**LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: A TALE OF TWO MODELS**

**Michael D. Selves, CEM, CPM**

**Director, Johnson County Emergency Management**

**Olathe, Kansas**

**Phone: (913) 782-3038 Fax: (913) 791-5002 E-mail:
michael.selves@jocoks.com**

*The intergovernental paradox for emergency management is that the
governments least likely to perceive emergency management as a key
priority -- local governments -- are at centerstage in terms of
responsibility for emergency management. Beverly Cigler-1984.*

*Emergency management is the process of making public officials think
about things they don't want to think about, spend money they don't
have, preparing for something they don't believe will ever happen! Mike
Selves-1996.*

**Abstract:**

In emergency management, two concepts have become axiomatic \-- the
pivotal role of local government in emergency management and the
difficulty of "selling" emergency management to senior officials. We all
talk about them and use them to emphasize the importance and difficulty
of our jobs; however, very seldom do we take a critical look at the
underlying philosophical bases upon which local emergency managers
operate and the practical implications which result from those
philosophical choices. The premise of this article is that the failure
to do so accounts for a good deal of the misunderstanding of our roles
-- especially by local government executives.

Nearly ten years of experience in emergency management -- all of it
working with and in local government -- has led me to the observation
that local emergency managers operate from primarily two philosophical
models and that the selection of a model has a significant impact on the
relative perception (and, therefore, the effectiveness) of the local
emergency management program. The purpose of the article is to describe
the models, set forth potential policy implications involved with their
use, and suggest approaches which may help local practitioners integrate
the models for a more powerful and effective program.

**Introduction:**

The philosophical models most local emergency managers operate under
(either intuitively or consciously) fall into two general categories --
"emergency services" (E-S) and "public administration" (P-A). There was
a time when a third, "military" model was common. Changes in the world
scene and national policy, however, have made this model virtually
obsolete at the local government level.

There is, I believe, a rationale for this philosophical dichotomy.
During the first seven decades of this century, Emergency Management was
primarily "Civil Defense", its model was the military, its emphasis was
national defense. The Civil Defense "niche" was well defined and both
the practitioners and those outside the field had a fairly clear idea of
what the job entailed and the role of the Civil Defense program. The
operative model could be described as "military". A large percentage of
C.D. practitioners were ex-military, they viewed their jobs as an
extension of the military and their credibility was determined by their
experience and knowledge concerning national defense issues.

In the late1980's, three major factors changed all that dramatically.
First was the passage of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), dealing with a community's right to know
about hazardous chemicals and with the local jurisdiction's
responsibility to plan and train for emergency responses to hazardous
chemical incidents. Second, the end of the Cold War and the
disintegration of the Soviet Union significantly reduced the already
waning (at least at the local level) emphasis on national security
issues. A third factor was a significant increase in catastrophic
disasters in the late 1980s and early 1990s which dramatically focused
the nation's attention on emergency/disaster management, especially at
the state and local levels.

While we certainly know that within any profession there are always
competing philosophies, the two models dealt with in this article have
significantly different perspectives which are readily observed in the
organization and culture of a local E.M. program, the nature of the
interactions with other agencies, and the general assumptions and
perceptions which persons, both within and outside the program, have
regarding the role of E.M. within the local community. All of these
factors make it imperative that anyone responsible for leading a local
E.M. program have a firm grasp of what model they are following and,
most important, [why]{.underline}.

As this article develops, it will become clear that I am concerned about
the general lack of a public administration perspective and the pitfalls
of a strictly emergency services approach. It should be made clear at
the outset, however, that the primary purpose for setting forth these
models is to encourage emergency managers to engage in serious
introspection and to examine their programs and operating philosophies
rather than to advocate one model and criticize another. Perhaps the
most important competency in good management/leadership is
self-awareness, the ability to examine our beliefs, values, attitudes
and styles and honestly assess the impact they have on our
organizational effectiveness. It is toward the development of this
capacity that this article is primarily dedicated.

**Description of the Models:**

[Emergency Services (E-S):]{.underline} The first model is based on a
view of Emergency Management as being primarily concerned with the
coordination of emergency services' response to major emergencies and
disasters. While such areas as mitigation, public awareness, continuity
of government, and other such "non-emergency" issues are usually
addressed, it is clear that the Emergency Services (E-S) model views the
response functions as primary. While there has been no major scientific
inquiry as to the relative percentage of programs operating under this
model, empirical evidence suggests that the percentage has increased
dramatically over the last 10 years. This increase is undoubtedly due to
the major emphasis on the SARA Title III program which began late in the
1980s. Since HAZMAT is an area in which the Fire Service community has
been active, the increase in the number of local emergency managers with
Fire Service affiliations or backgrounds has increased. Previously, the
emergency service most often associated with emergency management had
been law enforcement.

