Do We Really Need More Credentials in Emergency Management?

There’s been a lot of debate about whether emergency management needs more degrees and certifications. I’m not convinced more formal requirements are the best path forward—and here’s why.

EM already has a shared operational foundation in FEMA’s NIMS/ICS, which is taught through a series of accessible, free- or low-cost baseline courses. These were developed to give people from different disciplines, educational backgrounds, organizations, and jurisdictions a common framework, vocabulary, and set of operating principles—without requiring every practitioner to earn another degree or undergo years of retraining. NIMS/ICS training is expected in most EM positions, and practitioners can build on it through training that fits their jobs, hazards, and communities. It offers a model for professional credentialing standards based on role-specific training, documented experience, and demonstrated performance.

A degree can be valuable, but it does not guarantee operational capability. Research can strengthen the field by identifying patterns, testing assumptions, evaluating programs, developing theory, and expanding the evidence base behind practice. Those contributions matter. But the ability to conduct or understand academic research is different from the ability to coordinate a complex response, earn the trust of partner agencies, recognize emerging operational problems, or make sound decisions when information is incomplete and consequences are immediate.

The strongest EM professionals I have known were defined less by education or rank than by their character and performance when it mattered. In difficult situations, they stay calm, assess risk and consequence, manage competing priorities, adapt, and make sound decisions. They work across disciplines, build trust, understand organizational realities, and lead effectively—qualities shaped by both disposition and experience. A degree or certification can support their development, but it cannot by itself confer the temperament, practical insight, professional relationships, or demonstrated capability these roles demand.

I have also worked with highly capable people who excelled in operational settings but did not thrive in traditional classrooms or academic learning. Lacking a degree or formal certification did not make them less capable. Many were hands-on doers, outside-the-box thinkers, or technology wizards who brought unconventional expertise, trade skills, and situational awareness—yet they struggled to learn from textbooks and lectures. A universal degree requirement could keep some of those people out of the profession even though they may be exactly the people we need.

Likewise, academic accomplishment should not automatically be treated as evidence of greater professional competence. Someone may be an excellent researcher, instructor, or scholar and make important contributions to the discipline without having the same strengths as a practitioner who has spent years coordinating incidents, navigating local politics, building mutual-aid relationships, working with first responders and public officials, or solving operational problems in real time. Neither form of expertise is inherently superior. They are different, and a healthy profession needs both.

Classrooms can teach important concepts, and research can improve how we understand hazards, organizations, human behavior, preparedness, and response. But much of the expertise EM requires comes from doing the work: incidents, exercises, on-the-job training, planning meetings, site visits, mentorship, leadership opportunities, after-action reviews, and sustained relationship-building. Those experiences are where people learn to turn knowledge into decisions, leadership, and coordination when conditions are uncertain and consequences are real.

Relationships are not a secondary or “soft” component of emergency management. They are part of its operational infrastructure. Knowing who to call, understanding another agency’s capabilities and limitations, having established trust before a crisis, and knowing how decisions get made across organizations can materially affect outcomes. Those capabilities are developed over time through credibility, collaboration, and experience; they cannot be fully replicated through coursework or measured by credentials alone.

Importantly, no single degree or certification can ensure the multidisciplinary perspective that EM requires to function at its best. The field benefits from people with all sorts of backgrounds: public safety, public works, planning, health care, education, geosciences, technology, the military, business, academia, and many others. They bring unique knowledge, practical insight into how their organizations operate, and relationships that may be essential during an incident. They may hold certifications or advanced degrees in their respective fields, but it is often their range of experience, professional networks, and ability to apply what they know that makes EM planning stronger, improves coordination, and helps communicate with different communities.

One-size-fits-all degree or certification requirements beyond NIMS/ICS can narrow the talent pipeline. They can discourage experienced mid-career entrants who have valuable skills but cannot reasonably take on the cost and time commitment of another credential. They can also turn hiring into a checkbox exercise that puts formal qualifications ahead of operational experience, adaptability, interpersonal skill, judgment, and demonstrated performance. Just as importantly, they risk creating an artificial divide between those labeled as the “experts” and the many professionals, partners, researchers, and community members whose different forms of specialized knowledge and experience are essential to effective EM.

The answer is neither a one-size-fits-all standard nor the elimination of standards entirely. Rather, it is applying standards that fit the role and organization, emphasize demonstrated performance, and recognize multiple routes to professional readiness. The goal should be to bring in people with relevant yet diverse backgrounds; give them a common NIMS/ICS foundation; expose them to strong research and evidence-based practice; build their skills through targeted training, mentoring, exercises, and real-world experience; place them where they can contribute; and help them develop the relationships that make coordinated response possible.

The challenge is not necessarily a shortage of degreed or certified candidates. It is making sure hiring, placement, promotion, and training practices recognize the full range of expertise the profession needs—including academic knowledge, operational experience, professional relationships, temperament, judgment, and practical capability—so that emergency management remains interdisciplinary, adaptive, evidence-informed, and effective.

Do We Really Need More Credentials in Emergency Management?

©Beyond the Range 2026. All rights reserved. Feel free to republish so long as credit is given.