Ebola Response:
A Practical Approach for Court
Administration
By Gregory J. Cowan
With Ebola in the news, judges, court administrators, and other court officials may be considering how best to respond. Provided below are three main issues judges, court administrators, and other court officials may wish to consider. Also, court specific emergency planning implications are provided for each of these three main issues.
Issue One: Use Your Court’s All-Hazards Emergency Planning
Courts should consider responding to the Ebola threat within their existing all-hazard emergency management planning efforts. These planning efforts should involve 1) critical incident/evacuation plans, 2) continuity of operations plans (COOP), and 3) IT disaster recovery plans. In developing these three plans, at least seven key elements of court emergency management should have been considered or addressed. These seven key elements are:
- Address leadership issues;
- Dedicate court staff to emergency management issues;
- Build and strengthen collaborative relationships with individuals within the emergency management community;
- Develop redundant communications;
- Develop a self-sufficient workforce;
- Develop a written version of each of the three plans; and
- Test, maintain, and exercise each of the three plans.
Hopefully, some level of this type of all-hazard emergency planning has occurred within the court. If so, the response to the Ebola incident should fall within the context of this all-hazards planning.
Additionally, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has materials as well as education and consulting services available to assist.
Issue Two: Consider the Unique Nature of Health Emergencies on the Courts
Judges, court administrators, and other court officials should consider the unique issues associated with an event like Ebola or other health emergency (i.e., pandemic influenza.) Below are four unique aspects of these health related emergency events with planning implications provided for each.
- Unlike many emergency events, health emergencies are not necessarily short-term, singular events. Rather, health emergencies may occur over a longer timeframe or may come in multiple “waves” of varying duration and varying virulence. Among other planning adjustments, extra attention should be paid to the impact on staff created by the uncertainty of the nature of the event itself.
- The duration of the event may be longer than can be addressed within the 30 day event horizon standard for COOP. Therefore, COOP activation for such an event may need to be extended perhaps to as long as 90 days.
- The impact of these events is primarily on people not physical property or technical infrastructure. Therefore, rather than considering a move to an alternate facility as required in COOP, planning may need to consider how to perform the mission essential functions in an environment requiring limited or no face-to-face contact.
- Unique legal issues (i.e., quarantine/isolation issues, issues of contaminated waste, etc.) outside of the standard mission essential functions may be required. Numerous courts have developed bench books or other guides to assist in handling these issues. Court emergency planning should include a familiarization and preparation to handle these legal matters.
The NCSC has available and has produced a number of resources to educate and assist with the management of these unique health related emergency events.
Issue Three: Semper Gumby
In response to all emergency events, flexibility and stress management are a must. It is impossible to remove the “emergency” from emergency management. As stated by Dr. Bruce Ribner, an infectious disease specialist, “It doesn’t matter how much you plan. You’re going to be wrong half the time.”
Maintaining composure and systematically addressing issues under the existing court emergency management structure will go a long way to successfully responding and recovering from any emergency event. This type of stability is especially necessary for an institution such as courts given our critical role of maintaining the rule of law.