Faul, Amanda

Nelms, Jordan

English

Digital Commons @ UM Law

7/25/2014 Article Detail - Domestic Preparednesshttp://www.domesticpreparedness.com/Industry/Standards/National_Preparedness:_Challenges,_Definitions_&_Jurisdictions/ 1/4DomPrep Journal  | About Us | DomPrep40  | Advertise  | Webinars | Reports | Grants | Resilience  | Calendar of EventsHome | First Responder | Medical Response | Government | Industry | Infrastructure | Commentary | TrainingExercises | University Updatesby JORDAN NELMS & AMANDA FAULWed, May 22, 2013In late 201 1 , the U.S. Department of Homeland Security(DHS) released the second document in the series ofPresidential Policy  Directiv e 8: National Preparedness(PPD-8) guidance. Although the initial release of theNational Preparedness Goal re-emphasized the use of acapabilities-based approach to preparedness, the NationalPreparedness Sy stem (NPS) description identified theprocess by  which the nation should build and sustain itsemergency  management and homeland securitycapabilities, organized in accordance with the fiv e missionareas spelled out by  PPD-8: prev ention, protection, mitigation, response, andrecov ery . The NPS builds on sev eral y ears of capabilities-based preparedness byupdating the 2007  National Preparedness Guidelines with a process thatmatches the National Preparedness Goal’s Core Capabilities.At a surprisingly  concise six pages, the “NPS Description” actually  prov idesv ery  little in the way  of concrete and actionable steps, rely ing onsupplementary  guidance – in the form of Comprehensiv e Preparedness Guidesand the Homeland Security  Exercise and Ev aluation Program – to prov ide thegranular details on how to transform concept into practice. The NPS alsoincorporates the new DHS grant performance requirements of completing: (a) aThreat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA); (b) a StatePreparedness Report; and (c) the forthcoming Capability  Estimation Process.Hav ing concluded the first required THIRA, which set the scope for the datacollection and analy sis needed for the State Preparedness Report, the states andmajor metropolitan areas in the Urban Area Security  Initiativ e (UASI)program met the FY 201 2 DHS grant performance requirements – mostly  bytrial and error, though, because they  had no “best practices” to draw upon.Nonetheless, the FY 201 3  DHS grant guidance will place ev en greater emphasison the NPS as a driv ing mechanism for preparedness inv estment – mostly  byincorporating capability  estimation as the analy sis tool between the THIRA’scapability  preparedness targets and the capability  preparedness scoring of theState Preparedness Report. For the third straight y ear, state and major urbanareas will hav e to further enhance their ability  to implement the NPS in orderto remain in compliance with DHS grants.NPS implementation can usually  be broken down into two major categories:organization and process. States and major urban areas with existingpreparedness programs – usually  based on legacy  national preparednessprograms or “homegrown” programs – may  well be challenged with adaptingtheir programs to meet the new requirements. Following are some of the moreimportant aspects of the two categories mentioned abov e.Organization: An Emphasis on Core CapabilitiesOne of the most important components of emergency  preparedness is the peopledirectly  inv olv ed. State and local gov ernments implementing the NPS,therefore, will probably  run into an organizational challenge when craftingtheir NPS implementation strategies. Interagency  emergency  preparednessprograms at the state and local lev els rely  heav ily  on functional groupings, After the term"risk" has beendefined for aparticularjurisdiction,organizations andagencies can beginto address the riskassessments,capabilityestimates, andvalidationchallenges thatthey probably willface.Find articles containing:   SEARCH  | Advanced SearchHome : Industry : StandardsNational Preparedness: Challenges, Definitions &JurisdictionsWelcome, Guest | Log In | Register | Forgot Your Password?For More Inf ormationMORE IN STANDARDSRising Waters & Tough DecisionsCHEMPACK 2.0: A Policy  RoadmapChecklists for All-Hazards Food Defense PlanningRedirecting Dual-Use Research RegulationsWhen the First Down Becomes the Worst DownProtecting the Milk Supply  During a ForeignAnimal Disease OutbreakNational Preparedness: Challenges, Definitions& JurisdictionsReauthorizing the Nation's PreparednessImplementing PPD-8: New Opportunities,Greater ChallengesProtecting Responders From the Known andUnknownARTICLE COMMENTS7/25/2014 Article Detail - Domestic Preparednesshttp://www.domesticpreparedness.com/Industry/Standards/National_Preparedness:_Challenges,_Definitions_&_Jurisdictions/ 2/4primarily  based on the emergency  support function structure of the NationalResponse Framework. In the almost 1 2  y ears that hav e passed since the 9/1 1terrorist attacks, the emergency  support function structure has been anessential component of most state and local emergency  management agencies.Howev er, this institutionalized coordinating structure does not mesh well withthe organization of the National Preparedness Goal’s Core Capabilities.The NPS’s