Effective Cooperation Among Airports and Local and Regional Emergency Management Agencies for Disaster Preparedness and Response (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

25 Synthesis of both survey and interview responses reveals the contours of effective practices for creating and sustaining productive relationships between airports and their local and regional emergency management (EM) partners. The synthesis responses are reinforced and extended by survey and interview results in related studies (Smith 2010a, c, 2012b, 2013; Ken- ville and Smith 2013; Smith and Kenville 2013). As noted in chapters three and four, information from the case examples was given the greatest weight in identifying effective practices, with practices and concepts volunteered in response to the open-ended question in the surveys given next greatest weight, and information from the closed-ended questions in the survey given relatively less weight. Regardless of weight, however, all information gathered in all parts of the study has been analyzed and synthesized and is explained here. BENEFITS Nearly all of the 67 airports and 35 EM agencies reported positive benefits from effective working relationships. When asked if their organization had experienced benefits from good working relationships, 60 airports (90%) and 32 EM agencies (91%) said “Yes.” One in each group said “No,” and the rest replied either “Don’t know” or “Too soon to tell.” When asked if they measured the benefits in any way, 16 airports and 10 EM agencies said “Yes.” However, follow-up inquiries revealed that all of these measures were qualitative, usually subjective assessments of whether the relationship was satisfactory or recent exercises were successful, or both. This qualitative focus was reflected in the four case examples, where the participants had to labor to imagine quantitative metrics for the effectiveness of airport-EM agency relationships. Although the safety of passengers, employees, tenants, and communities is the main focus of the relationships, airports can benefit from the special skills and capabilities of EM agencies in such areas as contracting, procurement, multi-agency coordination, NIMS and ICS training, access to federal homeland security and EM funding, communica- tions, and sheltering (Los Angeles Mayor 2011). The number of actual practices (see Tables 6 through 8) strongly indicates that both airports and EM agencies see enough benefits to safety, operations, efficiency, and other outcomes to justify the investment of time and staff in build- ing and sustaining good working relationships with their partners. Even if a successful relationship tends to beget more success, it still requires consistent backing from senior management to continue the investment in the relationship. This respect for strong leadership was highly evident in the four case examples. BARRIERS AND HOW THEY CAN BE OVERCOME The primary barriers to effective working relationships between airports and EM agencies are the lack of personal relationships and the lack of mutual understanding of roles, responsibili- ties, constraints, and capabilities. A secondary barrier, cited by seven airports (10%), is a concern about revenue diversion. The two main barriers can be overcome by example through the leadership of senior management; mutual outreach and edu- cation efforts; realistic and inclusive training and drilling pro- grams; and effective use of formal and informal opportunities for direct personal interaction. An emphasis on finding practi- cable solutions to problems is essential. The revenue diversion issue must be resolved by each individual airport, acting both on the initiative of its senior leadership and in concert with its FAA regional office. No examples were found of an airport being penalized for using airport staff or equipment in support of an EM partner, but then airports have been scrupulous in maintaining their Air- port Research and Firefighting Index. Airport leadership can ensure acceptance of a higher degree of collaboration in the use of airport staff and equipment by working closely with the airport’s airlines so that they understand the exact impact on rates and charges issues. DESIRABLE ELEMENTS IN AIRPORT– EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RELATIONSHIPS An inventory of 72 characteristics of successful relation- ships, and the processes for creating and sustaining these partnerships, evolved from a literature review in tandem with the surveys and case example interviews. This list was devel- oped to assist airport executives, their governing boards, and personnel involved in deploying written mutual aid agree- ments to improve the preparedness and resiliency of the air- port and its community. chapter five CONCLUSIONS

