Introduction

It would be a truism to say that organisations are only as good as the people within them.  The human resource must be nurtured and developed, indeed fully supported, if any organisation is to be optimally effective.  And so it is with civil care and security which is all about people and their interaction with each other.  It does not matter whether the human resource is paid or unpaid (volunteer), primary or secondary care provider, government or private, federal/national, state/territory, regional or local.  There is, however, an amount of confusion evident in society as to the most appropriate means of providing the necessary support for civil care and security.  You will notice that the word 'best' was not used in referring to civil care and security support provision as it is even more subjective than the descriptor of 'most appropriate' which itself would require some qualification.

 

Whilst there may be agreement generally about the place of education, training and development in civil care and security as a fundamental support issue for the underpinning of the human resource base for civil care and security, there remains a significant misunderstanding of the terms themselves.  The reasons for this lack of clarity are many and varied but primarily it is because most people are familiar with the terms and tend to take them for granted.  It is also true that many people misuse the terms and treat them as synonyms for each other such that they are often used interchangeably. 

 

Civil care and security itself is an interesting phrase and it has been used deliberately since it is both a process and a result, unlike disaster management which is exclusively a process.  Education, training and development are also processes involved with learning, again both a process and a result.  The end result of learning is the transfer of competencies, the skills, knowledge and attitudes, to the workplace.  The degree of success in effecting that transfer of learning will largely be determined by the level to which that education, training and development has been results-oriented such that it addresses a need or discrepancy between current and desired results. 

 

These results can be at the product or micro level (individual), the outputs/macro level (organisation), or outcomes/mega level (societal impact).  Given that everything is measurable, be it on a nominal, ordinal, interval or ratio scale, then the return on the investment in learning can be calculated.  The cost of learning to society can also be measured and risk management undertaken to determine an affordable program. 

 

 

 

Definitions

Education

 

activities which aim at developing the knowledge, skills, moral values and  understanding required in all aspects of life rather than a knowledge and skill relating to only a limited field of activity.  We may care to add the development (formulation) of attitudes and capabilities.

 

Training

 

a planned process to modify attitude, knowledge or skill behaviour through learning experience to achieve effective performance in an activity or range of activities, hence competencies. 

 

Development

 

the growth or realisation of a person's ability or capacity through conscious or unconscious learning and incorporating both competencies and capabilities.

 

But training and development activities within organisations are not confined to job or workplace-related training.  Some education and development activities have no immediate relevance to the job of the learner but are nonetheless regarded as a worthwhile investment by the organisation.  Thus, the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) has adopted a broader HRM approach of managing the organisation's human resources such that it becomes:

 

... the process of increasing the capacity of the human resource through development.  It is thus a process of adding value to individuals, teams, or an organisation as a human system

                                                                                 (Smith 1992, p. 2)

 

 

 

Objectives

The aim of this module is to examine the critical aspects of capability development in civil care and security so as to determine existing human resource requirements from an analysis of any discrepancies revealed from records and field research.

 

Topics

 

The following topics will be included:

 

1.       Education

2.       Training and Development

 

 

Key Questions

•        What is the distinction between education, training and development?

 

•        What is the relevance of education, training and development for civil care and security?

 

 

Note:   The focus of this module is on structure and processes to improve human performance in civil care and security.  The two perspectives of civil care and security provider and civil care and security recipient are to be considered.

 

Capability Development in Civil Care and Security

 

'Training is only one  component  in a productivity improvement effort.  No matter how effective, training can't make up for poor policy, poor management and supervision, inadequate resources such as antiquated equipment, or poor worker-management

relations'

                              (Chapados, Rentfrow & Hochheiser 1987, p. 63)

 

Disasters are intense experiences for the workers involved and staff training and support activities are crucial to an effective and appropriate response.  Successful civil care and security management requires all participating organisations and staff members to have a full appreciation of the physical and social impact of disaster and the management activities and processes which support individual and community civil care and security.