The tendency within this model is to emphasize people, equipment and
procedures based on their use in emergency response situations. This is
certainly important work, but the emphasis is often at the expense of a
broad understanding of the governmental policy issues which are part of
the essential functions of Emergency Management. As an example of this
approach, exercises tend to resemble "drills" which involve the movement
of response personnel and equipment with the higher level decision
making and interdepartmental coordination functions of a jurisdiction
seldom, if ever, being exercised. Plans tend to focus on the roles and
responsibilities of emergency services agencies and to resemble standard
operating guides rather than broad jurisdictional policies during times
of crises.

Organizational interactions tend to be primarily with emergency services
agencies. Managers operating under the E-S model may be reluctant to
interact with non-emergency services agencies and especially with
senior, elected officials. Often emergency management functions are
embedded within an emergency service agency. This has the effect of
isolating them further from the policy making functions of the
jurisdiction. Access to local executives and elected officials is often
indirect and limited by the organizational structure. Interaction with
policy level officials is also often characterized by an attitude that
the "politicians" are a nuisance during response operations and should
be "kept somewhere so they don't get in the way". E-S model influences
can be seen in aspects of the organizational culture of the EM agency.
In addition to often being a part of an emergency response agency, the
adoption of emergency services characteristics such as vehicles equipped
with "red lights and sirens" and the wearing of uniforms may serve as
indicators of an E-S modeled agency.

[Public Administration (P-A):]{.underline} The P-A model is based on a
philosophy which views emergency management as an element of the overall
administration of government. It sees emergency management as that
aspect of public administration which deals with the operation of
government during crisis. Because of this, there is an interest in the
political, social and psychological factors that are involved in crisis
management. The concern is focused on not just the emergency services
response, but on the impact of the disaster/emergency in terms of larger
jurisdictional issues. The P-A model, to some degree, may reflect the
need to continue the Civil Defense emphasis on the preservation of
viable government and community functions regardless of the crisis
situation. Indeed, P-A model emergency managers would give significantly
more attention to Continuity of Government issues than their E-S model
counterparts. To say that the P-A model is simply a "remnant" of the
national, Civil Defense, perspective would be seriously misleading,
however.

Practitioners operating under the P-A model tend to approach emergency
management as a discipline, subject to academic research and debate with
the results therefrom being used as tools in implementing a local
program. The current emphasis of NCCEM and EMI on the development of
emergency management as a profession, with a supporting academic
foundation in institutions of higher education is a prime example of the
P-A model at work nationally. The University of Delaware's Disaster
Research Center, the University of Colorado's Natural Hazards Research
and Applications Information Center, and the ever-growing number of
emergency management degree programs are further examples.

P-A model practitioners recognize the necessary role of both politicians
and the media in dealing with crises and work to find the appropriate
context and methodologies for those roles to be carried out. The P-A
model emphasizes the coordination and integration of all governmental
(and often private) efforts under a single, pre-established framework
and conceives the work of emergency management to be the development of
that framework and the achievement of consensus around it.

**Organizational Implications of the Models:**

Having described the models and discussed the characteristics of each,
the question arises, "What difference does it make?" The implications of
the basic models we operate by can have significant impact on the way
emergency management programs are perceived. An approach based on the
E-S model has some very basic and important implications. Since it tends
to limit the scope of the local emergency management program, it invites
questions about its necessity. Why, for example, do we need an emergency
management program when our fire service, police and EMS departments are
doing an excellent job already ? When viewed from a purely E-S
perspective, there is an apparent duplication of effort which makes it
more difficult to justify emergency management programs in times of
severe budgetary constraints.

A second important implications in that the E-S model tends to produce
"turf" concerns within the existing emergency services agencies. If
emergency management is perceived to be another emergency service
agency, it follows that it will impact on the degree of control and
autonomy exercised by other emergency service agencies. In such
situations, the likelihood of suspicion and resentment from the
emergency services community is increased. Many of the external
indicators of the E-S approach - wearing of uniforms, use of emergency
equipped vehicles, the practice of responding on site to emergency
situations, etc. - only serves to exacerbate any perceived conflict of
roles/responsibilities. In order to overcome this problem and still
operate under the E-S model, some emergency managers present their role
as simply "resource support for emergency services." Such an approach
sometimes solves the conflict problem, but limits the role of emergency
management even further and invites the argument that the function is
redundant and unnecessary.

