Abstract
What impact do interventions by central/federal or local levels of government in local emergency preparedness training have on the focus of training, comprehensiveness, and quality control? An analysis of two cases of intervention by central/federal levels of government reveals that training is likely to be (a) skill oriented and competence framed, (b) comprehensive, and (c) quality controlled in a relatively rigorous manner. An analysis of two additional cases of intervention by local levels of government reveals that training is likely to be (a) skill oriented and competence framed with a focus on people and emergency-related organizational issues, (b) noncomprehensive, and (c) weakly controlled for quality.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 315-342 |
| Number of pages | 28 |
| Journal | Administration and Society |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2010 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This project has received generous funding through a grant from the Israeli Ministry of Interior and the Association for the Development and Advancement of Manpower in the Social Services in Israel (ELKA – JDC [Israel]).
Funding Information:
This project has received generous funding through a grant from the Ministry of Interior and the Association for the Development and Advancement of Manpower in the Social Services in Israel. The author highly appreciates the valuable comments and suggestions from Michal Goldstein, Yaira Paz, Hadas Ovdat, Yakov Grinvald, and Yonit Smolash. He expresses his gratitude to Anna Knafelman, Stacey Hess, and Judy Miara for their assistance.
Keywords
- Federal-unitary divide
- Local emergency preparedness
- Networks
- Training