 

The Newcastle City Council Earthquake Response Record (1990) listed training as one of its nine main conclusions thus:

 

'Disaster management training should be a required pre-requisite for officers of emergency and local authorities'

                                                (Newcastle City Council 1990, p. 103)

 

Training activities ensure that staff are aware of their roles and responsibilities within the departmental and community framework, are familiar with models and strategies of community development practice, and understand the proposed objectives and outcomes of the recovery process.  Within the civil care and security system structures are developed for briefing and debriefing of staff, clarification of tasks, responsibilities and lines of authority, and for access to identified support personnel.  This structure rests on the efficient acquisition, assessment and dissemination of information organisationally and within the community network.

 

Training Requirements

Training requirements, often referred to as training 'needs', must consider the basis of existing competence in order to accurately assess any real needs.  Such an assessment may indicate the particular training requirement as a 'fix' to the perceived gap in results as the problem or so-called need.

 

Consider this range of civil care and security functions and skills and ask the following questions:

 

1.       does each function and skill require specialist full-scale training?

2.       does government have responsibility for dealing with disaster?

3.       do government resources include personnel trained and proficient in basic, specialist roles?

4.       do governments’ practising civil care and security personnel require additional routine training? If so consider the following:

          •       planning

          •      organisation

          •      day-to-day management activities

          •      counter -disaster operations

          •      crisis management activities

          •      logistic functions

          •      recovery management

          •      major program participation

          •      specialist skills application (welfare, communications, assessment etc.)

 

Training Policy

Civil care and security training has traditionally been regarded as being both complex and expensive.  Greater utilisation of existing resources and capabilities (nationally and internationally) can achieve satisfactory training standards.  However, there are three important aspects to consider:

 

1.       the training requirements must be clearly identified as local and not merely imported from elsewhere;

 

2.       training must be compatible with local plans and resources; and

 

3.       responsibility for training must be clearly defined.

 

Note:      One Australian State's requirement for local government (councils) to prepare disaster plans by a stipulated date with little coordination and support produced a rush of direct copies between the nearly 900 groups around the nation resulting in mismatches in many ways, including tugboat firefighting capabilities for cities well removed (inland) from the sea.

 

Types of Training

Any training intervention should be identified as the solution to the problem selected for resolution.  Remember, it is possible to have many non-training interventions such as awareness campaigns and aides-memoire.  Accordingly, the types of training and the categories of trainees should be clearly articulated also.  Detail which is worth noting in the delineation of the four training requirements (though not mutually exclusive) as:

 

•        disaster management training

•        skills training

•        co-ordination training, and

•        specialised training

 

Training Programs

General considerations to be made before establishing and implementing training programs include:

 

•        The basis of organisation (training structure or framework) which applies to civil care and security, since this influences levels of training.

 

•        The current status of civil care and security since this influences the required scope of  training programs.

 

•        The degree to which the civil care and security system is utilised in some or all of its various functions (especially mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery).  This will reflect current experience and thereby help to identify the types of training which require emphasis.

 

•        The experience of civil care and security staff, especially that of key staff, which has to be incorporated and utilised within training programs.

 

•        The facilities (and resources) which are available to implement training programs, particularly in terms of instructional staff, accommodation, instructional aids and administrative support.

 

The remaining considerations of aims, responsibilities, duration, staff and facilities are worthy of  close scrutiny to provide a comparative base for likely decision-making for your organisation or civil care and security environment which, as has been stated before, enters new territory as the familiar single-service, agency or organisation is left behind and the somewhat nebulous multi-agency/organisation requirement is embraced.

 

Principles of Training

There are four principles of training which, if incorporated into a training activity, may provide a positive impact on YOUR organisational productivity:

 

1.       Make the training content relevant to the trainee.

2.       Make training objectives match the work tasks you are trying to affect.

3.       Make the training design systematic and be sure it relates directly to training objectives.

4.       Make training delivery respond to trainee's frames of reference.

 

The same article provides a useful background for non-trainers especially those who may be required to provide some justification for training within their organisation.

