Specific examples of how the incident command system and multi-hazard planning are combined to produce disaster plans will be covered. ICS is not consistent from agency to agency and the problems encountered because of this create unsafe situations. In addition, local agencies are over burdened. They have good access to equipment but no unified command. A lack of communication sets the stage for confusion. California has mandated that a central command system be developed and adhered to. The Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) will be described and the issues that led to its design will be explained. In addition, research has shown that civilian and military units respond differently and the two are sometimes hard to integrate. The "Military Support to Civil Authorities" program resulted, and this will be presented and critiqued. The state is divided into six major mutual aid regions and three major administrative regions. The logic behind this structure will be assessed, and the criteria helpful for geographic planning of this type will be explained. During the San Francisco Earthquake in 1990, less than 20% of managers used ICS. In the 1994 L.A. Earthquake more than 80% used it and the response was noticeably more efficient than that of the 1990 earthquake. The differences between the two events will be analyzed, the ICS applications compared. The two questions that are central to ICS - What is my job and who is in charge? - will be discussed from a planning and operational perspective. Standardization of the information design to increase inter-agency sharing of important data and pathways for decision implementation will also be covered. Methods to make disaster response a team effort, integrating agencies that are used to crisis/emergency response with those that are not, will also be described
|
ADRC TOP > Training Information Database
