken from the aforementioned CEPS). Schools would design and develop plans that include protective measures, pre-scripted public information products, initial actions, coordination requirements, and tactical-level checklists for the incident commander and campus ICS positions.

While many schools may have plans for one or several of the CEPS hazards, few schools have comprehensive emergency management programs that address all of the CEPS hazards. By developing industry-accepted Campus Emergency Planning Scenarios, schools and school districts might be prompted to develop plans, policies, procedures, and protocols for preparing for, responding to, and recovering from the hazards in CEPS. Based on CEPS, perhaps school administrators would be motivated to reach consensus on designing and developing a campus preparedness goal, campus preparedness system/framework, or even lobbying the Secretary of the US Department of Education to release a Campus Preparedness Directive.

As I mentioned earlier in this post, the scenarios I propose are in draft form and I would greatly appreciate any comments, feedback, or suggested changes.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

FEMA’s Brand New Bag: The “Whole Community” Strategy

13 Tuesday Dec 2011

Posted by toddjasper in EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, PREPAREDNESS, RECOVERY, RESPONSE

≈ Leave a comment

As early as July 2010, Craig Fugate, the administrator of FEMA, has been talking about a “whole community” approach at FEMA. During testimony before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in March 2011, Mr. Fugate explained that the “whole community” approach “recognizes that FEMA is not the nation’s emergency management team – FEMA is only a part of the team.  In order to successfully prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards, we must work with the entire emergency management community. This ‘Whole Community’ includes FEMA and our partners at the federal level; our state, local, tribal and territorial governmental partners; non-governmental organizations like faith-based and non-profit groups and private sector industry; and most importantly, individuals, families, and communities, who continue to be our greatest assets and the key to our success.”

Many people (especially FEMA employees and local municipalities) fondly remember “Project Impact: Building Disaster Resilient Communities” introduced by James Lee Witt in 1997. While not exactly the same, it seems that Fugate’s vision of a “whole community” is very much in line with the values and principles evinced by “Project Impact”. A couple of years ago I was in FEMA’s Region III office and I still saw hats and pins for Project Impact!

With the release of the National Disaster Recovery Framework and the promise of forthcoming frameworks for mitigation and preparedness, Mr. Fugate’s time at FEMA has been revolutionary. Under his watch, FEMA has experienced an incredible number of disaster declarations. From 2009 to this current moment, FEMA has been charged with response and recovery operations for 238 disaster declarations. For context, from 1980-1989, FEMA only had 237 disaster declarations! Mr. Fugate’s calm and effective leadership during extraordinary times is not just noteworthy, but is worthy of study for future generations.

Amid talk of a “new, new FEMA” and along with all the progress FEMA and the emergency management field in general has made since Hurricane Katrina, the timing is perfect for Mr. Fugate’s vision of a whole community strategy to motivate a new generation of public servants at all levels (whether they are in the Federal/state/local/tribal government or a community organization/volunteer active in disasters).

Share this:

  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF)

08 Thursday Dec 2011

Posted by toddjasper in #SMEM, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, PREPAREDNESS, RECOVERY

≈ 1 Comment

This evening I took a few minutes to assemble the NDRF page on Wikipedia. It still needs a lot of work, but at least it has some presence now. In my next posts, I’ll be further exploring the new Presidential Policy Directive-8 (PPD-8) regarding National Preparedness (issued March 2011), the National Preparedness Goal (September 2011), the recently released National Preparedness System (November 2011), and the forthcoming National Preparedness Report.

For those who haven’t heard of the NDRF yet, the NDRF was released in September 2011 and is a “sequel” to the National Response  Framework (NRF)–which replaced the National Response Plan. For emergency management geeks like me, the NDRF is a giant step forward in preparing for disasters–at all levels of government AND NGOs. Like the FCO position in response, recovery is led by the Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC). Instead of Emergency Support Functions (ESFs), the NDRF introduces 6 Recovery Support Functions (RSF). What’s really interesting about the NDRF (and this is clearly indicative of Mr. Fugate’s leadership) is that the NDRF includes as much guidance and structure for pre-disaster activities and planning as it does for post-disaster recovery actions. Additionally, the NDRF includes roles and responsibilities for local and state officials–which are meant to work with communities in advance of a disaster or even the need to recovery. This key structural feature of the NDRF effectively transitions some of the coordinating that is normally performed by Federal officials after a disaster to state/local officials BEFORE a disaster.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

Disaster Mythology

03 Saturday Dec 2011

Posted by toddjasper in EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, HOMELAND SECURITY, PREPAREDNESS, RECOVERY, RESPONSE

≈ 1 Comment

Over the past few days, I’ve been asking my colleagues (on Twitter and in person) for common disaster myths they’ve encountered. I think I’ll start a series of disaster myth-busting blog posts in which I dissect some of the myths out there in regards to disasters, FEMA, and other organizations active in disasters.

Here is a short list of disaster myths (please feel free to comment to add more!).

  1. Disasters bring out the worst in society (also addressing “mass panic”)
  2. Disaster response and recovery is solely a governmental responsibility
  3. Damages from an improvised nuclear device (IND) are so catastrophic, there’s no use in preparing for it.
  4. Using the “Triangle of Life” concept during an earthquake is safer than the “duck, cover, and hold on” method.
  5. BlackBerry PIN-to-PIN messages are more resilient than other carriers’ SMS or text messages.
  6. Opening windows before a tornado strikes will equalize the pressure inside of the house and prevent more extensive damages or roof failure.
  7. Hiding underneath a highway overpass is a safe location during a tornado.
  8. FEMA will pay for any damages after any disaster
  9. Wireless Priority Service (WPS) / Government Emergency Telephone System (GETS) cards will override any non-prioritized callers.
  10. FEMA is a bloated, bureaucratic agency that is slow to respond and ends up taking over disaster operations from the local-level agencies.
  11. The government will be able to assist me immediately after a disaster.
  12. The US military can always be called in to provide disaster relief.

I’m extremely grateful for the contributions/suggestions by Shannon Buckland, Patrice Cloutier, Bryan Damis, Jim Garrow, Alisha Griswold, R. Kelzenberg, Steven Polunsky, and Rick Russotti.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,226 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • Todd’s Interview: “Questions Raised about Police Response in Capitol Shooting”
  • Todd’s NPR Interview on Tragic Navy Yard Mass Shooting
  • 5 Reasons Your Agency Should Have a Smartphone App
  • FEMA Releases Revised Federal Continuity Directive 2 (FCD-2)
  • Intro to IAEM Emerging Technologies Caucus (ETC)

Todd’s Tweets

  • RT @TrafficNewsLA: 🚨 #BreakingNews Bullet casings were recovered after shots were fired at The Commons in #Calabasas. No injuries were re… 3 days ago
  • @StephCreaCrea @santiagomayer_ Seriously!!!!! 6 days ago
  • @AlexC_EMHS I think “on-call” status is misused and abused by mgmt in almost all circumstances—it’s a pretty ineffi… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 6 days ago
  • @RookieCityCop I once saw a dude walking around with a Logan Circle with a samurai sword and called MPD, they basic… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 week ago
  • @MissAshes92 That’s the first I’ve heard of that… I’d love to hear what the context is for the concept of Area Command going away… 1 week ago
Follow @toddjasper

Categories

  • #SMEM
  • ABOUT TODD
  • CAMPUS SAFETY, SECURITY, & PREPAREDNESS
  • CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS
  • EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
  • EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION
  • HOMELAND SECURITY
  • PREPAREDNESS
  • PUBLIC HEALTH
  • RECOVERY
  • RESPONSE

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • toddjasper
    • Join 46 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • toddjasper
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: