Weaknesses in Disaster Planning

Abstract

Today, partly as a result of the actions taken by federal and local civil defense groups, it is rare to find an American community of some size that does not have some kind of emergency plans and preparations. On the other hand, it is the very rare community, indeed, that finds its planning anywhere near sufficient or adequate for a really major disaster. Domains often have not been clearly defined, tasks integrated, resources allocated and efficiently mobilized, and effective disaster activities performed.

In what follows we indicate some general weaknesses we have observed in a variety of situations. They do not indicate all the problems that should be considered by planners. However, they do highlight typical sources of difficulty.

1. In many communities, disaster plans do not specifically assign an official or organization with the responsibility of assessing what the overall emergency is and what it means. Effective disaster preparations should provide for systematic reconnaissance and other procedures for obtaining a central strategic overview of the crisis.

2. Arrangements for disseminating emergency information to all crisis relevant organizations, mass media sources, and the general public are frequently missing from disaster plans. Good planning provides for ways of obtaining accurate information and the transmission of it to all interested parties.

3. Some disaster plans do not call for the establishment of some kind of command post at the disaster scene or point of greatest impact. This command post should be integrated with the emergency operating center (EOC) which should not be used for field operations, but have a more general policy making and overall control function.

4. Much disaster planning does not adequately deal with the problems of interorganizational coordination at the time of a community emergency. But good plans clearly specify exactly what organizational representatives should be present at EOC's and what their specific duties should be before, during and after disaster impact.

5. New emergency domains are often either inadequately specified or not covered at all in some disaster plans. Good disaster planning assures that all necessary domains, particularly new ones, are covered and that the plans clearly specify who is responsible for what.

6. Certain emergency tasks tend to be ignored more often than others in disaster planning. Disaster plans should make certain that tasks are clearly thought through ahead of time and assigned to specific organizations, be they established, extending, expanding or emergent groups.

7. There is a tendency, particularly in disaster-prone communities, to plan only for the more likely kinds of disasters. Effective disaster planning takes into account the full range of possible disasters in a locality even though it may concentrate on the more probable liklihood.

8. Very few disaster plans take into account the transition from the emergency period to the recovery period and almost none deal with the inevitable movement back to normalcy. There is little excuse for the almost total absence of guidelines at all toward restoration of normalcy in overall community disaster planning.

9. Disaster plans too often remain paper plans and are not rehearsed in whole or in part. Effective emergency planning requires realistic exercises of disaster plans, at both the organizational and community levels.

10. There is a tendency to let emergency plans get out of date. Good disaster planning requires a specific revision of plans, preferably triggered by some relatively automatic system of review (e.g., by examination of the plans on specific dates such as before the local tornado, flood, or hurricane seasons, and exercises of such plans).