The further implication of the E-S model is that local decision makers
usually turn to one of the emergency services to handle emergency
management as an additional duty. This decision significantly
complicates the emergency management role as jurisdictional coordinator,
since other elements of local government perceive emergency management
as a "fire thing" or a "police thing" rather than seeing it as the
independent and transcendent function it has to be to be effective. This
is a symptom of perhaps the most significant implication of the E-S
approach - the perceptions of senior elected and administrative
officials about emergency management. City/County
managers/administrators, for example, are educated and trained to view
things philosophically from the perspective of the academic discipline
of public administration. Within that perspective, emergency services
has a well-defined but limited role in local government. An emergency
management function which is perceived by public administrators as
falling under the emergency service rubric risks being severely limited
in scope and having its broader integrating function misunderstood or
ignored. Every day, I hear laments from local emergency managers that
they cannot get the support or understanding of their elected and/or
administrative officials. I am firmly convinced that, in many of those
instances, the implications of choosing an E-S model may be the primary
cause of their dilemma.

The forgoing discussion of implications should not be interpreted as an
argument against establishing a strong empathy for and involvement with
the local emergency services community. Certainly the first line of
response capability is emergency services and a primary objective of
emergency management must be the support for and integration of that
capability into an overall jurisdictional plan for
emergencies/disasters. In truth emergency management and the various
emergency services are separate but equally different and important
functions within an integrated emergency management system. The
important distinction in this regard is between being closely involved
with and a strong supporter of emergency services rather than being a
[part]{.underline} of the local emergency service function.

An example of the blurring of this distinction on a national level was
the creation of NFPA 1600 regarding disaster management. While the fact
that NFPA was interested in standards for emergency management was
laudatory, the implication that emergency management was a function
which fell under the purview of a fire service organization had the
potential for serious misunderstandings about the roles of the
respective disciplines. Emergency managers operating under the P-A model
would argue that if any entity outside the emergency management
community should establish such standards, it would be the National
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) which has done extensive
research and studies of the emergency management field. Who at the local
level would be most interested in a NFPA standard - the Fire Chief. Who
at the local level would be most interested in a NAPA standard - the
City/County Administrator. The implications should be obvious.

The implications of the acceptance of a P-A model should be equally
clear. Under the model, the objective of the local program should be
expressed in broad terms. For example: "The function of emergency
management is to provide a proactive framework and pre-planned
mechanisms which allow government to operate in an effective and
integrated manner during a crisis." If the transcendent nature of
emergency management is emphasized at the upper echelons of local
government, the perception of the role and significance of the program
is enhanced. The credibility issue which so many local emergency
managers face can be more effectively dealt with. One of the clearest
expositions of the P-A approach to the role and function of emergency
management comes from Sylves and Waugh in their introduction to
*Disaster Management in the U.S. and Canada.* "We sought to refute these
common myths: that emergency management is all-training and no
education; that the field of emergency management has few occupants
willing to promote knowledge creation and professionalism; that studies
of disaster are only uni-disciplinary and anecdotal; and, that emergency
management is peripheral, narrowly occupational, episodic work." Perhaps
the single most significant characteristic of the P-A model is its
implicit objective of creating a viable, credible emergency management
profession.

The major problem which practitioners may face with the adoption of the
P-A model is that it may be perceived as being overly abstract,
impractical and, therefore, irrelevant. The challenge is to demonstrate
that the research, theory and academic discussions which characterize an
advanced discipline do, in fact, translate into concrete, pragmatic
lessons which can be applied at the local government level. This is an
accepted concept in the discipline of public administration. It
certainly is possible in the practice of emergency management as well.

**Towards Integration and Transition:**

Since I have posited that the two models exist and that there are
distinct implications which can be drawn by the acceptance (or perceived
acceptance) of either model, the next logical step should be to examine
some potential strategies for integrating the strengths of each model
and transitioning to a more comprehensive, professional local emergency
management program. As emergency managers, we need to understand that
our job is primarily concerned with integration of governmental and
non-governmental functions before, during and after a crisis event. This
job requires the building of a cross-functional team which is capable of
integrating and coordinating activities of a wide variety of
jurisdictional, private and volunteer agencies. Just as important,
however, is our other role as the coordinator of activities by our
jurisdictions to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of government
during any crisis situation. These principles are valid regardless of
the model we have adopted. We also need to realize that there is
probably no "pure" adherence to one model or the other. If the models
described could be thought of as ends of a continuum with most local
programs falling somewhere in between, then the effort to transition
becomes one of adjustment rather than a radical change of direction. The
changes required in style and substance need not be overwhelming and
sudden. In fact, there is a great deal to be said for making subtle,
less unsettling, transitions.

