|
|
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management Crisis and Emergency Management Newsletter Website |
|
| |
April
2005
Volume 8 - Number 3 |
|
By: Jeffrey Goldberg I was
very fortunate to
have been selected for a role as an evaluator, which allowed me to see
the entire
exercise from a neutral role. For anybody that has worked on large
scale
disaster you can appreciate the dealings that each agency has with one
another.
It is complex system of insuring efficiently without interfering with
another
agencies role. On For
the 16 local agencies that partook were evaluated on the following. 2 1. Initial
Notification of response agencies and
response personnel. 2. Direction
and Control 3. Incident
Assessment 4. Resource
Management 5. Communications 6. Facilities,
equipment, and displays 7. Alert
and notification of the public 8. Emergency
Information – Media 9. Protective
actions for the public 10. Response
personnel safety 11. Traffic
and Access control 12. Registration,
screening, and decontamination of
public 13. Congregate
care 14. Emergency
Medical Services 15. Containment
and cleanup 16. Incident
documentation and investigation The
most notable thing for me that I observed during this exercise were
that small
towns do lack certain essential resources that big cities have
available to
them. However small towns do not lack interagency relationships as they
are
very personal and formed both on calls and through personal
interaction. I do believe that 1.
VanBenschoten, Guy J., Purpose
Statement Emergency Management Exercise. http://www.bangsambulance.com/wmd/Sept2003ExerciseDocs/statementofpurpose.pdf
2003 2. Tompkins County Emergency
Management Group.
Evaluation Handbook ver. 2.0., http://www.bangsambulance.com/wmd/Sept2003ExerciseDocs/EvaluationPlan.pdf |