26 • Peer review of programs, plans, and exercises (at air- port or at EM agency, or both) • Joint team training at an outside facility run by a state, university, or federal agency • Use of qualitative metrics • Use of quantitative metrics • Work with airlines and the FAA to resolve any potential revenue diversion issues. AMBIGUITIES OF INTEREST OR CONCERN A very high degree of agreement was found among airports, among EM agencies, and between the two groups. This is unsurprising, as 62 of the original 72 airports were chosen because it was believed they had effective relationships with their EM agency partners. There are some subtle indications of divergent opinions in EM agencies about whether airports should become more knowledgeable about such procedures as Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) mission numbers; or whether airports could rely on their local or regional partners to handle specialized EM procedures and approvals. In either case, the airports need to be aware of the capabilities of the EM agencies to handle complex arrange- ments for procurement, transportation, and reimbursements. EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS OF RELATIONSHIPS Senior management from airports and EM agencies would benefit from meeting periodically to assess the clarity and effectiveness of their relationship and of the responses to actual incidents. Measuring the overall effectiveness of the relationships between airports and EM agencies could prove difficult, as many pertinent variables are difficult to quantify. For exam- ple, overall effectiveness might relate to the response and recovery from an incident or to the results of an exercise. Therefore, it would be difficult to measure efficacy during normal operating periods, and the evaluation of the relation- ship during a crisis would be especially difficult. In general, most evaluations of the relationships have been qualitative and subjective. As seen in the four case examples, there may be some potential for imaginative quantitative metrics; but there are doubts that a relationship can be quanti- tatively evaluated with any degree of success. In considering metrics, airports and their partners may need to seek a produc- tive balance of qualitative and quantitative measures both of the relationship and of performance. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Seven areas were identified for further research: 1. Funding methods for EM collaboration 2. Approaches to reconciling the rates and charges aspect Airports’ EM agency partners may also employ the list in the process of developing and sustaining effective relation- ships and outcomes. The 72 elements are incorporated in the checklist for fostering good airport–EM agency relationships, and are cited in Appendix D; the checklist can serve as a flight plan for the establishment, maintenance, management, and repair of such relationships. The elements in the checklist are classified as “Essential (E),” “Desirable (D),” or “Context- Sensitive (C).” In general, the context-sensitive elements would apply in special cases where the parties are dealing with a barrier or a broken relationship. SUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Review of the data obtained during this study indicates that the following elements are essential to successful manage- ment of cooperative efforts: • Strong personal relationships based on respect, trust, and information exchange • Support from airport senior management • An airport emergency manager in a full-time position or major collateral duty, senior enough in the organiza- tion to have visibility and influence • Regular meetings with a focused agenda, ideally at least once per month • Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of the relationship • Mutual education • Clarity regarding roles and responsibilities • Open and honest communication • Designation of liaison persons within both parties • A focus on finding solutions, not just on identifying problems • A high degree of inclusion • A willingness to learn from each other and from exer- cises and incidents • Consistent use of National Incident Management Sys- tem and Incident Command System • Consistent updating of information regarding roles, responsibilities, resources, capabilities, and constraints • Joint training, drills, and exercises that are realistic and challenging enough to test procedures and relationships • Charting of the rate of personnel turnover and the per- formance of joint exercises, with an exercise frequency sufficient to meet a target percent turnover as set by the airport and its partners • Effective after-exercise and after-action reviews • Joint planning • Airport community and general community awareness of the strong link between EM and business continuity planning • Active airport participation in local and regional emer- gency and disaster organizations or boards. In addition, several management practices might be useful, even highly useful, in some relationships, depending on the exact circumstances:

27 of the revenue diversion issue in airport-EM agency collaboration 3. Metrics for measuring effectiveness of airport-EM agency relationships in terms of the impact of relation- ships on emergency responses 4. Identification of practices that are the most effective for promoting good emergency responses at airports 5. Role of state structures and statutes in shaping collabo- ration between airports and their EM agency partners 6. Empirical validation of expert opinion on “effective- ness” and “success” when applied to the effect of airport- EM agency relationships on response quality 7. Objective testing of the relationship of good airport- EM relationships (independent variable) to improved responses to disasters and emergencies. Beyond the types of metrics suggested in the four case examples, further research under research area 3 could include: • Testing the strength of level of trust. Do people tell man- agers about a problem before making official notification? • How fast can contact be made with the right person to take action or make decision? • What is the interaction between rate of personnel turnover and the joint exercise rate? The result of this research might help airports and their EM partners set a personnel turnover rate trigger for exercise frequency. • How many items in the after-action improvement plan have been successfully resolved or are repeats from a preceding plan review? • What is the most effective balance between qualitative and quantitative metrics and how can they best be used together? The sixth suggested area of research is particularly inter- esting, as the primary type of validity in this present study is expert validity. In the present study, the experts asked to judge validity were the same persons who served as the informants surveyed or interviewed for the study. Proposed research areas 3 (metrics) and 6 (empirical validation) are closely related. The seventh suggested area of research addresses the fun- damental assumption made in the present study. It is closely related to research area 6 (empirical validation). The empiri- cal validation of such terms as “effectiveness,” “success,” and “improvement” is a necessary precursor to this research; in other words, research area 6 must be accomplished before research area 7 or be addressed as the first phase of a combined research effort.