As emergency managers, there are two things we know about disasters, and one thing we don’t.

We know that another disaster is coming.   We don’t know when. 

But we also know that tomorrow we will have one less day to prepare than we have today.

Yet too often we behave as if we have all the time in the world.  We don’t really act like a tornado or a train wreck or a flood might happen this week.  Rarely do we think, ‘If a disaster is going to happen tomorrow, what is the one thing I should do today to prepare?’

Dealing every day with the potential consequences of disaster, we can become desensitized to the importance of our work. Our planning and training activities can become routine, we can become complacent, and our performance can become uninspired. As a result, we can be less prepared.

To maximize our level of preparedness, emergency managers must replace complacency with a sense of urgency.  We need to take steps to ensure that we ourselves, our staffs, and our partner agencies make the best possible use of the time we have to prepare for disasters. Once a disaster happens, the time for preparation is over.

Fortunately, there are steps we can take to instill a sense of urgency in ourselves, our staffs and our partner agencies. These steps aren’t difficult, but they do require constant effort and attention.  Here are ten tips for establishing and maintaining a sense of urgency within your agency and within partner agencies:

1. Set an example. Complete your tasks on time. Don’t waste time. Act with urgency every day.
2. Communicate the importance of urgency. Make sure people understand why a sense of urgency is necessary. Emergency preparedness is important; don’t be afraid to tell people that. Remind your staff, your colleagues in other agencies, your bosses, and the citizens in your community. Be relentless and stay focused. Never apologize for pushing people to prepare.
3. Identify the consequences of complacency. Make sure people understand the dangers of complacency. Getting less done or completing tasks in a haphazard fashion means your community will be less prepared when disaster hits and lives may be lost.
4. Set deadlines and hold people to them. Don’t let projects drag on and on. Finish on time and move on to the next thing.
5. Enforce standards. Set standards of performance and address all failures to meet them. If you accept substandard performance without comment you will be setting a new, lower standard.
6. Provide initial guidance and encouragement. Ensure staff members and supporting agencies understand exactly what they need to accomplish, make sure they have the necessary information and resources to do so, and encourage them through the process. Address obstacles or delays immediately and don’t let projects languish.
7. Prioritize. Do the important things first. Address gaps and focus on building critical capabilities. Don’t do stuff just to do stuff. Make sure you are doing the right stuff. Continually review your priorities and adjust as necessary.
8. Strike a balance between quality and speed. Avoid perfectionism. Your updated EOP doesn’t have to be the best EOP ever written. Better to finish it on time and move on to the next task than to drag out the project in a vain attempt to make it perfect. Value good work, but value speed as well.
9. Emphasize the importance of continuous improvement. Every completed project, exercise, or training event should be reviewed to identify lessons learned and ways it can be done better in the future. Encourage staff and supporting agencies to identify ways to improve emergency management processes. Constantly seek greater efficiencies and effectiveness.
10. Force change. Mix things up. Familiarity breeds complacency so look for ways to change the work experience for your staff. Cross-train, change assignments, assign new responsibilities. 

Creating and maintaining a sense of urgency is not easy.  The nature of processes, organizations, and relationships is to seek stability. Ironically, success also diminishes urgency.  We might feel that we have done a great job, so we must be doing everything right.

We’ll never be as prepared as we would like to be.  There will always be something else we wish we had done.  But doing our jobs with a sense of urgency day in and day out will ensure that we are as well-prepared as possible.

http://www.armadausa.com/News.aspx

Mar 7, 2018

During recent testimony, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Brock Long told Congress that state and local communities must do a better job of preparing for disaster response and must stop looking to FEMA as a first responder.

Since FEMA was created in 1979, the agency has consistently described its role as a coordinating agency, bringing together all federal agencies in support of state and local governments, who are responsible for disaster and emergency response. The National Response Framework, issued by FEMA in 2008 and updated in 2013, describes a tiered system for disaster response, in which the primary responsibility for response and recovery operations is vested in municipal or county governments.  When local resources are insufficient, assistance is provided by neighboring jurisdictions through mutual aid, or by the state. When state resources are insufficient, state officials can request assistance from FEMA.

