Emergency Management Continuity of Government

Emergency Management

Continuity of Government (COG) vs. Comprehensive Emergency Management vs. Integrated Management Systems (IEMS) vs. Incident Command System (ICS)

Continuity of Government or COG focuses on the actions and procedures taken in an emergency or disaster situation to ensure that governments are able to fulfill their functions during said emergencies (Farazmand, 2001). One may also consider COG the principles that underlie the procedures necessary to allow functioning during catastrophes or other natural disasters. Comprehensive emergency management is the process through which COG can be achieved; it involves strategic communications through local and federal channels to ensure the complexities of an emergency are clearly defined, and the procedures for ensuring order and functioning are outlined and followed.

IEMS and ICS both focus on more specific functions of emergency management, including the coordination of supplies and people and the allocation of scarce resources. They are not as comprehensive in nature as COG, which does not suggest they do not have utility, merely that they are not appropriate for comprehensive management of emergent situations.

The focus of IEMS according to Stephens & Grant (p. 286) is more general than that of ICS and COG; IEMS "addresses mobilization of resources and support" whereas ICS focuses more on responding to specific directives in a defined situation (Farazmand, 2001). ICS is more likely to handle incidents or one off events, whereas IEMS addresses the analytical process of managing emergencies. From a strategic standpoint, the COG model is significantly important to government because it alleviates many of the difficulties associated with the complexity inherent in emergent situations, complexity that often inhibits the "utility of IEMS and ICS" because these are not comprehensive in nature, and do not provide comprehensive guidelines from which emergency management teams can operate (Farazmand, p. 287).

Communications during Emergencies

The Stephens & Grant article on p. 286 notes that emergency management coordinators often find it difficult to communicate their goals and needs to major groups working with, in part because their priorities are not the same of those local executives have. I believe this to be true; emergency managers are trained specialists whose expertise lies in providing comprehensive care in an emergent situation; local executives often are not equipped to consider the comprehensive needs of multiple forces in an emergent situation. This is not to say the input of local coordinators does not have utility; local officials can provide emergency coordinators with valuable information about local resources, so that emergency managers may carry out their functions as efficiently as possible during an emergency. However, local representatives often aspire to manage emergency situations on their own, when it is critical they collaborate with federal agents to achieve continuity of government and comprehensive emergency management.