emphasis on capabilities organized by  mission area is not an exactreplication of the emergency  support function construct, a bothersome realitythat leav es at least some emergency  managers confused about how to reconcilethe differences. Adding to this challenge is the fact that the functionalgroupings within the National Disaster Recov ery  Framework – i.e., therecov ery  support functions – represent a departure from the emergencysupport function construct. Howev er, it appears that the recov ery  corecapabilities were dev eloped with the pre-existing National Disaster Recov eryFramework in mind.To complicate matters ev en further, PPD-8 places responsibility  on anorganization to be the ov erall lead in coordinating each mission area’scapabilities set. The primary  choice for the traditional emergencymanagement mission areas of mitigation, response, and recov ery  is theemergency  management agencies, but it is not y et clear who or what agencyshould take ownership of the prev ention and protection missions. Ultimately ,agency  authorities will hav e to dictate both the lead and the support roles, butsev eral hard decisions will first hav e to be made.The State Preparedness Report suggests that a tiered approach to data collection– emphasizing the use of intrastate emergency  management or homelandsecurity  regions – might be the best alternativ e av ailable. By  using a regionalapproach, which recognizes the reliance on mutual aid and assistance inemergency  operations, local jurisdictions would, in theory , report capabilitypreparedness information to their regional working group(s); the latter wouldin turn report up the line to the state emergency  management agency .Unfortunately , this primarily  geographic v iew of emergency  preparednessbecomes somewhat problematic when integrating statewide agencies andpartners such as nonprofit organizations, as well as state agencies with localoffices that support local emergency  operations. Thoughtful consideration mustbe giv en to the role of intergov ernmental coordination if an emergencypreparedness program is to be successful.Process: Six or More Steps – And Lower BarriersThe first step in implementing the NPS process for states and major urban areasis to thoroughly  consider the six steps and determine whether: (a) v ariouselements hav e to be added or subtracted; and/or (b) if the six steps should befurther div ided in order to make the sy stem actionable to the extent needed tomeet the challenges of a particular jurisdiction. Many  of the steps thatencompass the NPS would hav e to cov er sev eral programs when implemented –a requirement that could be cumbersome in itself and also could causeconfusion related to program administration and ov ersight.Although it is important that a “customized” implementation of the NPS notrequire too many  steps, the goal should be to dev ise a sy stem that wouldactually  reduce barriers to participation by , among other things, increasingthe specificity  of tasks and spelling out the accountability  for each. After acustomized implementation has been dev eloped, there are sev eral otherchallenges that must be addressed to fully  realize how v arious capabilities willbe built, deliv ered, and ev aluated. Following is a brief analy sis of the mostimportant of those challenges.Risk assessment challenges – The first requirement in this area is to determinethe definition of “risk” that the jurisdiction will use to fully  identify  threats andhazards and, by  doing so, assess the risk posed by  each. The THIRA and thehazard mitigation planning related to hazard identification and risk assessmentare among the more important tools to use in this step, but each jurisdictionmust ultimately  decide how it wants to ev aluate the risk to the communityposed by  each threat or hazard considered.The threat and hazard identification process driv es the formulation of specificpreparedness targets, as well as preparedness goals, that v arious jurisdictionsmust dev elop. The preparedness target identifies what the jurisdiction needs tofully  deliv er a specific capability . Capability  targets must be based in turn onthe understanding, on the part of jurisdiction leaders, of what they  arepreparing for, which would be either: (a) the realistic consequences of the7/25/2014 Article Detail - Domestic Preparednesshttp://www.domesticpreparedness.com/Industry/Standards/National_Preparedness:_Challenges,_Definitions_&_Jurisdictions/ 3/4threats and hazards they  face; or (b) the most likely  impacts of a catastrophicoccurrence. For UASI states, harmonizing the THIRA is critical to ensuringconsistency  between capability  targets at both the state and UASI lev els.Capability estimation challenges – Capability  estimation inv olv es: (a)determining the plans, organization, equipment, training, and exerciseelements required to build and sustain a specific capability ; and (b) comparingthose requirements to the actual resources and activ ities av ailable todetermine any  gap that remains. When conducting a capability  assessment, itis important to interface not only  with neighboring jurisdictions but also withstate and regional partners. Such collaboration could result in