Emergency managers understand this.  But over time, as FEMA has become heavily involved in high-profile disasters, the public – and many non-emergency management local officials – have begun to view disaster response as a federal responsibility.

So, Mr. Long is certainly correct in pointing out to lawmakers that FEMA is neither structured, resourced, prepared, nor equipped to serve as a first responder during disasters or large-scale emergencies.

Most local officials do understand their critical role, but many find it difficult to devote resources to preparation for worst-case scenarios that likely will never occur.  Most local safety forces are already stretched thin just handling the day-to-day calls for service that they receive.  There is little time for disaster response training and little funding for specialized disaster relief equipment.  One result is that federal grant funding, which increased significantly after the 9/11 attacks, has become the main source of emergency management funding for many local emergency management agencies.

In an era of increasing federal deficits, this is an unsustainable practice. While Emergency Management Performance Grant funding has remained steady, funding for the Homeland Security Grant Program has declined form $861 million in 2009 to $402 million in 2017.

And Administrator Long is correct, state and local emergency management agencies will need to live with reduced funding or identify local sources.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-fema/fema-chief-questions-agencys-role-urges-more-local-response-idUSKBN1DU2KT

http://www.govtech.com/em/emergency-blogs/managing-crisis/Who-Should-Pay-for-070113.html

December 16, 2017

Religious institutions cannot rely on God to protect their congregations from armed attacks, say religious leaders. That’s why more than 200 leaders of religious organizations and public safety officials from throughout Greater Cleveland attended yesterday’s Emergency Planning Workshop for Faith-Based Leaders and Executives at the Community Center in Middleburg Heights.

Bruce Hennes of Hennes Communications discusses Crisis Communications Planning at the Faith-Based Security Summit on November 20, 2017

Churches have a responsibility to protect their congregations, said Pastor Herman Matherson of Akron’s non-denominational House of the Lord. God works through people and it is people that must take proactive steps to protect themselves, he said. Paul Gewirtz of Young Israel in Beachwood agreed and said his organization is “very protective” of the safety of its members.

More than fifteen speakers from public safety, emergency management, and public health agencies, as well as faith-based institutions stressed the importance of having plans and being prepared.  Many effective practices like assigning trained volunteers to monitor parking areas and building entrances can be implemented at little or no financial cost. If funds are available, physical security enhancements like improved lighting, placement of landscaping, installation of barriers and the use of video surveillance systems can be effective as well.  The key, though, is to identify an institution’s vulnerabilities, carefully assess the risks, and develop realistic plans and procedures to reduce those risks.

Religious institutions are vulnerable because they bring large numbers of people together at regularly scheduled times and to maintain a welcoming atmosphere they rarely restrict entrance.  But while the frequency of mass shootings in America continues to rise, there is no evidence that shootings at religious facilities are rising disproportionately.  While comprehensive data about attacks against religious institutions is limited, research indicates that churches and other faith-based institutions are rarely targeted because of their beliefs.  Most shootings that have occurred in churches have been the result of domestic situations.  The recent attack at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland, Texas, which killed 26 worshipers, apparently stemmed from a domestic dispute.  Church shootings remain extremely rare, but that is scant comfort to religious leaders who feel a responsibility to ensure the safety of their members.

The Workshop provided an overview of all aspects of security planning for faith-based institutions. FBI Special Agent John Breen discussed the threats of domestic and international terrorism and the need for institutions to conduct a realistic security assessment while Cleveland Police Commander Harold Pretel provided specific suggestions for reducing the vulnerability of religious facilities.

The first step, said Pretel, is for organizations to understand their vulnerabilities.  Then, he continued, organizations can create tailored security plans to deter, detect, and disrupt violent attacks.  Plans should provide for multiple layers of security including active monitoring of parking lots and pedestrian routes and use of security barriers and surveillance equipment.

