Unit of competency details

Elements describe the essential outcomes of a Unit of Competency.

Performance Criteria describe the required performance needed to demonstrate achievement of the element. Where bold italicised  text is used, further information is detailed in the Range Statement. Assessment of performance is to be consistent with the Evidence Guide.

1 Establish the project and working group 

1.1 Applicable policies and procedures , reports, records and emergency risk assessments are located and analysed.

1.2 A working group is established with an appropriate balance of expertise, representation and authority.

1.3 Group’s knowledge of emergency risk management principles, terminology and processes is confirmed.

1.4 A sustainable emergency risk management process is negotiated that suits the community context  and capability, stakeholder  needs and practical constraints .

1.5 Project management and consultation plans are developed with stakeholders.

1.6 Need for specialised information , additional skills and expertise is identified.

2 Confirm risks to be considered 

2.1 Existing risk assessment is reviewed for continuing relevance.

2.2 Sources of risk  are identified.

2.3 Responsibility for single agency or multi-agency management of risks is identified.

2.4 Risk treatment objectives are identified in consultation with stakeholders.

3 Identify treatment options 

3.1 Effectiveness of existing risk treatments is established through research and stakeholder consultation.

3.2 Community vulnerability is reconsidered as a basis for identifying treatment options.

3.3 A range of potential risk treatment options is identified through research and stakeholder consultation.

4 Evaluate treatment options 

4.1 Evaluation methods  are agreed with stakeholders.

4.2 Treatment options are assessed and the risks and implications for stakeholders are identified for each option.

4.3 Treatment options are documented so that they are understandable by a wide range of audiences.

4.4 Feedback on likely implications and impacts of treatment options is obtained from stakeholders.

4.5 Residual risks are assessed for tolerability or acceptance.

4.6 Cost-benefit analysis is completed for each risk treatment option.

5 Recommend treatment options for each risk 

5.1 Recommended options, including implementation responsibilities, are agreed in consultation with stakeholders.

5.2 Recommended options and residual risk are documented according to organisational policies and procedures.

5.3 Recommendations are submitted for approval in accordance with applicable policies and procedures.

6 Promote ongoing commitment and ownership for the process and outcomes 

6.1 Communication and consultation is undertaken, using a range of options throughout the process.

6.2 A range of communication strategies is used.

6.3 All stages of the process, decisions taken and outcomes are documented accurately in accordance with relevant policy and procedures.

6.4 Information is provided to the community in ways that suit their language, literacy and cultural needs.

7 Monitor and review the process 

7.1 All relevant data and contact information for key individuals and organisations is regularly reviewed for currency and updated.

7.2 Treatment options are reviewed for continuing relevance.

7.3 Opportunities for improving emergency risk management processes are reported.

This describes the essential skills and knowledge and their level, required for this unit.

Required Skills 

• research and analysis skills to determine potential treatment options
• ability to negotiate and work effectively with stakeholder groups
• ability to lead workgroups
• ability to work effectively in small groups
• analytical techniques to determine residual risk
• analytical techniques to conduct benefit: cost analysis at an appropriate level
• facilitation and team leadership
• managing meetings
• negotiation and communication
• progress management and monitoring skills

Required Knowledge 

• emergency risk management concepts and principles included in the current National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines and AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management—Principles and guidelines
• legislative and regulatory requirements relevant to emergency risk management
• jurisdiction and organisational documentation and submission procedures
• analytical, problem solving and decision making techniques to facilitate evaluating residual risk and cost-benefit analysis
• concepts of ‘credible consequence level’, likelihood rating, confidence rating, ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ principle
• sources of demographic, geographic and economic information
• geospatial databases and presentation options
• range of options for treating emergency risk

Critical aspects for assessment and evidence required to demonstrate competency in this unit 

Assessment must confirm the ability to:

• establish a project and see it through to produce a set of recommended treatment options that has broad community and stakeholder support
• work with committee members to develop feasible and effective treatment options for a given set of risks
• promote community cooperation, input and ownership for the emergency risk management process used and the recommended treatment options
• obtain feedback, monitor and review the process and outcomes
• maintain momentum and achieve the project outcomes within available resources

Consistency in performance 

Competency should be demonstrated in a range of contexts throughout the life of a community emergency risk management project, or during components of a number of projects.

Context of and specific resources for assessment 

Context of assessment 

Competency should be assessed facilitating a group emergency risk management process where an agreed set of treatment options is produced for a given set of risks in the workplace or in a simulated workplace environment.

Specific resources for assessment 

For the demonstration of competence in this unit it will be necessary to participate in a real-world project.

Underpinning knowledge may be assessed through written assignments, project reports, debriefings and action learning projects in real or simulated environments.

Guidance information for assessment  

This unit contains many transferable skills, such as communication, consultation, research and analysis skills that can be applied in the emergency risk management context. Assessors should use formative assessment strategies in a simulated environment to contextualise underpinning knowledge. Summative assessment requires application of the unit in a real-world project, often in an action-learning project.

This unit may be assessed with other units that address other parts of the emergency risk management process.

The Range Statement relates to the Unit of Competency as a whole. It allows for different work environments and situations that may affect performance. Bold italicised  wording in the Performance Criteria is detailed below.

Policies and procedures  may include:

• arrangements specified in legislation
• organisational or jurisdictional emergency risk management policies or procedures
• existing disaster plans, agreements or memoranda of understanding

Community context  may include:

• characteristics of social, built, natural and economic environments
• demographics (population distribution, social, cultural, health status and education data)
• details of key infrastructure and emergency/support services
• economic activity reports (employment, products, services, revenue)
• government reports e.g. environmental impacts

Stakeholders  may include:

• staff
• client groups
• decision makers
• members of the public
• community groups
• industry groups
• public and private sector organisations
• non-government organisations
• elected officials

Practical constraints  may include:

• arrangements, roles and responsibilities set down in existing emergency management plans
• availability of technical expertise, technology, equipment
• budgets, time, availability and capability of people
• land use planning policy, authority and regulation
• legislation covering emergency management, environmental management, safety standards, local government regulations
• limited community knowledge of emergency risk management processes and benefits
• political, social and cultural considerations

Risk treatment options  may include:

• avoidance of the risk
• removing a risk source
• changing the likelihood of
• an initiating event or source of risk occurring
• a hazard impacting on elements at risk
• changing the consequences of an identified hazard impact
• sharing the risk
• retaining the risk based on an informed decision

Specialised information  may include:

• community information booklets
• documented risk assessments by companies, organisations
• family and historical records
• research reports, Australian Bureau of Statistics data
• media, council, and emergency service records
• spatial information data

Sources of risk  may include:

• commercial and legal relationships
• economic systems and relationships
• human behaviour
• natural events
• built environment failures
• disease (plant, animal or human);
• political circumstances; and
• technology/technical issues, management activities and controls.

Evaluation methods  may include:

• first-pass cost-benefit analysis
• analysis of treatment effectiveness
• potential to create new or secondary risks
• stakeholder acceptability
• legal, regulatory and compliance impact