Emergency management plans

Emergency management plansAccording to Lindell and Perry, 2007 there are many private groups that will do evaluations of emergency management plans for a fee. However, there are two government-related programs that can do the same for little cost. These are;1. The Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) EMAP is overseen by people appointed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Emergency Management Association, and the International Association of Emergency Managers (Lindell and Perry, 2007). The EMAP standards according to Jenkins, 2010, “Are the voluntary national accreditation process for state, territorial, tribal, and local emergency management programs. Using collaboratively developed, recognized standards, and independent assessment, EMAP provides a means for strategic improvement of emergency management programs, culminating in accreditation.” (pg.6)Further, EMAP’s criteria used for evaluation of emergency management plans are based on NFPA 1600 where the number of elements is larger (54 compared to NFPA’S 14) (Lindell and Perry, 2007). The program standards include the development, coordination, and implementation of operational plans and procedures which are fundamental to effective disaster response and recovery (Jenkins, 2010).In addition, emergency management plans according to EMAP criteria for evaluation should identify and assign specific areas of responsibility for performing essential functions in response to an emergency or disaster. As such, areas of responsibility to be addressed in EOPs must include such things as evacuation, mass care, sheltering, needs and damage assessment, mutual aid, and military support (Jenkins, 2010). 2. The National Emergency Management Baseline Capability Assurance Program (BCAP)This program is overseen by FEMA where the goal of the BCAP is to make complete assessments of government’s management capabilities. The assessment of capabilities serves as a baseline for federal assessment of overall levels of preparedness where the basic approach use standards for evaluation, as well as they, gather lessons learned from effective jurisdictions. As such, this then creates a national standard for emergency management. For example, for local governments, the program give a baseline assessment of capability paving the way for future improvements which can be measured. It must also be noted that the standard used for assessment is based on the NFPA 1600 elements where BCAP has 26 elements to evaluate which is based on primarily a self –assessment (Lindell and Perry, 2007). 3. The most effective approach – The Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) EMAP is the most effective approach because of it strict and interdependent process and/or requirements as against the BCAP evaluation approach. Firstly, the process of review gives 18 months to conduct a self -assessment of local agency compliance with EMAP standards which requires a proof of compliance record for each. After which, an on-site assessment is conducted where the assessor team finds additional compliance information. Further, the team then conducts inspections and an exit interview. As such, on the basis of the site information, the commission recommends accreditation, conditional accreditation, or denies accreditation (Lindell and Perry, 2007). This approach was also tested in the fiscal year of 2003, as a first step toward developing a preparedness baseline, EP& R Directorate officials planned to request that all 50 states complete a self-assessment of their level of preparedness to respond to emergencies using EMAP standards as a guide (United States General Accounting Office. (2003).