 

Training and Development

Training and Development are labels which we can attach to most organisational activities to assist us to more closely define that which we are seeking to achieve.  The clear distinction between organisational effort and organisational results should be noted.  The most significant distinction to be made is the difference between the organisational results of micro (individual or product) and macro (organisational or output) levels to that of the mega or societal result (outcomes)

 

It is important to appreciate the degree of control available.  The product and output (micro and macro) results are fully within the influence and control of the organisation, whereas the OUTCOME level of societal impact is external and is beyond the control of the organisation.  However, there is much which can be done to greatly influence this mega result which is the civil care and security provided to society.  See Kaufman, 1998:  68-69 for a simple, progressive explanation of the five organisational elements and their interrelationships (Kaufman 1998).  Kaufman’s most recent work outlines a method of change management based on needs – see the reading n Meta Planning.

 

Recent studies have shown that a primary focus on the end result, that is the safety and well-being of the community and working back through the organisational elements will demonstrably improve the efficiency and effectiveness of any organisation, regardless of size or influence, role or level of resources.

 

The ways to achieve that are many and varied but instructional system design (ISD) or the systems approach to training (SAT) paradigm of training development is a most effective process to employ in the development of an organisation via its people under a training regimen.  The SAT is also a mechanism to employ for optimal efficiency in  the use of training resources.

 

Systems Approach to Training

The systems approach to training (SAT) accounts for each part of the system having effects on all other parts and seeks to find the most effective and efficient ways and means to meet the already established objectives

 

Key Questions

1.       What is the difference between the following

          a.      system approach?

          b.      systematic approach

          c.      systems approach to training (SAT)

 

2.       What is a needs assessment: what is a need?

 

3.       Are needs organisational or training in origin?

 

Hint: You could reasonably be expected to answer these questions as a manager responsible for training with significant, life-saving learning outcomes. 

 

 

Importance of Training and Development

The importance of training and development to any organisation can be measured by the amount of positive impact it has on the individual (opportunity and reward), the organisation (performance and competitiveness, output quality and change management) and ultimately to the nation (economics and trade).  In civil care and security, it is readily apparent that the nation requires effective and efficient organisations to be able to respond to situations of disaster and potential disaster at the interface between a hazard and a vulnerable human population.  This response is executed by individuals from those organisations.  Training (and) development assists the successful implementation of training policies and underpins national progress.

 

Key Questions

 

1.       Why has training emerged as an item on the national reform agenda since mid 1980's?

 

2.       What is training and development?

 

Self-Examination For Training Developers

1.       List several training development considerations.

2.       Who is the training audience? Remember our dual role as carers and recipients.

3.       What is the most effective way to attain the training goal? Although not mentioned elsewhere, also consider 'on the job experience (OJE)'.

4.       When should training be conducted?

5.       How will you know if the training goal is achieved? If you cannot adequately answer this question for an organisation you may reasonably be asked to show cause as to why you should remain employed since resources may not be adequately managed which may imperil the organisation and ultimately the lives of citizens. 

 

Creating Organisational Competence

Consider the following statement:

 

'You hold an ideal position within your organisation to affect the future profile of senior management within the firm.  The training staff itself, traditionally an overlooked resource, represents an outstanding pool of talent that you should groom for advancement within the organisation.  The benefits to the individual and the training department are obvious, and the organisation as a whole becomes stronger, based upon its ability to manage its own growth'

                                                                           (Murphy 1988, p. 36)

 

1.       What are organisational values?

2.       Within each organisational value what are the opportunity areas for (management) skill development?

 

Issues for the Future

Just as training is proving to be central to improving the competitiveness of the economy and maintaining the standard of living, so too it is for civil care and security.  Training and development can make substantial contributions to organisational success through the development of the capacities and competencies of its workforce.  Civil care and security is no different and indeed the close attention to detail required for the preservation of life and the security of the property of citizens demands every effort to optimise organisational effectiveness and efficiency.

 

The dynamic nature of the organisational environment presents new challenges and opportunities for training practitioners and organisational managers. Some emerging issues for training practitioners are:

 

1.       the relationship between training and organisational performance (evaluation debate).

2.       the place of training in corporate strategy?

3.       the possibility of a national system of training and development?

 

Emergency Management System Capability in and for a Changing World

 Many systems are under pressure from increasing demands caused by environmental influences such as the greenhouse effect, population growth and the increasing expectation of better performance, and shifts in the economic power bases of nations.