Pastor Matherson and Gewirtz explained in detail the security practices at their organizations. Matherson’s House of the Lord, which normally attracts more than 1,000 worshipers to its Sunday services, utilizes a multi-layered security process conducted by a 37-member security team comprised of uniformed police officers, lay volunteers, and members of the church leadership. The church coordinates their plans and collaborates closely with Akron Police, Fire, Emergency Medical and Public Health agencies.

Gewirtz’s Young Israel, with a much smaller congregation, relies on highly trained volunteers to monitor parking areas and access to the building by carefully assessing anyone who seems suspicious.  A uniformed police officer is available to protect the volunteer, but the responsibility for determining if a person is to be denied entrance rests with the volunteer.

Other speakers discussed hate crimes, ways to manage risks, Ohio’s open carry policies regarding firearms, licensing and hiring of private security guards, and methods for supporting persons with mental health issues.

Dr. Nancy Grant, CEO of Business Survive and Thrive, explained the basic steps to create a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP), which can enable organizations to quickly resume operations following a disaster or emergency that forces them out of their building or prevents key personnel from filling their roles. The key is to integrate COOP processes into everyday operations and develop a COOP mindset, she said.

Bruce Hennes, Managing Partner of Hennes Communications – one of the co-sponsors of the Workshop – discussed the importance of having an all-hazards crisis communications plan in place before an emergency in order to provide accurate information and preserve the organization’s reputation.

In addition to Hennes Communications, the Workshop was co-sponsored by the City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, the City of Middleburg Heights, and the Red Cross.

 For further information on church shootings, click on the following link:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/us/church-shootings-truth/index.html

November 21, 2017

The combination of widespread power outages, the inability of relief teams and emergency supplies to travel overland to the island, and the inability of residents to self-evacuate to nearby unaffected areas make the humanitarian disaster in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands unprecedented in U.S. history. When local officials ask for federal help, they are not being greedy or lazy. It is what they are supposed to do.

Here are seven reasons why Puerto Rico needs an urgent and comprehensive federal response to Hurricane Maria:

1. The National Response Framework (NRF) – which applies to local, state, and federal governments (including territories like Puerto Rico) – established a tiered response system in which disasters are managed by the lowest level of government whenever possible but also provides for support from other levels when necessary.
2. By creating a tiered system in which larger, more capable entities (state and federal governments) support local governments, the NRF allowed a more efficient use of resources, as critical capabilities could be shared widely.
3. Under the NRF, neither territories (like Puerto Rico) nor municipalities (like San Juan) are expected to be self-sufficient in the wake of major disasters. The Framework anticipates that local communities and states will seek and receive assistance from neighboring communities and states before significant federal assistance can be provided. Houston, Texas, – a far larger and wealthier city than San Juan – received immediate assistance from Texas, from other states, from the federal government, and from countless private sector organizations in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. Unfortunately, Puerto Rico has no neighboring states and private sector aid cannot easily reach the island, placing a greater burden on the federal government.
4. An extended power outage is the worst-case scenario for natural disasters. Loss of power complicates every aspect of emergency management and exponentially increases the number of persons who need emergency assistance. While many critical facilities (hospitals, police stations, communications centers, major financial institutions, etc.) will have their own back-up power sources; transportation systems, commercial food storage and distribution systems, civilian communications systems, nursing homes, clinics, schools, and high-rise apartment buildings typically will not. Persons dependent on home medical equipment (oxygen concentrators, home dialysis units, etc.), elevators, and other electrically-powered devices are at serious risk and may need immediate assistance.
5. As an island, Puerto Rico is physically cut off from the the vast machinery of emergency management that exists in the continental United States. When hurricanes or tornadoes cause widespread power outages in Florida, Texas, or other U.S. states, electric utility companies from across the U.S. immediately deploy convoys of crews and equipment to the affected area to assist in restoring power as soon as possible.  Restoring power after a wind event requires repairs to thousands of individual downed lines and damaged transformers. No electric company anywhere is equipped to repair thousands of breaks without massive outside assistance.
6. The requirement for on-the-ground assistance in Puerto Rico dwarfs any other disaster in American history. More than three million people are trapped on an island with limited power, limited food, limited water, and limited medical care.  Unlike disasters in the continental U.S., no one can hop in the car and drive to a motel, or a relative’s house, or a shelter in a neighboring state. Likewise, aid workers and providers of emergency supplies are severely restricted in their ability to get to the island.  The fleets of trucks from Wal-Mart and other donor companies that are common sights at U.S. disasters aren’t bringing bottled water and other emergency supplies to Puerto Rico.
7. The NRF does not require that local communities prove their worthiness for assistance. It assumes that Americans will help Americans, regardless of political affiliation, religion, race, or any other factor. When local officials ask for federal help, they are not being greedy or lazy.  It is what they are supposed to do.

