David Bernstein MPA, CBCP, CEM, CHEP, CHPCP
David Bernstein is a Client Account Manager with more than 15 years of experience in emergency response, emergency management, and business continuity and resilience planning. He has helped clients develop and oversee enterprise resilience strategies with local and global footprints. In addition to strategic program development, David has also developed facility recovery plans and acted as a Subject Matter Expert (SME) to support COVID-19 safety and recovery efforts. Prior to being a consultant, he was an Emergency Manager in healthcare, leading initiatives spanning individual hospitals to multi-facility health networks. David has also served as a strategic advisor to local and regional coalitions and consortiums on multi-agency initiatives.
David holds internationally recognized credentials in Emergency Management and Business Continuity and applies that background to help organizations build practical, scalable preparedness programs, often from the ground up.
How do you define “resilience” in an effective emergency management program?
Over the past decade, resilience has become something of a buzzword. It appears in job titles and program definitions, but there is still little consistency in how organizations define it.
At Weston, we view resilience as the result of comprehensive planning, prevention, and mitigation. It is an organization’s ability to respond to an incident, limit disruption to normal operations, and recover as quickly as possible.
That does not mean eliminating every impact. A catastrophic incident may still cause significant disruption. Resilience means that preparation helped prevent an even worse outcome and positioned the organization for a more effective recovery.
Ultimately, resilience is about how well an organization can withstand disruption and recover from incidents that vary in type, severity, and duration.
What separates organizations that respond well to emergencies from those that struggle?
In my experience, organizations respond best when two things are in place: a culture of ownership and a preparedness program that channels that commitment through clear roles, training, and coordination.
I have seen this most clearly in hospitals. From clinical teams to custodial staff, employees often jump in during an emergency to help wherever they see a need, regardless of their usual responsibilities. I have watched people move patients and equipment or take on other tasks because they care about the facility and the people it serves. But without clear roles and coordination, that instinct to help can create confusion, duplicate efforts, and leave essential duties unattended, slowing the response and making the situation harder to manage.
However, willingness alone is not enough. Even in lean organizations, where staff may need to assume additional responsibilities, the initial response still needs to be coordinated and role based. Pulling too many people too quickly can exhaust staff before recovery begins, while involving too many staff members, particularly those who are not properly trained, can create confusion and distract from the incident itself.
Ownership creates the willingness to act. A strong preparedness program ensures that action supports the response rather than complicating it.
What’s the most common mistake you see in the first hour of an incident?
The most common mistake I see in the first hour of an incident is rushing to act before understanding the situation. The greatest resource demands often occur at the onset, but that does not mean sending every available person and piece of equipment. Sending in too many people and resources can create congestion and confusion, turning the response effort into a separate emergency.
If there is an imminent threat to life, act immediately. If not, taking even 5 minutes to assess the situation can help identify the right resources and better calibrate the response.
I saw this at a facility that immediately evacuated its entire building during a power outage. No one was in immediate danger, but the evacuation created bottlenecks in stairwells and obstructed routes that might have been needed later.
The first hour is not about mobilizing the most resources. It is about mobilizing the right ones.
If a CEO gave you a limited budget, what’s the one preparedness investment with the highest payoff?
If I had a limited preparedness budget, I would invest first in a response structured to manage different types of incidents. The plan that defines who leads, how decisions are made, how information is shared, and what staff are expected to do. I would then train all staff on when and how to implement the plan. No two incidents are alike, so staff need a consistent structure they can apply and adapt as circumstances change.
FEMA’s Incident Command System provides a proven foundation, but I am not an ICS purist. Private organizations should adapt their principles to how they already operate, not change their operations to fit the system. I have seen organizations abandon familiar reporting structures during an emergency and create even more confusion.
The focus should be on building a flexible response structure around how your organization currently operates, then train people to use the plan consistently.
What makes our emergency response plans more usable in real-world, high-pressure situations?
A plan becomes usable when people have had a chance to practice it in a structured purposeful way. The goal is not to put people in a high-stress scenario to see how they react, but to build confidence, clarify expectations, and make the response feel familiar before an actual emergency occurs.
I saw the value firsthand when a client experienced an emergency just weeks after I led response training and a scenario exercise. They credited their successful response to having already thought through how they would handle the situation.
I follow three basic principles. First, start small and build, moving from discussion-based activities to more complex exercises. Second, test processes in a no-fault environment. If someone struggles, look at underlying issues such as training, staffing, or equipment instead of blaming the individual. The purpose is to find where the process breaks down.
Third, practice makes permanent. This is the hill I will die on. If people practice incorrectly, they reinforce bad habits. Exercises should use the actual skills, procedures, and equipment needed during an incident.
The key to good practice is making it incremental, realistic, and focused on learning. The goal is to make emergency response feel familiar, coordinated, and effective when it matters most.
What does effective leadership look like during an emergency, especially when information is incomplete or rapidly changing?
Effective leadership during an emergency comes down to calm, clear, and transparent communication. Leaders need to explain what is known, what remains uncertain, what actions are underway, and which priorities are guiding the response. People do not expect leaders to have every answer, but they do need confidence that the situation is being managed.
The strongest leaders I have seen use the organization’s mission and established response priorities as a framework for decision-making. That keeps teams aligned and helps leaders remain decisive as conditions change.
Ultimately, leaders build trust by consistently showing people how decisions are being made, what happens next, and how each action supports the mission.
How are emerging risks, such as climate impacts or supply chain disruptions, changing how organizations think about emergency preparedness?
The trend I am seeing is organizations move away from treating preparedness as a one-time exercise. A plan written several years ago may no longer reflect current risks or how the organization operates.
Climate impacts, supply chain disruptions, geopolitical events, and workplace violence can quickly change an organization’s risk profile. Staffing, technology, facilities, suppliers, and operations are also constantly evolving. Events such as COVID-19 and severe weather have shown how quickly a known risk can affect people and operations.
Preparedness must therefore be continuous. Organizations should regularly reassess their risks, update and test their plans, and revisit them after exercises or actual incidents, when hidden gaps often surface. Organizations cannot afford to become prepared only after a gap has already affected people or operations.
A plan is only useful if it reflects current conditions. Routine review and testing help organizations stay ready for what comes next.
What is the most important thing you hope people take away from this interview?
The one thing I would want people to leave with is that emergency preparedness is not just a plan or a compliance exercise; it is an ongoing investment. The strongest organizations have staff that act like owners with programs in place to provide clear expectations for a response. Their emergency management program is a process of continual improvement.
