Since the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996, billions of dollars have been invested in preparedness programs. National, state and local counterterrorism training exercises have been carried out for many years and have been thoroughly documented. But there still is no comprehensive readiness assessment available that can be used to validate the effectiveness of specific programs or exercises.

State and local officials are divided on the issue of requiring accreditation for emergency service providers. Advocates believe that achieving accreditation validates the need for standard processes that define emergency services capabilities and ensures that reasonable levels of both quality and uniformity are met.

Amy Smithson of the independent Henry L. Stimson Center public policy institute remarked during a House Committee on Government Reform hearing in October 2001 that “the prerequisite for institutionalization is standards, and all of the response disciplines … [have] expressed an abundance of frustration over the absence of standards and protocols to guide them. Standards command the attention of rescue and health care personnel because they are the backbone of accountability.”

Opponents commonly criticize the process as too time-consuming and costly, claiming that accreditation is not a viable way to measure readiness. Regardless of the arguments for and against, the establishment of a reasonable set of standards, coupled with periodic organizational-compliance assessments, should at least upgrade the level of capability required and at the same time improve the odds of saving more lives in the wake of any terrorist attack or other catastrophic event.

Accreditation needs

There also is little if any agreement on what agency or private-sector organization should be assigned the responsibility for developing and evaluating first-responder accreditation standards. Private educational accrediting associations usually develop and promulgate evaluation criteria and then conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not a specific institution should be permitted to offer its programs to the public. It seems reasonable to suggest that institutions that develop CBRNE responder programs — arguably a much more important responsibility — be similarly evaluated by a government agency and should meet the preferably rigorous preparedness criteria set by that agency.

The Office of Domestic Preparedness, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, and FEMA all develop and maintain various sets of responder-training and terrorism-preparedness criteria and have participated in a broad spectrum of standards development programs. None of these, however, has been nationally accredited.

On the other hand, educational institutions such as colleges and universities can and have adopted programs similar to those mentioned above and offer credit for training completed. This credit is an option due primarily to the influence of organizations such as the National Association of Emergency Managers, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Commission of Accreditation on Ambulance Services. CAAS and other accreditation standards might be useful as a template to use by the agency or organization eventually responsible for the accreditation of first responders.

Accreditation is the key in any field to assess the quality of institutions, programs and services; measure them against agreed-on standards; and determine whether specific institutions and/or individuals meet those standards. Because there are two types of accreditation, institutional and programmatic (or specialized), the accreditation standards should fit a definitive baseline.

Institutional accreditation reassures potential students that an institution is both credible and competent, and that its administrative body, training resources, employees and services have met certain minimum standards.

Programmatic accreditation scrutinizes particular schools and/or programs within a larger educational institution such as law schools, medical schools and nursing programs that are affiliated with a major university. There are standards by which the types of programs offered are measured; in general, such programs are developed by professionals involved in each branch of learning and reflect what an individual must know and be capable of performing successfully within the specialized profession.

An excellent example of what might be required for counterterrorism programs is the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response standard, inelegantly called HAZWOPER, which was put into effect in March 1990. HAZWOPER training addresses several elements of hazmat response, including some specifically relevant to CBRNE incidents. For example, it identifies the necessary elements, such as lines of authority, site security and evacuation procedures, of an acceptable emergency-response plan. It also establishes standards for different levels of training competency. Reasonable but well-monitored regulations specify the gradually increasing knowledge, skills and abilities the responder must possess at each level. HAZWOPER also sets standards for personal protective equipment, decontamination gear, refresher training and the medical surveillance of first responders.

There already are several nongovernmental organizations that have the responsibility of accrediting public safety agencies. Among them are the Commission on Fire Accreditation International, the Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Organizations. Even though these organizations develop preparedness standards, their focus in the past was on general improvement of the agencies they monitor. They now also evaluate the facility emergency management and terrorism preparedness programs of those agencies.

Possible solution

The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2005 offers a possible resolution to the quandary. The act creates a Homeland Security Information Clearinghouse, under the purview of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination, that would, among other things, collect and disseminate information on voluntary standards that might be adopted for preparedness training, equipment and exercises. The clearinghouse also would provide information to state and local governments about homeland security grants, the technical assistance available, best practices, and how federal funds might be used for facility emergency management and terrorism preparedness training programs.

The logical next step might be, therefore, to assign the development of standardized accredited first-responder training programs to the same agency. These programs could use one of three processes to develop the standards needed: the de facto process, a voluntary consensus process or a regulatory process, which would require approval and monitoring by OSLGC/HSIC.

De facto process

Sometimes first responders will gradually adapt the way they operate to fit the best practices learned through experience and interaction with other responders. Although de facto standards allow states and localities greater discretion in developing and implementing the standards that best meet their individual needs, an inconsistent or untimely approach could result in incompatibilities with national standards, ultimately minimizing efficiencies in time and cost.

Voluntary consensus process

The National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 states that, “to the extent practicable,” all federal agencies and departments “shall use, for procurement and regulatory applications, standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.” Many nongovernmental organizations, such as the National Fire Protection Association, influence the development of preparedness standards through the voluntary consensus process.

Regulatory process

In situations wherein standards are not being developed and/or implemented in a timely manner, or when existing standards are inadequate, federal, state and/or local governments can require that a mandatory regulatory process be established to resolve the situation.

Proponents argue that adopting voluntary consensus standards for regulatory purposes could and should lead to greater acceptance and implementation. On the other hand, a number of circumstances can render the process ineffective, including a dominating regulatory agency, stakeholders who are unsatisfied with their level of representation and/or cumbersome administrative processes. Moreover, regulatory standards must be updated from time to time — to keep pace with advances in technology, for example — if they are to retain their legitimacy.

Robert Kupperman and Darrell Trent, the authors of Terrorism: Threat, Reality, Response, point out that the conflict between terrorists and governments is not a zero-sum game. Rather, it's a much more complex contest, rich with mixed strategies. When faced with the credible prospect of a mass-destruction attack, every concessionary move made by a government is not only tactical but also potentially strategic. Ideally, of course, in the event of an actual threat, there will be enough time to locate and disarm the specific instrument of destruction — and, as in many popular books and television programs, also capture the terrorists. In the real world, the final result might be considerably different.

---

Visit www.domprep.com for the full text of this article.