Systems for protection of life, property and the environment involve a wide range of basic structures of government administration and service provision which contribute towards safety: food laws, water and sewerage systems, regulations on land use, building construction, roads, motor vehicles, etc.

Response and recovery resources and arrangements exist to deal with the events which overwhelm protective systems, and are one component of protecting the functionality of society.

Accordingly, the changes which are occurring in the public sector must inevitably impact on the civil care and security management systems. It is incumbent on the emergency management sector to keep examining itself to ensure it continues, within the changing environment, to be able to adequately deliver the service for which it exists.

Some of the changes which governments are increasingly adopting include:

·      getting the ‘right things’ done at the most appropriate levels;

·      partnerships with the private sector and with the community - and government withdrawal from activities which the private sector or community itself can undertake;

·      quality - the need for excellent contract administration of outsourced activities.

There are risks inherent in these changes. The civil care and security management system can be caught unawares by such things as:

·      Public sector enterprises focusing on core business and no longer having the resources or systems for their occasional emergency involvement;

·      Privatised former public utilities no longer prepared to assist the community in emergencies and bear the costs as community service obligations;

·      Resources supplied by contractors, whose concerns about their OH&S obligations and their other contracts may inhibit their ability to meet requests;

·      Financial and operational systems optimised for ‘peace time’ situations and not having sufficient slack to cope with emergency-related peaks;

·      A community more ready to litigate in response to others’ perceived failures to perform.

As major emergencies or disasters across the spectrum of hazards are rare occurrences, we cannot simply rely on ‘results’ to demonstrate what the system capability is at any point in time. Disasters reveal system performance in a given context, which may be a positive or negative influence. Under emergency conditions, a poor system may perform well for the duration, but this could be a false indicator of system health, if the strains generated by that event are experienced elsewhere in related systems for a considerable time afterwards.

There is a possibility that emergency management arrangements will become outdated, and be found seriously wanting should there be a major emergency/disaster. This applies both to the resources which are assumed to be available, and, just as importantly, to the systems which manage those resources, both in prevention and preparedness activities, as well as in crisis response and recovery.

Methods are needed which can provide snapshots of several different parameters of the current system capability. With such capability assessment tools, emergency managers can identify the impacts of the changes on the emergency management system. Such information is crucial to taking action towards overcoming identified deficiencies.

The recent development of criteria for assessing the capability of civil care and security / emergency management systems reflects the need to manage service provisions in an era of significant change.

The idea is to develop instruments by which an emergency management system of any size, be it community, region, state or the whole nation, can take a look at itself and assess its capability.

This is not about inspection by some higher authority, but a self-administered tool for planners to assess where they stand, and what they need to address to ensure they are scratching where it itches.

The objective will not be to create the perfect measuring instrument. It is more about developing something which will be effective and provide useful information in the context of both the particular characteristics of emergency management systems and the current needs and expectations of the public sector.

This begs a range of questions, some of which are outlined below:

 

CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT and IMPROVEMENT:

comparing management system capability against requirement

Defining the scope of the “civil care and security management system”

We need to scope what we mean by the “civil care and security management system”

 

Clarify and promote why we need “management system” capability assessment.

The old maxim “measure to manage” - government exercises the principle of continuous improvement in the quality of community service delivery.  Capability assessment will be a foundation for improvement.

Description of area under consideration

Changes in the world in relation to the capabilities of systems to cope in a world where pressures are growing .  Indicators include catch phrases such as:

·        overpopulation,

·        greenhouse,

·        hazchem,

·        terrorism.

Change management factors which may impel the development and implementation of “management system” capability assessment include:

·        changing risk / exposure profiles

·        changes in society (e.g. a declining culture of volunteerism)

·        changes in externally imposed requirements (e.g. building codes)

·        accountability expectations

·        continuous improvement

·        best practice

What “characteristics” of the management systems are we seeking to measure?

·        coverage?

·        effectiveness?

·        capability?

·        efficiency?

·        fairness?

·        A combination of these?

Issues for consideration include:

1.      the importation of private sector practices into the public sector

2.      the focus on output budgeting (capability); what you get for how much, and how this translates to outcomes (safer communities)

3.      planning within a “just-in-time” context and a “normal (maximum) business load” context - as opposed to an emergency requirement (efficiencies vs. effectiveness)

4.      the overall reduction of the resource base in the community

5.      the implications of the corporatization of utilities / lifelines

6.      the need for political commitment and its translation to resource commitment

 

What is the “management system” - beyond the traditional emergency services environment?