September 30,2017

Successful cities are well-equipped to recover from disasters. The characteristics that helped them grow in the first place are the same characteristics that will help them recover. But some cities are better prepared for recovery than others. Cities that have established a culture of cooperation and collaboration among all elements of the population will recover more quickly and more successfully.

Cities are resilient by nature. Throughout history urban areas have been struck by a horrific menu of disasters including fires, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and wars. In the United States alone, within the past 150 years San Francisco and Anchorage have suffered devastating earthquakes; Chicago was nearly destroyed by a disastrous fire; Dayton and Johnstown experienced catastrophic flooding; and Galveston, Charleston, Miami, and New Orleans were ravaged by hurricanes (Galveston twice!). Yet, despite widespread damage and significant loss of life, these cities rebuilt their neighborhoods and economies and resumed their places in the life of the nation. Their recoveries, though inspiring, are not exceptional. Historically, nearly every city that has been felled by disaster has recovered.
But not all cities recover as quickly or as completely as others. San Francisco rebuilt itself and maintained its position as the principal city of the American west. Chicago not only rebuilt itself, but took the opportunity to create a series of lakefront parks that define the city today. In contrast, New Orleans’ recovery remains incomplete and the city may never return to its previous prominence. There are many factors that determine a city’s ability to bounce back from disaster or catastrophe, including the city’s level of economic vitality, the efficiency and effectiveness of its local government, the availability of private or public funding, and the willingness of local leaders to cooperate. Taken together, these factors determine how resilient an urban area is.
The differences in resilience between cities can be significant. The most resilient cities recover more quickly, more completely, and more intelligently than do less-resilient cities. Understanding the factors that make a city resilient can help local officials set the conditions for quicker, more comprehensive recovery from disaster.
The good news for community leaders is that all cities have the basic ingredients of resilience. By their nature urbanized areas are well-equipped to recover from disasters. The characteristics that established them as centers of transportation, trade, manufacturing, education, and culture are the same characteristics that are necessary for recovery. The strength of a city lies in the degree to which it encourages human collaboration and cooperation. Cities prosper and grow when the gatherings of creative and energetic residents, the efficiency of urban infrastructure, and the density, proximity, and closeness of urban areas create physical connections between people which foster mutually beneficial interaction and information exchange. (Glaeser)
In the aftermath of large-scale disaster, successful recovery requires a high degree of collaboration and cooperation. All members of the community must participate. Unity of effort, which respects the authority and expertise of each participating organization while coordinating support of common recovery objectives, is essential. (NDRP)
Urban areas that are experienced and proficient at working together will find it easier to develop focused, community-wide recovery plans and will be better able to establish priorities and share scarce resources.
To increase the resilience of their cities, community leaders must encourage cooperation and collaboration in their daily activities. They must resist the temptation to see other areas of the urban entity as competitors and instead view the entire region as a single economic unit. Building relationships and establishing a successful process of working together to identify and solve community problems are critical. Communities that work well together before a disaster will be well-prepared to work together after disaster. Well-established, pre-disaster partnerships are critical to a successful recovery. (NDRP)
Pre-disaster planning is another critical element of resilient communities. By establishing recovery processes and protocols before disaster strikes, communities can enhance the speed and success of their recovery. The combination of effective, community-based planning and creation of a culture of cooperation and collaboration will result in a resilient community with an improved ability to withstand, respond to and recover from disasters (NRDP).
Recognizing that communities differ in their ability to respond to disaster, researchers at the University of Buffalo developed a method of measuring community resilience. By identifying quantifiable factors which they believe contribute to resilience, researchers were able to calculate the “resilience capacity” of 360 American metropolitan areas.
Key to the process was identifying measurable attributes or factors that contribute to resilience. The researchers identified 12 factors grouped in three broad categories; economic capacity, socio-demographic capacity, and community connectivity.
Economic factors include economic diversity, the level of support for business activity, the affordability of housing, and lower levels of income inequality. Socio-demographic factors include higher levels of education, income, personal health insurance, and lower numbers of person with disabilities. Community connectivity factors include the number of civic organizations and the average length of time residents have lived in their current residence as well as the region’s rates of home ownership and voter participation.
