The Canadian Council of the International Asociation of Emergency Management (IAEM-Canada) is a National Emergency Management Association that is focused on advancing the emergency management profession. As a Member of the CSA Z1600 Technical Committee IAEM Canada understands the value of promoting and applying a common EM standard. In effort to promote a common benchmark process that is peer driven, IAEM Canada has formed a partnership with The Emergency Management Accreditation Program, (EMAP) to bring an peer accreditation process to Canada. The intent is for the EMAP process to incorporate the Canadian Standards Association Z1600 standard on Emergency Management and Business Continuity. The EMAP process, is a cost effective voluntary review process for emergency management programs. Accreditation is a means of demonstrating, through self-assessment, documentation and peer review, that a program meets national standards for emergency management programs.  The self and onsite assessment process developed and utilized by EMAP allows jurisdictions of differing sizes, geographic location, political structure and hazards faced to internally assess their emergency management program to identify areas of excellence as well as potential gaps in compliance with a recognized emergency management standard.  The process then allows for an onsite assessment by a group of Canadian trained peer emergency managers to come in and validate the self assessment as well as add critical additional insight. This process can and has been used for both accreditation and developmental purposes.  For programs seeking affirmation and recognition as a comprehensive emergency management program meeting compliance with a recognized standard this process provides a vehicle to do so, but the process also provides a wonderful strategic planning tool that allows programs to identify and correct potential gaps in their program.  IAEM Canada and EMAP are currently formalizing agreement with the Canadian Standards Association to use the Z1600 standard. This partnership will provide EM professionals with a proven peer based assessment and accredation process. I welcome your comments.   John Ash

We have just started the Fire Department Accreditation porgram through the Commission on Fire Accreditation International which is overseen by the Center for Public Safety Excellence.  These are the same people who oversee the Chief Fire Officer and Chief Medical Officer programs in the US.  We believe that even if we never attain Accreditation, the self assessment will pay major dividends in our department.  As we manage the Emergency Planning program in our community, I would be interested in seeing what comes from the EMAP process. 

Will there be any overlap between the two programs?  Will one complement the other?  Is there room for the two to become one Accreditation?  There are currently a few fire departments in Canada that have become accredited and quit a few that are on the list of those going through the process.  The program is quite onerous and time consuming so it would be great if the two could work in parallel or somehow complement each other.

I agree that the exercise of working towards accreditation is of great organizational value whether the ultimate goal is achieved or not.    I cannot see the two Accreditation programs becoming one but given the overlap it seems that accreditation in one should be worth "x" amount of credit towards another.  While many Fire Departments oversee emergency management programs - and do a great job of it - ultimately I personally believe that the Emergency Management program should be a separate city department that reports directly to the local executive.  Therefore, I would not want to see the accreditation processes fully integrated.....Just my opinion :)

I agree that emergency management should be a separate department, however, in smaller communities there would be no emergency management program if the fire department didn't run it.  For the first time in my career, I am NOT the emergency planning coordinator but the coordinator works out of my department.  Having someone besides the fire chief as emergency planner is fantastic.   I do look forward to how the emergency management accreditation model will fit with the fire accreditation model.

You raise an excellent point about capacity.  Given limited resources and overall support for emergency management, Fire departments have demonstrated outstanding leadership by setting standards and pushing the emergency management agenda to where it is today.  My vision is an ideal and of course there is a huge funding gap between reality and the ideal.  I appreciate your dose of reality.

I am pleased to see discussion on this topic is raising some excellent points. I think it is helpful when discussing accreditation to separate the WHAT from the WHO. 

The WHAT of accreditation is the process of comparing an actual emergency management / business continuity program to the standard to which the program was designed using assiessment protocols applied by trained assessors. If the program meets the standard it can be accredited. The most likely standard for a Canadian program is the Canadian Standards Association Z1600 standard for emergency management and business continuity programs.  As John Ash has stated the EMAP process of evaluating a program is an excellent one and I can attest to that as an EMAP trained assessor.  If an organization is accredited for fire service and emergency management it will likely be by two separate accrediting organizations.  It has been my experience however that an organization which has sound management systems and subscribes to a continuous improvement philosophy will benefit from these during the accreditation process. Thus, accreditation for one purpose will likely help an organization achieve accreditation for other purposes. 

The WHO provides leadership (stand alone emergency management department, Fire Department, Police Service) should not have an impact on the accreditation process so long as the personnel who operate the program are positioned in their organization such that they meet the leadership and administration requirements of the standard to which they are being evaluated and they have the resources to implement the program. The "who can do it best" is another discussion, may likely vary by community and my complements to the fire service who are responsible for emergency management and much more in many communities. 

These are great discussions, and have come up in the working groups of the

technical committee for the CSA Z1600 EM & BC Standard. Mainly that either or

both an internal review/audit and/or external review/audit would prove beneficial

to assessing parts or the whole emergency management and business continuity program for an entity. EMAP with it's professional peer driven review and validation based on the CSA Z1600 EM & BC Standard might be a very good option for any entity.

Is there an opportunity for the "little guys" who will not likely prescribe to the full-fledged Z1600 standard to develop a peer evaluation of the municipal Emergency Management program? 

In Saskatchewan, a group of 6 communities has formed a working group called the Municipal Emergency Planning Committee (MEPC).  We have worked together for about 4 years now planning exercises and sharing resources.  During recent flooding in our community, we had one of the Emergency Planners from another community come to observe and assist if needed.  This may be an avenue for a future peer review process within our group.

Hello Friends,

Recently, I examined the various approaches to evaluate/assess emergency management programs. I summarized my findings in a brief presentation.

To view the full presentation, including the Notes Section, select File Download - 'Save'.