New problems call for new solutions. The definitions and parameters, in which emergency management,
law enforcement, nongovernmental organizations, and others now work under, are inadequate to meet the
new challenges of today. Furthermore, the old rules as to how and why to prepare simply do not apply
anymore.
There are few conversations today capable of surfacing guttural emotional responses quite like a
discussion related to bias and inequalities. The challenge is clear. From the most elementary
perspective, if the existence of bias and/or inequalities is acknowledged, it is illogical to then
ignore the possibility that adverse impacts are possible as well.
The threats facing the United States in 2017 largely stem from the challenge and response cycle set
in motion by the global rise of authoritarianism and violent fascism. Authoritarian leaders frequently
promise to restore national pride and return people to their lost golden age: a mythical world in which
life was thought to be better for the particular group. Scapegoating quickly follows, and violence is
rarely far behind.
The removal of criminal illegal aliens is a top priority for President-Elect Donald Trump. However,
identifying, locating, processing, and deporting 3 million criminal aliens among the 20 million illegal
aliens in the United States would completely overwhelm the removal process currently in place. One
proposed program may help speed the processing of criminal aliens and prevent the deportation system
from imploding.
On 29 September 2016, DomPrep, in collaboration with Harvardās National Preparedness Leadership Initiative (NPLI), hosted a roundtable at the Harvard Faculty Club in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on āLeadership: Decision Science.ā This […]
With over 30 years working in emergency management ā 12 years in a state governorās office, almost
8 years at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as associate director in charge of national
preparedness, training, and exercises, and 11 years in the private sector at Electronic Data Systems and
Systems Research and Analysis International, it became apparent that presidential leadership has been
quite important at all levels and for all sectors.
Over the past decade, meta-leadership, a methodology developed at the National Preparedness
Leadership Initiative at Harvard, has become a widely adopted framework for leading in emergency
preparedness and response. Over that time, both the model and methods have advanced based on field
experience. This article presents the latest thinking and practice for those charged with public safety,
security, and resilience.
Over the next few months, precious time will be lost trying to quickly update newly elected
officials on key health and life safety issues that have been discussed for years among their
predecessors and the public. Only time will tell how the new occupants of the White House and Congress
embrace and address such issues and the long-term implications.
On 16 August 2016, David Mitchell, chief of police and director of public safety for the University of Maryland, led a roundtable discussion at the College Park campus on the topic of active shooters and lone wolves. This article summarizes that discussion, which addressed various topics related to active shooters, explosives, lone wolves, terrorism, and related mental health concerns.
The International Association of Emergency Manager (IAEM) Think Tank on 17 October 2016 focused on
active shooter situations from the emergency management perspective. The event was held at the IAEM
Annual Conference, with over 250 people attending in person, many on the webinar, and even more over the
phone.
New problems call for new solutions. The definitions and parameters, in which emergency management,
law enforcement, nongovernmental organizations, and others now work under, are inadequate to meet the
new challenges of today. Furthermore, the old rules as to how and why to prepare simply do not apply
anymore. 
There are few conversations today capable of surfacing guttural emotional responses quite like a
discussion related to bias and inequalities. The challenge is clear. From the most elementary
perspective, if the existence of bias and/or inequalities is acknowledged, it is illogical to then
ignore the possibility that adverse impacts are possible as well. 