Having identified measurable factors that contribute to resilience, researchers were the able to combine the individual measurements into a consolidated score, which they termed “resilience capacity.” They then ranked 360 American metropolitan areas by their resilience capacity.
Ranking number one – the most resilient city in America – was Rochester, Minnesota. Ranking second and third were Bismarck, ND and Minneapolis, MN. Cleveland ranked 132nd of 360; just below the top third of American metropolitan areas.
The highest ranking Ohio metropolitan area was Akron, at 93rd. Close behind was Cincinnati at 97th, followed by Columbus at 102nd, Sandusky at 103rd, and Youngstown at 121st.
Kathryn Foster, director of the Regional Institute at the University of Buffalo, explained that cities in the Midwest and Northeast did quite well in the resilience capacity rankings. “The reality is that slower-growing regions actually have more capacity to withstand the shock,” she told an interviewer. “It’s counter-intuitive, but they tend to be more stable. They’re often more affordable. There are higher rates of homeownership and they tend to have greater income equality. These are places that tend to have connected residents that live there for a long time, high levels of civic capacity and they may be diversified in terms of their business climate.” (U of Buffalo)
Based on the University of Buffalo’s criertia, Greater Cleveland is fairly well-positioned to recover from potential disaster. Of course, community leaders would like to see a higher rate of economic growth, but the other factors that Dr. Foster cited – affordability, high rates of home ownership, and a thriving sense of community – are elements that make Greater Cleveland a desirable place to live.
But cities are not static entities. They are continually evolving and changing, replacing old buildings with new, creating new centers of activity and new patterns of economic and cultural activity. Resilient cities are cities that are designed to be sustainable, that minimize waste and make the most efficient use of all available resources – human, economic, and natural.
Cleveland and Cuyahoga County are no different. To increase the Cleveland metropolitan area’s resilience, community leaders should ensure that re-development efforts improve the area’s resilience capacity.
The role of community leaders in creating resilient communities cannot be overstated. While many factors are important, including a clear vision, a well-defined plan, broad and diverse funding to finance the recovery, a supportive and involved business community, and effective partnerships at the federal, state, and local, the biggest difference, is effective leadership. (Becker)
For starters, area leaders must agree on a shared vision for what they want this community to become. All communities must recognize their stake in the region’s success. Competition between communities within the region for jobs, grant funding, and other resources is inherently wasteful and counterproductive.
Redevelopment must be designed to mitigate risks and encourage resilience. Techniques that can mitigate risk include conducting a comprehensive risk assessment; developing land use policies that reduce exposure to flooding, landslides, and other risks; enforcing effective building codes; and ensuring that critical lifelines like transportation systems, gas, electric, water, and sewage distribution systems are designed and built to resist damage and to be repaired quickly. (NSTC)
Physically, a more resilient Greater Cleveland would be a denser Greater Cleveland. It would make more efficient use of infrastructure investments and it would be designed to bring greater numbers of people into greater proximity, increasing the number of connections, spurring collaboration, innovation, and creativity. Initiatives that encourage economic diversity would enhance the region’s resilience. Cities thrive – and are resilient – when their economies are diverse and when they are characterized by many small firms and skilled citizens. Policies that encourage innovation, diversification, and education should be encouraged (Glaeser)
Greater Cleveland leaders should look for ways to make government and private industry more efficient – make better use of existing infrastructure, and ensure sufficient investments in infrastructure and education.
There are strong signs that regional leaders understand the importance of cooperation and collaboration among all members of the community. In November of 2010, Northeast Ohio was awarded a $4.25 million federal grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to fund the development of a regional sustainability plan. In order to manage the three-year planning process, the Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium (NEOSCC) was established. The NEOSCC will develop a coordinated plan for land use, transportation, economic and workforce development, and infrastructure investments for a 12-county region comprised of Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Mahoning, Medina, Portage, Summit, Stark, Trumbull and Wayne counties. (Vibrant NEO)
The Sustainable Communities Consortium and other initiatives aimed at increasing cooperation and collaboration among all community members can increase Northeastern Ohio’s resilience and help us recovery more quickly and more completely from natural and man-made disasters.

