Included in this edition of their publication was this thoughtful piece written by the auditors themselves, Auditing Emergency Management: Emergency Managers and Auditors Face Similar Challenges. With all the recent stress and emphasis on EMAP accreditation, I found this segment of their article to be refreshing and right on the mark:
BEWARE OVER-RELIANCE ON PAPER CRITERIA AND EVIDENCE (BUT BE SURE TO USE IT)
While there are standards for a well-run emergency management program (first and foremost the Emergency Management Accreditation Program, or EMAP), they primarily detail structures and procedures. Reviewing the 2016 EMAP standards is a good place to start. EMAP provides a solid template for making sure that you are considering your emergency management program’s elements and needs. However, during fieldwork, be sure to look beyond the plans and procedures. Although they are very helpful, standards alone cannot necessarily predict how effective an emergency management organization is, because so much depends on leadership, authority, and relationships. Be sure to develop a methodology to assess the program’s real influence.
Similarly, reviewing documented plans and outcomes from emergency management-related activities (like training exercises and grant implementation) is valuable but may be insufficient. Does the program conduct regular exercises and assess performance through after-action reports (AARs)? Do they take action to address issues identified in AARs? Documentation of these efforts can help demonstrate the program’s effectiveness. However, this evidence can also face hidden limitations. For example, some emergency management programs are reluctant to document particular weaknesses in AARs when they would highlight potential security threats. Others might have excellent documentation, but do not include key decision makers during exercises. Be sure to look beyond the documented outcome to evaluate the activity in the context of the program itself.