 

Description of area under consideration

The “emergency management system” as traditionally defined by government arrangements for preparedness for response is narrow and limiting. They must be integrated with the way the society is structured.  Residual silos (in the form of outmoded management systems) are not only an encumbrance within the newly structured set, they pose risks to it (the “functionality” of society).

There is a need to, and more value to be obtained from, focusing on modern management “systems principles”:

·        accountability and responsibility levels (of government) - getting the “right things” done at the most appropriate levels

·        partnerships - community empowerment and enablement (risk sharing / transfer but only within a framework that facilitates community decision making)

·        quality - the need for excellent contract management in an environment incorporating features such as privatization, outsourcing, downsizing etc.

·        the need for building in system flexibility and resilience (in the context of “shrinkage of the slack”) - a subset of quality contract management (at the strategic level)

Consider the following definition:

“The civil care and security system comprises those resources with a role in the prevention of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from emergencies. The resources are linked by arrangements and structures designed to facilitate provision of planned and coordinated services.

These resources include:

·      civil care and security organisations,

·      other government non-government and private sector organisations with emergency-relevant roles/tasks/resources, and

·      system-specific elements (such as central planning/policy units).”

Issues for consideration include:

1.      what are the boundaries of the “civil care and security system management system”  - is the “glue that binds us together based on legislation, allocated roles, or shared purpose and the need for effective interagency cooperation?

2.      what is the scope of the system’s links: agency or organization; civil care and security system management community (multiagency); private sector; industry; non-government; citizens?

3.      how broad is the range of service provisions (prevention, preparedness, response, recovery;  for all hazards) required to ensure the capability to provide safer communities?

 

How should “civil care and security system management system” capability be assessed?

What is civil care and security system management capability - how should it be expressed?

Issues for consideration include:

1.      how is an acceptable level of capability determined - by whom / on what basis?

2.      how is capability expressed  - as a contingency requirement “can do …”; time & space referenced / resource costs?

3.      what taxonomy should be applied - where do you start (systemic / macro / top / bottom)?

4.      how do you resolve the tensions between:

·        capability and performance (capability assessment for readiness is too narrow - it may be necessary, but it is not sufficient);

·        quantitative and qualitative;

·        effectiveness and efficiency; and

·        that which is easy to measure and that which is important to measure?

How should the civil care and security management system be assessed – what aspects of the management system should be assessed? Can we readily identify the aspects of the “civil care and security system management system” which will provide the necessary and sufficient set for system capability assessment.

What principles / specifications should be applied in the development of capability assessment methods? Can we identify a set of principles / specifications which should be applied in the development of civil care and security management system capability assessment methods?

Issues for consideration include:

The need for any assessment methods to:

·        be based on self assessment rather than a “big stick” approach

·        be capable of application at all levels / contexts (local to national

·        cover all aspects / components of civil care and security management

·        be fit for purpose

·        act as a monitor / review tool within a risk management philosophy

·        be focused on continuous improvement

·        be easily promulgated

 

A Case Study rider: It is important to remember that disasters only record system performance in a given context.  The context “influences” may act as constraints or enhancers - for example the “when” factor, “time”, which influence things such resource availability, community vulnerability etc. may be crucial in making a poor system perform well (under particular conditions).  So not only are events insufficient indicators, they may be false indicators.

 

How should each aspect of the “management system” be assessed?

For each of the aspects it is necessary to develop tools based on:

1.      the preferred assessment method for each aspect

2.      the key criteria underpinning each preferred assessment method

Below is a summary of the “capability assessment framework” approach developed in the United States of America.

CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR READINESS

Purpose

The purpose of Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) is to assess a State, Territory, or Insular Area’s operational readiness and capabilities in emergency management.  The CAR is designed to focus on identification of strengths and deficiencies in emergency management.  It also helps define those corrective actions needed to strengthen areas of emergency management.  The assessment is accomplished by using the enclosed self-assessment survey.  The assessment results will assist you in establishing priorities and analyzing program performance to improve the quality of your emergency management programs.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will collect the results of all the States, Territories, and Insular Areas (hereafter referred to as States) to produce a national assessment published in a National CAR Report.