Sources
Glaeser, Edward; Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier; Penguin Press, 2011.
Becker, Christine; Disaster Recovery: a Local Government Responsibility; ICMA Publications website; http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9102/public/cover.cfm?author=christine%20becker&title=disaster%20recovery%3a%20%20a%20local%20government%20responsibility; accessed December 10, 2012
Teaman, Rachel M., ‘Resilience’ of U.S. Metros Measured by Online Index Developed by UB Researchers; University of Buffalo website; http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2011/07/12707.html accessed December 15, 2012.
National Science and Technology Council, Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction (NSTC). Natural Disaster Reduction: A Plan for the Nation; Washington, DC; U.S. Government Printing Office; December, 1996.
National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF); Federal Emergency Management Agency;
Vibrant Northeast Ohio website; http://vibrantneo.org/neoscc/history/ accessed 2/17/13

Cities are resilient by nature. Throughout history urban areas have been struck by a horrific menu of disasters including fires, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and wars. In the United States alone, within the past 150 years San Francisco and Anchorage have suffered devastating earthquakes; Chicago was nearly destroyed by a disastrous fire; Dayton and Johnstown experienced catastrophic flooding; and Galveston, Charleston, Miami, and New Orleans were ravaged by hurricanes (Galveston twice!). Yet, despite widespread damage and significant loss of life, these cities rebuilt their neighborhoods and economies and resumed their places in the life of the nation. Their recoveries, though inspiring, are not exceptional. Historically, nearly every city that has been felled by disaster has recovered.
But not all cities recover as quickly or as completely as others. San Francisco rebuilt itself and maintained its position as the principal city of the American west. Chicago not only rebuilt itself, but took the opportunity to create a series of lakefront parks that define the city today. In contrast, New Orleans’ recovery remains incomplete and the city may never return to its previous prominence. There are many factors that determine a city’s ability to bounce back from disaster or catastrophe, including the city’s level of economic vitality, the efficiency and effectiveness of its local government, the availability of private or public funding, and the willingness of local leaders to cooperate. Taken together, these factors determine how resilient an urban area is.
The differences in resilience between cities can be significant. The most resilient cities recover more quickly, more completely, and more intelligently than do less-resilient cities. Understanding the factors that make a city resilient can help local officials set the conditions for quicker, more comprehensive recovery from disaster.

Read the complete article on the Archives page.