The first phase of any organizational or cultural change rests with
personal knowledge and understanding. Just as in the integrated
emergency management concept itself, any effort of this sort should
start with a "hazard and capability analysis". One essential
characteristic which any manager should have is the ability to
realistically assess an organizational situation and honestly evaluate
their own capabilities to effect change in that situation. In assessing
the situation, it is important to first look at where we are on the
model continuum suggested earlier. What external, visible factors are
there which indicate to others what our "self concept" may be. What are
the possible perceptions which others may form about the nature of our
role and/or function in local government as a result of these factors?
Are these perceptions the ones we want others (particularly local
decision makers) to have about our role/function (i.e., where do we
[want]{.underline} to be on the continuum?) Are we consciously or
unconsciously sending messages to our colleagues in emergency services
that we are competing for their "turf"? Do we perceive that there is a
lack of understanding of the role of emergency management in our
jurisdiction? If so, why and at what levels does it exist?

After looking inwardly, we need to consider external factors which may
impose on our program certain expectations about roles/functions. Are
there others within the jurisdiction who have a stake in portraying the
emergency management role/function in a certain way? Is the
organizational climate such that the integrative, coordinating aspects
of the P-A model are acceptable? What is the value placed on
"professionalism" within the jurisdiction? Are there budget constraints
which dictate roles/functions upon the emergency management programs?
Here it is important to note that the size and culture of the
jurisdiction may have a real impact on the adherence to a particular
model. In many smaller jurisdictions, fiscal constraints may dictate
that the emergency manager play a more active role in emergency response
or even be involved in the day-to-day operation of emergency services.
Also, in some jurisdictions, there is no concept of an integrative
public administration function. Such situations do not mean that use of
the P-A model is precluded. It only means that the emergency manager
must take extra care in making the distinction between the emergency
services and emergency management roles. As indicated earlier, it makes
the job of role definition more challenging! What is the
emergency/disaster history of the jurisdiction and how does that history
work for or against changes in the roles/functions of the local
emergency management program? All of these external factors should be
researched and their importance weighed before embarking upon any
actions designed to change the organizational perceptions about
emergency management.

Finally, after the introspection and research suggested above, a series
of actions should be planned to begin the cultural change. One very
necessary first step would be the creation of job defining documents: a
mission/vision statement which puts the emergency management function in
a broad organizational context, and a set of goals/objectives which
outline the desired end results of the E.M. program. Not only is this a
valuable exercise in terms of defining the emergency management program,
it is also consistent with the current trends and practices in public
and business administration. The simple act of creating these documents
establishes a perception of professionalism and provides an opportunity
to express the purpose of emergency management in terms of our own
choosing. A second step could be the gradual elimination of signs and
practices which tend to send the wrong signals about the intent and
purpose of the emergency management function. If, for instance, there is
a concern over "turf" issues, the elimination of those elements of the
program which could be misinterpreted as impinging on an emergency
service mission would be advisable. An example might be not responding
to the scene of an incident if the presence of emergency management is
not required or requested by emergency service responders. A third
initiative might be increased emphasis on those, broader elements of
emergency management such as continuity of government, public awareness,
establishment of jurisdictional policies regarding crisis operations,
etc. while being seen as the supporter and advocate of the emergency
services rather than a "competitor". Obviously specific actions and
strategies will be dictated by the local situation; however, the
objective should be to transform the image of the emergency management
function where such transformation can improve and strengthen our
ability to be viewed as credible and knowledgeable professionals. We
must recognize that our conscious or unconscious choices to emulate one
or the other of the models will have consequences in terms of our
working with others in our jurisdictions and with how we are perceived.
First we must determine which model we wish to work toward and then
ensure that the approaches and actions we take are consistent with the
model and have the desired effect. Finally, as good managers, we must
constantly review and analyze what we are doing and why in order to be
successful. Such activities are not simple or easy, indeed they are
often challenges -- but they are necessary to accomplish the vital but
difficult job of emergency management.