Background

The CAR process is a self-assessment conducted by States to assess their operational readiness and emergency management capabilities to mitigate against, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters.  FEMA, in partnership with the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and State emergency managers, has created a survey type instrument for States to assess their emergency management capabilities.  The instrument is available in either automated or manual versions.  Use of the automated version is recommended.  It provides instant feedback by tabulating results and producing reports.  It can also be more easily distributed to different experts within the State and their inputs merged and sent forward.  Finally, the automated version eliminates paper flow where documents could be lost or misplaced.  The CAR instrument is divided into the following 13 Emergency Management Functions (EMFs) of an emergency management program:

1.   Laws and Authorities

2.   Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

3.   Hazard Mitigation

4.   Resource Management

5.   Planning

6.   Direction, Control, and Coordination

7.   Communications and Warning

8.   Operations and Procedures

9.   Logistics and Facilities

10. Training

11. Exercises, Evaluations, and Corrective Actions

12. Crisis Communications, Public Education, and Information

13. Finance and Administration

 

Each EMF is subdivided into attributes, and these attributes are further subdivided into characteristics.  Attributes are broad criteria by which the emergency management program’s performance in a particular area can be assessed.  Characteristics are more detailed criteria that further clarify the attribute.  As a State examines itself against these criteria, it will develop a ‘‘self-profile’’ of the strengths and weaknesses of its emergency management program.  A State will then be able to use its CAR results as a basis for strategic planning and budgeting.

 

Why Do A Self-Assessment

Every day, State emergency management officials are faced with decisions that relate to providing emergency services to citizens.  Now, more than ever, these State leaders are faced with the constant pressure of doing more with less.  Many State and local governmental executives are hard pressed to justify any increase in expenditures unless they can be attributed directly to improved service delivery to the community.  This effort can be greatly assisted by the CAR, which is now a nationally accepted process and assessment instrument. 

There are ten major reasons for performing a self-assessment using the CAR.

·        Provides quantitative data for strategic planning for budgeting of staff and resources dedicated to emergency management capabilities and assets.

·        Provides an organizational assessment to help ensure program effectiveness.

·        Assists in raising the level of professionalism within the State’s emergency management community.

·        Allows for assessment of how the Federal/State/local emergency manage­ment organizations and assets will work together before, during, and after a disaster strikes.

·        Changes the emergency management culture from one that reactively responds to disasters, to one that actively helps communities and citizens avoid becoming disaster victims and build disaster resistant communities.

·        Provides an emergency management baseline.

·        Allows for the development of a national perspective on emergency management assets, capabilities, and trends.

·        Incorporates the nationally accepted emergency management standards established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1600, Recommended Practice for Disaster Management.

·        Provides valuable data for the emergency management accreditation program under development by NEMA.

·        Provides the assessment component for FEMA’s Emergency Management Performance Grant program by documenting improvements.

 CAR provides a common format program for State emergency management organizations to assess and communicate strengths and weaknesses. It seeks to answer four very basic questions.

 ·        Is the emergency management program comprehensive for the needs of the State?

·        Are the mission, goals, and objectives of the emergency management organizations being achieved?

·        Is the State able to redirect the strategic deployment of resources in a disaster?

·        Is the State able to help communities and citizens avoid becoming disaster victims?

 Process - The CAR process includes the following steps:

 ·        Each State conducts a comprehensive self-assessment in coordination with its FEMA Regional Office.

-        This capability assessment is facilitated by using an automated version of the CAR assessment instrument.

-        FEMA recommends that all States assess themselves at the characteristic level in order to get the full benefit of the assessment process.

-        Each attribute and characteristic in the CAR is to be scored on a scale of 1 to 5 or Not Applicable (N/A) based on the following:

5 -        Fully Capable:  A full capability has been achieved and only maintenance is required.

4 -        Very Capable:  A high level of capability has been attained and only a limited effort is required to reach full capability.

