Interlocal and Mutual Aid Agreements

For interlocal agreements, some government agencies will want to contract with one another to jointly provide or have one agency provide services on behalf of the other. The purpose is to avoid duplication of services. Mutual aid agreements are commonly used in emergency response for public agencies to provide reciprocal assistance and aid in the case of an incident that is too large to be handled by one agency.

Interlocal agreements (ILAs) are formal arrangements between two or more local governmental entities to collaborate on shared services or projects, often to achieve efficiency and cost savings or to provide services that a single entity cannot. On the other hand, mutual aid agreements (MAAs) typically refer to agreements for emergency assistance and resource sharing during emergencies, such as natural disasters. Think of ILAs as long-term partnerships that can cover a wide range of activities across all phases of emergency management, while MAAs are short-term engagements meant to tackle the immediate needs of the response phase.

Interlocal agreements can cover a variety of needs. For example, a community can have an interlocal agreement with a neighboring community for law enforcement services, fire services, and/or park and recreation services.

Interlocal agreements can encompass various activities, from shared public services such as transportation, temporary housing, or mental health services to joint development projects and resource pooling for large-scale initiatives like family assistance centers, disaster recovery centers, or instructional continuity articulation. Mutual aid agreements are generally more focused on emergency response activities, including sharing personnel, equipment, and resources during critical incidents. They enhance the coordination and efficiency of response and response resources.

Interlocal and mutual aid agreements are highly beneficial to schools. For small and rural communities, schools may rely on partnering with neighboring districts to conduct their evacuation drills as their community may only have a fire chief who oversees a volunteer fire department.

For IHEs, these agreements can be particularly beneficial. They enable sharing of resources, expertise, and facilities, leading to improved emergency responses, cost savings, and enhanced educational opportunities. For instance, an IHE can quickly obtain additional resources through mutual aid agreements during a campus emergency. ILAs, on the other hand, provide more structured frameworks for continuing collaboration that could extend into multiple operating periods or long-term recovery. ILAs can also set up processes for cost recovery and financial responsibilities not generally covered in mutual aid agreements.

There can be challenges and risks with any agreement, either interlocal or mutual aid. When emergencies evolve into large cascading events, often the agreements don’t include every contingency. Parties may be reluctant to perform any duties that are not clearly articulated in the agreement.

Despite their benefits, establishing these agreements can be challenging. There might be legal and administrative hurdles, differences in policies and procedures among entities, and potential risks in resource allocation. It's crucial for IHEs to clearly define the terms and conditions of these agreements to mitigate such risks. Additionally, these agreements require a level of predictive analysis to ensure they are appropriately scoped. This means that all involved parties must agree on some level about those needs. This can sometimes be challenging when dealing with institutions or organizations outside of IHEs who may not understand the nuances of IHE operations or even other IHE partners with significantly different types of functions.

All agreements should be monitored regularly by the parties responsible for oversight. At minimum, they should be reviewed biannually or following an event that illuminates elements that should be incorporated into the original document.

Effective monitoring and evaluation are essential. This involves regularly reviewing the agreements to assess their effectiveness, ensuring that all parties fulfill their commitments, and adjusting as needed. Performance metrics and regular meetings can facilitate this process. Exercising plans to include the activation of MAAs and ILAs can be crucial to obtaining these metrics and allow for proper analysis.

Schools should have agreements with their local fire, police, and emergency response partners. They may also have agreements with their municipality to use their public parks and playing fields for athletic events. Schools often have agreements with their community-based behavioral health agency to provide short- and long-term services during the recovery phase of an incident.

IHEs should consider developing agreements with local government bodies, nearby institutions, healthcare facilities, emergency response organizations, and state and federal partners. These partnerships can offer complementary resources and expertise, particularly valuable in areas like instructional continuity. The International Association of Emergency Managers-USA Universities and Colleges Caucus created the National Intercollegiate Mutual Aid Agreement, which is open to any institution of higher education that is willing to join.

Agreements should be reviewed as often as necessary. At minimum, biannually, or following an event that illuminated elements that were not written into the original agreement.

Regularly reviewing all agreements that could be activated during an incident is crucial. It’s best to review them annually or whenever significant changes occur within the institutions or their operational environments. This ensures that the agreements remain relevant and practical. Additionally, the performance of the agreements during real-world incidents during the after-action review process provides an additional avenue for improvement.

Discussion on content of the agreements should be ongoing, this should not be a one-time discussion. School districts should begin work on their agreements as early as possible, as school district approval processes can be lengthy.

1. Clear Communication: Establish clear lines of communication and designate points of contact.
2. Training and Drills: Conduct joint training sessions and drills to ensure all parties are familiar with procedures.
3. Legal Review: Have all agreements reviewed by legal counsel to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
4. Flexibility: Build in flexibility to accommodate changing circumstances and needs.
5. Public Awareness: Inform the campus community about these agreements to ensure transparency and trust.

A large community has a mutual aid agreement with their local Catholic churches. A K-8 public elementary school furnace system malfunctioned midmorning on a cold winter school day. The students in the public school were bused to the neighboring church that had a large parish center. Students were able to stay warm and occupied while they waited to be reunited with their families.

Several school districts had an agreement with the local state university for use of their athletic arena during an emergency at one or more of their school buildings. A tornado hit the area damaging several schools; however, it occurred after most schools had been dismissed for the day. During the after-action discussions, it was discovered that if the tornado had occurred during the school day, multiple districts would have transported their students to the university arena. None of the agreements included information on what the protocols and procedures would be for sheltering and supporting multiple districts students in the same space.

At an institution I worked at, we had several traditional MOUs in place for emergency and disaster response. These agreements were very effective for what they were designed for but stayed within their scope of emergency response. Our contracts office convinced us to convert our agreement with the local health department to an ILA at its renewal cycle, and we moved to an ILA with a task order model. This model allowed us to frame our agreement broadly with a task order being required at each activation that outlined the specific needs at that time. We went into this thinking specifically of emergency incidents and developed exercises to test this model. During our exercise, we discovered, from other internal partners, various needs that we could leverage the same agreement to meet. Since ILAs are not limited to emergency incidents, no new agreement was needed. We were able to utilize the ILA to offer health fairs, vaccination drives, and other health and wellness services on campus through our health department partners. A fantastic collaborative partnership blossomed for blue-sky activities that we had never thought of developing.