|
|
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management Crisis and Emergency Management Newsletter Website |
|
|
April
2009
Volume
16
- Number 3 |
|
Emergency Preparedness Funding – A Local Perspective By Paige Caldwell Recently, I participated in a conversation that ultimately made me question whether the funding provided through various national emergency management grants are a help or a hindrance to those who execute those funds at a local level. The individual I had the conversation with is the Executive Director for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in three California counties; the question I posed was “What do you think of NIMS and the National Response Framework?” The response and ensuing conversation included some positive statements about NIMS and the renewed national interest in emergency management and his focus area, EMS. However, the remainder of the discussion was a negative reflection of various unnecessary actions and items that local agencies in his region have been required to implement in order to continue to receive additional grant funding. His primary concern is that an overabundance of funds are being focused on some specific regional issues that best apply to large cities while basic emergency management needs of small communities are languishing. He is disheartened and frustrated by the mold his smaller communities are being forced to fit. Most of his response did not directly relate back to NIMS or NRF, but just the mention of federal programs generated a rather strong reaction to these other issues. The counties he is responsible for are primarily composed of small cities and towns and are much more concerned with outfitting their volunteer fire departments and police stations, and spend any spare time or resources on preparing for and responding to natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.). While they readily prepare for those types of events, they are resistant to preparing for events that have an extremely low probably of occurring in their area. For example, these cities would not be probable targets for a terrorist attack because damage to their infrastructure or economic structure would not impact the nation or its overall security. Yet, local sheriff’s departments are required to purchase bomb diffusing robots to maintain eligibility for additional funds under some programs. Another example is that an Anthrax testing center was installed at a post office that services approximately 25,000 people – is this an appropriate use of funds so these small communities can continue to receive grants for emergency preparedness? Would these funds be better spent ensuring the firefighting equipment is maintained and a proper city evacuation plan is in place? Many times, our governing agencies approach regulations with a “one-size-fits-all” approach, typically because trying to separate out the nuances of particular situations would take an insurmountable amount of time, and may mean that guidance is never published and programs are not implemented. This singular approach typically results in a template that is applied to a very diverse nation with varying issues, geography, and threats, which sometimes render the template ineffective. There are some excellent ideas and response techniques that are a direct result of NIMS, but if the immediate local response to NIMS is as described previously, then has the point been lost? Perhaps the answer is a more regional approach and implementation of national guidelines that can be molded to better fit a specific region and their specific needs. I know that FEMA’s regions are relatively new, so maybe our emergency response guidance is moving in a more regional direction. Of course, national guidance, funding and coordination with other federal and non-governmental agencies are required, which can only happen at a Headquarters level. At a minimum, however, there should be flexibility in established guidance so the programs are effective in ways that best benefit specific communities – large and small. |