3 -        Generally Capable:  A baseline capability has been developed but a significant effort is required to reach full capability.

2 -        Marginally Capable:  Some progress has been achieved, but a substantial amount of effort is required to reach full capability.

1 -        Not Capable:  No progress has been achieved.

N/A -   Not applicable to the State’s situation.

 1.    LAWS & AUTHORITIES

 Federal, State, and local statutes and any implementing regulations that establish legal authority for development and maintenance of the emergency management program and organization, and define the emergency powers, authorities, and responsibilities of the chief executive official and the emergency program manager.

 2.    HAZARD IDENTIFICATION & RISK ASSESSMENT

 The process of identifying situations or conditions that have the potential of causing injury to people, damage to property, or damage to the environment, and the assessment of the likelihood, vulnerability, and magnitude of incidents that could result from exposure to hazards.

 3.    HAZARD MITIGATION

 Systematic management approach to eliminate hazards that constitute a significant threat to the jurisdiction or to reduce the effects of hazards that cannot be eliminated through a program of hazard mitigation.

 4.    RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

 Systematic development of methodologies for the prompt and effective identification, acquisition, distribution, accounting, and use of personnel and major items of equipment for essential emergency functions.

 5.    PLANNING

 The collection, analysis, and use of information, and also the development, promulgation, and maintenance of the organizational comprehensive emergency management plan, action plans, and mitigation plans.

 6.    DIRECTION, CONTROL, & COORDINATION

 Development of the capability for the chief executive and key local officials to direct, control, and coordinate response and recovery operations.

 7.    COMMUNICATIONS & WARNING

 Development and maintenance of a reliable communications capability to alert public officials and emergency response personnel, warn the public, and effectively manage response to an actual or impending emergency.

 8.    OPERATIONS & PROCEDURES

 Development, coordination, and implementation of operational policies, plans, and procedures.

 9.    LOGISTICS & FACILITIES

 Identification, location, acquisition, distribution, and accounting for services, resources, materials, and facilities to support emergency management.

 10.  TRAINING

 Assessment, development, and implementation of a training/educational program for public officials and emergency response personnel.

 11.  EXERCISES, EVALUATIONS, & CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

 Assessment and evaluation of emergency response plans and capabilities through a program of regularly scheduled tests and exercises.

 12.  CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS, PUBLIC EDUCATION, & INFORMATION

 Procedures to disseminate and respond to requests for pre-disaster, disaster, and post-disaster information involving employees, responders, the public, and the media.  Also, an effective public education program regarding hazards affecting the jurisdiction.

 13.  FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

 Development of fiscal and administration procedures to support emergency measures before, during, and after disaster events and to preserve vital records.

 

 The EPCB capability assessment framework is detailed at http://emergencyriskmanagement.com

 

The NFPA 1600 performance areas are outlined at

https://www.storesonline.com/members/711336/uploaded/ScopingWorkshopProposal.pdf

 

Suggested Reading for this Section

Developmental Readings

1. A New Reality for Organizational Success: Two Bottom Lines by Roger Kaufman , in Performance Improvement 36(8):3.

2. Needs Assessment by Roger Kaufman and Ryan Watkins, in Intervention Resource Guide, 237-242.

3. Thriving - not just surviving: new realities for tomorrow's public service executive by Roger Kaufman et al Int Public Management Review, 3(1):68-83.

4. A new emergency management for the new millennium? by Neil Britton in The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Summer 2001-2002 44-54.

5. Public Safety Risk Management by John Salter in The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Summer 1998/99, p.50-53.

6. Disaster Planning & Management by Government of India Expert Group.

7. Strengthening Community Resilience through the application of Information Management Tools and Technologies  by A Mearns & G Shorten (in Conference Presentations)

8. The age of accountability: Community involvement in disaster reduction by John Twigg.

9. Are Flood Warnings Futile? by John Handmer in The Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, V 2000-2

10. A Question of Community Participation or Public Relations by John Salter, in The Macedon Digest, 6(3):12-15. 1991.

11. Engaging Communities NOAA Coastal Services Center.

12. Risk Online: Project Overview Country Fire Authority (Victoria, Australia).

13. Earthscan - Participatory Workshops by Robert Chambers.