Why Don't They Call?

EMC053 - ACCEPTANCE TAKES TIME

Originally published, 11 Nov, 1996

It takes time to accomplish the approaches described in our bulletins and papers. Much of it is, of necessity, confined to those unpaid professionals who work in government agencies. I am not addressing volunteers who serve non-governmental agencies on an infrequent basis. The ARES mission of health and welfare traffic, for instance, does take a lot of people who serve VERY infrequently. They are separate and distinct from the type of unpaid employee who works in government, especially in an on-going capacity, albeit unpaid. Note that I studiously avoid the word “volunteer” because the majority of urban governments simply don’t like volunteers. That’s because they may never have had the pleasure of working with the type I am talking about.

Appearance is invariably the first step. I know it sounds trite (and even inflammatory to some) but it is a fact of life; most officials are too tactful to say it —- so I will:

If you don’t look like us, if you don’t talk like us, if you you don’t act like us, and if you don’t perform like us —- you are not one of us. Thou shalt not pass.”

To this a potential volunteer may reply, “Fine. You want me to be or do that? Pay me!” Our reply is, in essence, “I understand your feeling. However, our people don’t do that because they HAVE to — but because they WANT to.” This puts the shoe back on their foot to back out gracefully.

Some may call this a hard line approach. We call it a real world, practical approach. Once you let your employees (paid and volunteer) know what is the mission and standards of performance, service, appearance, behavior, etc., they know exactly where they stand and what is expected. This should be carefully crafted and stated right up front before anyone is hired or signed on. It saves a lot of grief down the line. I have seen all too often government managers report that their volunteer program(s) failed. In analyzing the reasons, the most common is their reluctance to state up front and in writing what are the expectations of the government (or business, etc.).

FEMA's Here! Are we saved?

There seems to be a major misunderstanding of how Emergency/Disaster Response works.

During Hurricane Katrina, the media blasted FEMA for not immediately getting involved.  During Superstorm/Frankenstorm/Hurricane/Whatever Sandy, FEMA was first on the scene, for better or worse.

So, what’s the problem? The problem is that FEMA is NOT a First Response agency.  FEMA is the last level in a Disaster Relief pyramid.  Primary responsibility lies with your local Emergency Managers, at the City/township level. When their resources are overwhelmed, the County/Parish is supposed to step in.

Once those assets/resources are committed, the next step is State Emergency Management, and finally FEMA.

Unfortunately, politics being what they are, people have become accustomed to expecting all things from the Federal level of government.  During Katrina, FEMA waited until requested by the State, and caught media hell for it.

During Sandy, FEMA leaped right onto the front lines. It’s too early to tell if this was a good idea or not.

Because of reliance on FEMA to solve all problems, local Emergency Management agencies don’t develop disaster plans for their own resources anymore.  Why throw all of your assets at a disaster when you can just whistle up FEMA and they’ll throw their resources at the problem for you?

While having virtually unlimited resources to throw at a situation might be a good thing, do you really want the Federal Government micro-managing your disaster response, right down to the street level?