Download
1 / 14
140 likes | 260 Vues
County Typing/Ranking Project . Mitch Smeykal, CEM, FPEM Director, Okeechobee County Emergency Management. Emergency Management is collaborative not competitive in nature. You are only as good as your last response. . Where we have been . Poorly defined.
E N D
County Typing/Ranking Project Mitch Smeykal, CEM, FPEM Director, Okeechobee County Emergency Management
Emergency Management is collaborative not competitive in nature. You are only as good as your last response.
Where we have been • Poorly defined. • Did not capture total scope of Emergency. Management functions. • No statutory authority. • Limited buy in from county EM directors and other agencies/partners. • Not collaborative in nature (top down driven) • Limited state staff and local input on metrics • Loss of mission focus and changing priorities throughout process.
Where we need to go • Bottom up approach (locally driven) • Define scope of project (what are we trying to achieve) • Length of project (realistic timelines on deliverables) • Timeline 12-18 months for completion. • Benchmarks for project at 3, 6, 9 and 12 month deadlines. • Include all phases of Emergency Management (preparedness, response, mitigation and recovery) • Incorporate existing products in project (CEMP, Scope of Work, Capabilities Assessment etc.) • Use the whole community approach to project
Scope of project (what are we trying to achieve) • Create a national model for other jurisdictions to utilize in the creation a robust local emergency management program which is based on the lessons learned by Florida County EMA’s over the past 20 years. • Capture strengths of local programs and areas where local programs may need assistance. • Capture and formalize best practices from our collaborative partners (other local EM programs) to share with other jurisdictions. • NOT PUNATIVE IN NATURE!!!
How do we get there? • Two different types of approaches are possible. • 1. Type counties by capabilities (EM, LE, Fire, EMS Public Health, hospitals, NGO, VOAD and Business and industry.) 2. Create basic metrics which all counties should have and add hazard specific metrics. (Nuclear Plant, Hazmat, Surge zones etc) for each counties individual hazards and risks.
County Capabilities Typing Approach • FEMA defines resource typing as, “categorizing, by capability, the resources requested, deployed, and used in incidents. Measurable standards identifying resource capabilities and performance levels serve as the basis for categories. Resource users at all levels use these standards to identify and inventory resources.” • “Resource kinds may be divided into subcategories to define more precisely the capabilities needed to meet specific requirements.”
County Capabilities Typing Approach • After data is collected and reviewed by the committee assign the county a Type and Kind rating (3, 2, 1) based on county overall capabilities. • Population size and demographics should be taken into account during this process. • Specialized resources should also be included in the process. (USAR Teams, Heavy Rescue, HAZAMT, SWAT, etc.) • Self-assessment by the counties. • Information conveyed to committee members for inclusion into a state resource listing by county.
Basic Metrics Approach • Construct basic metric from existing documents. 1. Scope of work (EMPA/EMPG) 2. Capabilities assessment 3. EMPA Accreditation program (targeted approach) 4. Other existing metrics documents (i.e. Project Ready, UASI) 5. Final document will replace these other documents.
Length of project • Total Project Time Length 12-18 months. • Kick off meeting at 2013 FEPA annual meeting or other venue. • Meetings quarterly to review progress of four assigned breakout groups. (Preparedness, Response, Recovery Mitigation) • Final presentations and submission to all stakeholders for comment at the 2014 FEPA annual meeting. • Final review and implementation fall of 2014.
Benchmarks and Team composition • At least two representatives per region. (One inland, one costal) • Team members should be well versed in at least one phase of Emergency Management. • Team members should consult and work with other partners. (PH, LE, Fire Rescue etc) • Benchmark reports (successes and challenges) reported out at quarterly meetings. • Team members should capture best practices and innovative ideas within their region.
Benchmarks and Team composition • One assigned and one alternate for each phase of emergency management from FDEM and or FEMA to assist committee in the nuance's of each phase of emergency management. • FEPA representation • FSCC representation (open for discussion) • FAC representation (open for discussion)
Document Review and Updates • Comprehensive review of documents for new best practices or changing priorities every 24 months after initial project completion. • Presentation to counties at FEPA annual meeting or current issues in emergency management October session. • 60 day comment period before new changes are implemented. • Final adoption by stakeholders (counties, FEPA, DEM) after the 60 day comment period closes.