capabilityestimates that consistently  measure capability  requirements and allow forinformation sharing, particularly  information related to implementation of theNational Incident Management Sy stem. Effectiv e state-to-local jurisdictioncoordination and communication also ensures that resources are not doublecounted as both a local and a state asset. The potential to ov erestimateresources through double counting is particularly  high in areas where stateagencies hav e local offices that support local emergency  operations.Capability validation challenges – For capability  v alidation, it is important thata consistent policy  be used to determine when it is appropriate for after-actionreporting. It is unrealistic to require a formal after-action process each andev ery  time a capability  is deliv ered. For example, coping with a multi-v ehiclecollision inv olv ing the potential spill of hazardous materials requires sev eralcore capabilities – critical transportation, env ironmental response/health andsafety , on-scene security  and protection, and public health and medicalserv ices. Such incidents are relativ ely  common in some jurisdictions. Torequire an after-action report for all such situations in those jurisdictions,though, could be unduly  cumbersome and might ultimately  result inunnecessary  paperwork and capability  v alidation data. Among the potentialthresholds that should be considered in such cases are the following: (a) Thenumber of capabilities deliv ered; (b) any  remaining challenges identified thatrequire improv ement; (c) significant improv ements in the deliv ery  of thev arious capabilities needed; and (d) the number of agencies inv olv ed in thedeliv ery  of those capabilities.The Scarcity of Best Practices & Other PitfallsOne continuing challenge that state and local jurisdictions must face as theymov e forward with implementing PPD-8 is the limited number of existing bestpractices that hav e already  been v alidated. Each jurisdiction will, therefore,either hav e to dev elop a preparedness sy stem process from the ground up orwait for other jurisdictions to dev elop best practices that can be adapted to fitthe needs of other locales.Nonetheless, political and operational jurisdictions must conduct their ownthorough and sy stematic capability  estimates and dev elop the processes neededto build, maintain, and ev aluate the v arious capabilities required. Anyjurisdictions that will not or cannot do this will lack the accurate and consistentdata on resource gaps that they  will need to make their own future resourceprocurement and allocation decisions. Beginning the process by  giv ing full andobjectiv e consideration of the potential pitfalls identified abov e can help easethe ov erall sy stem dev elopment decisions required.For most states and major urban areas, implementation of the NPS has becomea necessity  for many  reasons, but particularly  to continue receiv ing DHS grantfunding. It also is important, though, that the DHS itself recognize thechallenges that lower-lev el jurisdictions will face in meeting the NationalPreparedness Goal, specifically  including giv ing thoughtful consideration to thequantity  and v ariety  of resources required to sometimes totally  transformlegacy  preparedness programs that are no longer v alid or effectiv e.________________________Jordan Nelms (pictured) is the Planning Branch Manager at the MarylandEmergency Management Agency, and previously worked as a contractor with WittAssociates supporting the PPD-8 Program Executive Office at the FederalEmergency Management Agency. He received a BA in political science/securitystudies from East Carolina University and pursued graduate studies at the JohnsHopkins University, the University of South Florida, and the University of St.Andrews in Scotland.Amanda Faul, a policy analyst with the University of Maryland’s Center for Health& Homeland Security, currently works as a regional planner for the MarylandEmergency Management Agency. Prior to assuming that post, she worked as a7/25/2014 Article Detail - Domestic Preparednesshttp://www.domesticpreparedness.com/Industry/Standards/National_Preparedness:_Challenges,_Definitions_&_Jurisdictions/ 4/4disaster planner for the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. Sheholds a Master’s degree in public health, with a concentration in emergency publichealth and disasters, from the University of California, Los Angeles.Share This:  Home | First Responder | Medical Response | Government | Industry | Infrastructure | Commentary | TrainingDomPrep Journal | About Us | DomPrep40 | Advertise | Webinars | Reports | Grants | Resil ience | Calendar of EventsAll content copyright ©2014 DomesticPreparedness.com. Privacy Policy and Disclaimer. Problems with your account?

National Preparedness: Challenges, Definitions & Jurisdictions

NELLCO Consortium Legal Scholarship Repository

National Preparedness: Challenges, Definitions \u26 Jurisdictions

https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&amp;context=home_sec_fac_pubs

National Preparedness: Challenges, Definitions & Jurisdictions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons @ UM Law

NELLCO Consortium Legal Scholarship Repository