An Emergency Planning Register?

Sweden: Civil Defence Leaflet 2018

In recent weeks there has been a lot of discussion about the professional standing of emergency planners.  The most recent instalment in this long running debate was sparked by an article in the Guardian by Professor David Alexander of UCL who questioned the low profile of emergency planners during the current crisis (1).  Most recently items on Linkedin by leading practitioners in the field have argued that in the modern world emergency planners operate as professional advisers across the public and private sectors.(2)

I would suggest that we are hostages to our own language.  Much has been written about defining the professions but as a word it is not especially useful in a standalone sense.  I have witnessed the developing professionalism of emergency planning.  As individuals the contribution of emergency planners far outstrips those of their predecessors, as does their level of education and training.  It is also true to say that the occupation does not have all the usual attributes of a traditional profession (self regulating, standards of qualification etc).  The growing professionalism of emergency planners does not, by itself, create an emergency planning profession.

EP is not the first occupation to tread this path.  Most notably the police service has been in pursuit of professional status for many years.  The creation of a College of Policing was an explicit attempt to elevate the occupation as is the attempt to create a graduate only service.  Nursing is further advanced down the same road.  Perhaps more analogous are the attempts by organisations such as the Security Institute and the Business Continuity Institute to set standards in unregulated (or part regulated) occupations.

So what is the way forward?  There are several routes of course.  Hopefully the many lessons that will emerge from the pandemic will demonstrate even further the value of a well trained emergency planning function and this may provide some energy to move things in one direction or another.  We will be disappointed if we wait for central government to do anything to assist emergency planners.  It has always struck me as somewhat incongruous that relatively few entrants to the Civil Contingencies Secretariat have qualifications or experience in emergency planning.  If the ‘profession’ is to develop it will require a momentum built from the grassroots.  The professional bodies that represent emergency planners and the Universities that teach and research the subject have a vital role to play.

What follows is a suggested way forward.  There is plenty of scope for amendment or alteration.  Indeed, for all I know this may have been considered and rejected.

In the first instance I would call upon the committees of the two main professional bodies: The Institute of Civil Protection and Emergency Management (ICPEM) and the Emergency Planning Society (EPS) to come together to start the process of creating a 10 year plan that will result in an occupation that looks a lot more like a profession.  Both organisations are well placed to engage with their members and with academia.  My thoughts on one aspect of this include:

1.       I am struck by the similarities between emergency planning and genealogy (it is perhaps not a coincidence that one is my job and the other is my hobby).  Anybody can call themselves a genealogist and earn money from selling their skills.  Ditto an emergency planner.  There are representative bodies for each – indeed there is more than one for each – but no recognised standards around what amounts to being ‘qualified’.  The model I find attractive is the creation, in the last few years, of a Register of Qualified Genealogists.  This operates as a company limited by guarantee (and is not profit making).  Members of the public and potential employees can access the register and each member has a profile detailing their experience and specialisms.  Now this Register has no ‘official’ status.  It does not exist by statute or charter, but it could be seen as a step in that direction.  There are plenty of first class genealogists who are not on the Register but everybody who is has demonstrated that they are educated to a certain level and adhere to a code of conduct.  The creation of a Register of Qualified Emergency Planners would be a first move in the direction of self regulation and proper recognition.  Such a register would not be able to claim that membership is a definitive statement of competence – it would be much simpler than that, at least at first.  Being on a register is different from being a member (in any grade) of a professional or representative body.  Participation in the ICPEM/EPS is another sign of professional engagement but is not as clear cut as meeting registration requirements.  Already we see job advertisements stating that membership of ICPEM/EPS is ‘desirable’.  Registration would be a more relevant requirement. (3)

2.       I am getting ahead of myself (such is informality of blogging).  Before a register could be created definitions needs to be agreed.  What is an emergency planner, or a manager?  Does it include business continuity (some practitioners of which assume includes all aspects of crisis management – I am not convinced)?  Thrashing this out would itself be a major contribution to the ‘mistery or art’ of the trade. (4) Not everybody will agree with the definitions but it is vital to have a shared nomenclature.

3.       A code of conduct needs to be worked up.  By adhering to such a code members of the Register would be demonstrating their professional integrity.  In emergency planning there are plenty of occasions when ‘truth needs to be spoken to power’.  Reference to a voluntary code of conduct would help the process.

4.       Criteria for membership?  A key issue of course.  Academic qualifications and experience are the two pivots – but a lot of work would have to go into getting the formula right.  For renewals (annually?, triennially?) proof of CPD could be a requirement.

5.       Administration.  Should this be a company?  Or a charity?  Who will run it now, and in the future? It could be ‘held’ by ICPEM/EPS but my instinct is that it should be an associated but separate beast.  Getting on the register is one thing – removing people from it is another.  A complaints procedure and arrangements for removal need to be clear and capable of appeal.

6.       Grades of membership?  I would say that there should only be two grades:  member or student.  Keeping it simple is important. 

Creating a voluntary register is a big step and would require a lot of work but it might be a step in the right direction.  Who knows? In a decade some form of chartered or other recognised membership could arise from a small beginning and then there would be doubt about what a qualified emergency planner would look like.

Philip Trendall

18^th May 2020

This blog is taken from:  https://scott-trendall.blogspot.com/.  The views expressed are those of the author and do not purport to represent the views of any client of Scott Trendall Ltd.

1.       https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/05/britain-emergency-planners-pandemic-government

2.       See for example the post (and responses) by Matthew Hogan on 16^th May 2020 on Linkedin and on his blog page:  http://mtthwhgn.com/81-things-an-emergency-manager-should-know/

3.       https://www.qualifiedgenealogists.org/

4.       This form of words is often to be found in the descriptions of the trades of the City livery companies