[ State Emergency Management Director [
Dear Colleague: Those of us who have served as state emergency management directors have prepared this handbook to provide both an historical perspective and a guide to the present day. Each of us has a unique set of skills and experience, but when one is appointed a state director he or she joins a team, past and present, of professionals charged with a very solemn obligation: to assure the safety of the people of our respective states, and to serve the national interest in promoting sound policies that help make our country more secure. This handbook has been crafted to address every aspect of the collective experience of those with whom you will work in NEMA, and it is bolstered by the experience and advice and contributions of those who have served in the same capacity in which you now serve. While each state is different in terms of its structure, its hazards and its politics, the handbook delves into areas that are viewed as common to each of us. Another feature of the development of this handbook is its statement of your colleagues’ commitment to your success as a state director. It should be seen not as an instructional manual, or a doctrinal instrument, but as a guide based on our collective experience to the types of issues you may face, and pretty clearly illustrates how many resources that you can draw on from NEMA staff, your fellow directors, and former directors and leaders who have maintained a close affiliation with NEMA. We most likely have not covered everything, but this handbook is intended to introduce you to some of the challenges of your new role, and to assure that you understand that your fellow directors and NEMA staff are with you every step of the way.
Jim Mullen NEMA President and Director, Washington Division of Emergency Management
[ State Emergency Management Director Handbook [
Table of Contents [A] Overview of Emergency Management
A-1. About NEMA....................................................................................................................... 5 A-2. A History of Emergency Management............................................................................13 A-3. Roles and Responsibilities of State Government .........................................................21
[B] Managing the Organization B-1. Laws and Authorities.......................................................................................................25 B-2. State Emergency Management Organizational Structures .........................................30 B-3. How States Fund Emergency Management Programs.................................................31 B-4. Establishing and Maintaining Executive and Legislative Support...............................35
[C] Preparedness C-1. Emergency Management Building Blocks: Planning, Training, and Exercise..............39 C-2. National Preparedness Grant Programs........................................................................47 C-3. Encouraging Citizen and Community Preparedness.....................................................50
[D] Mitigation D-1. Role of Emergency Management in Mitigation.............................................................53 D-2. Funding Hazard Mitigation Programs and Initiatives....................................................55 D-3. A Typical Approach to Hazard Mitigation Programming................................................60 D-4. Assessing Your Mitigation Program................................................................................62 D-5. Recommendations for an Effective National Mitigation Effort....................................63
[E] Response E-1. Managing Emergency Operations: Points to Remember..............................................67 E-2. Overview of Local, State, and Federal Response to Disasters.....................................69 E-3. Military Support to Civil Authorities................................................................................ 74
[F] Recovery F-1. Disaster Recovery Concepts...........................................................................................79 F-2. National Disaster Recovery Framework.........................................................................80 F-3. Federal Disaster Declaration Process............................................................................83 F-4. Federal Disaster Assistance Programs..........................................................................89 F-5. Organization for Recovery...............................................................................................93 F-6. Challenges for Long Term Recovery...............................................................................95
[G] Mutual Aid and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) G-1. Emergency Management Assistance Compact.............................................................99 G-2. Intrastate Mutual Aid................................................................................................... 105 G-3. International Mutual Aid.............................................................................................. 106 continued
Table of Contents (continued) [H] Homeland Security H-1. State Homeland Security Organizational Structures................................................. 109 H-2. Common Homeland Security Issues........................................................................... 111 H-3. Fusion Centers............................................................................................................. 113 H-4. Critical Infrastructure Protection................................................................................. 115 H-5. National Homeland Security Consortium....................................................................117
[I] Managing the Program I-1. Building Relationships................................................................................................... 125 I-2. Assessing Your Program: The Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP).................................... 127 I-3. Managing Expectations................................................................................................. 130
[J] Emergency Management and the Media J-1. Emergency Management and the Media.................................................................... 133
Acknowledgements The State Director Handbook was produced by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA). Contributing authors include former state emergency management directors Richard Andrews, David Miller, and Glen Woodbury. Also contributing articles are Major General Timothy Lowenberg, Adjutant General, State of Washington; the NEMA Public Information Officers Subcommittee; and the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) staff Nicole Ishmael and Jarad Downing. Additional authors include Trina Sheets, Matt Cowles, Angela Copple, and Jennifer Perkins of the NEMA staff. NEMA appreciates the review provided by the board of directors, committees, past presidents, NEMA staff, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
[A] Overview of Emergency Management
A-1. About NEMA The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501 (c) 3 organization comprised of the emergency management directors from the 50 states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. NEMA’s members also include other emergency management professionals from the public and private sector dedicated to protecting our nation. Vision NEMA will be the national leader in the advancement of all-hazards emergency management.
Our Mission To develop the partnerships and initiatives necessary to improve the nation’s capabilities to protect the public through prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery from all emergencies, disasters, and threats to our homeland.
Goals 1. Strengthen the nation’s emergency management system. 2. Provide national leadership and expertise in comprehensive, all-hazards emergency management. 3. Serve as a vital emergency management information and assistance resource. 4. Advance continuous improvement in emergency management through strategic partnerships, innovative programs, and collaborative policy positions.
[STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR HANDBOOk]
State Emergency Management Director Guide to NEMA
Our Six Areas of Focus and the Part You Play in Them:
Your Role in NEMA
1) S trengthen the Relationship with Congress and Federal Agencies
As the leading voice of state emergency management professionals, NEMA can do the best job for you when you take an active role in the organization. This means establishing a relationship with your congressional delegation and educating them on key issues. It means responding to NEMA legislative alerts and keeping current on relevant issues. It also means serving on NEMA committees, where the real policy work happens; responding to information requests from other states; and providing input to requests for comments on national policy and program development. Simply put, NEMA is only as strong as your involvement in the association.
History of NEMA NEMA has a proud history and celebrated its 35th anniversary in 2009. It all began in 1974, when the state directors of emergency services united for the first time as a single group in order to exchange information on common emergency management issues and to provide a unified credible voice to the federal government, private industry and the public. Since that time, NEMA has established itself as a leading resource dedicated to public safety. We are acknowledged as the preeminent authority on emergency management by governors, Congress, federal agencies, major American corporations, the military, national service organizations and the president of the United States.
NEMA Can Support You The primary purpose of NEMA is to be the primary source of information, support and expertise for people like you—state and territorial emergency management directors who prevent, mitigate, prepare for, respond to and recover from all emergencies, disasters and threats to the nation’s security. To accomplish this goal, we focus on six areas: 1) Strengthen the relationship with Congress and federal agencies and serve as an effective advocate for emergency management; 2) Develop strategic partnerships with key organizations and individuals who impact emergency management; 3) Tackle emergency management issues through our proactive committees; 4) Hold two national conferences annually that bring together the most knowledgeable speakers and emergency management professionals from around the country; 5) Serve as an information-sharing and support network for state and territorial directors and senior staff; and 6) Offer professional development and training so that you can continue honing your skills.
6 [a] overview of emergency management
As you already know, the federal government controls portions of funding that supports the emergency management operations in your state. It also sets policies that impact how you can utilize this assistance. That’s why it’s critical that NEMA—along with you as a member—develop and maintain a strong relationship with Congress, who approves the funding, and the various federal agencies that administer it. State emergency managers have a collective voice in Washington through NEMA, and you’re one of those voices. By getting to know your members of Congress and meeting with them on a regular basis, you’re establishing relationships that can benefit your operation and the entire emergency management community. For example, your member of Congress may serve on an authorizing committee for a specific emergency management bill, or may be an appropriator on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) budget. Your relationship with that member would be beneficial. We realize that these meetings take away time from your day-to-day responsibilities, but the mutual trust that ensues is vital to on-going emergency management discussions and particularly when disaster strikes your area. Your members of Congress will already know you, your operation and the obstacles you’re confronting. They can also see how their constituents will be impacted. In addition, you become their sounding board when they, or their staffs, have new ideas or questions about emergency management. To assist you in your congressional efforts, NEMA will provide you with information and intelligence on important emergency management topics, as necessary. 2) D evelop Strategic Partnerships with Key Organizations and Individuals Who Impact Emergency Management One of the NEMA’s top priorities is to nurture partnerships with other related organizations, associations and key people who impact emergency management. By working cooperatively and strategically, NEMA is able to maximize its resources and promote the emergency management agenda with others who share our interests. In addition to members of Congress and their staffs, NEMA interacts with the following agencies, entities and organizations on an ongoing basis: Association of State & Territorial Health Officials—The Association of State & Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) represents state and territorial public health officials. NEMA has a cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that supports a joint policy work group with ASTHO to identify and resolve issues of mutual concern, and to promote communication and coordination between the two state entities. www.astho.org
International Association of Emergency Managers—The International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), which has more than 5,000 members worldwide, is a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to promoting the “Principles of Emergency Management” and representing those professionals whose goals are saving lives and protecting property and the environment during emergencies and disasters. IAEM works in close coordination with NEMA. The NEMA Legislative Committee invites the IAEM Government Affairs Committee Chair to participate in Legislative Committee meetings and IAEM reciprocates. IAEM and NEMA often have very similar priorities when it comes to Congress and the administration, and try to speak together as the national voice on emergency management whenever possible. www.iaem.com National Governors Association—Comprised of the governors from all 50 states, as well as five territories and commonwealths, the National Governors Association (NGA) is an important NEMA partner in gaining consensus and addressing emergency management issues on the state level. NEMA coordinates national policy positions with NGA and serves as a technical resource for the governors on emergency management. NGA formed the Governors’ Homeland Security Advisors Council (GHSAC) to provide an organizational structure through which the homeland security advisors from each state, territory and the District of Columbia can discuss homeland security issues, share information and expertise, and keep governors informed of the issues affecting homeland security policies in the states. www.nga.org Washington Offices of Governors—More than 30 governors have offices in Washington, D.C. to assist with intergovernmental affairs. The majority of these are located in the Hall of the States building, which also houses the NEMA Washington office. This close proximity makes it easier to share information and work cooperatively on emergency management issues with representatives from the governors’ Washington offices. The Big Seven—As an affiliate to The Council of State Governments (CSG), NEMA regularly coordinates on key policy issues with what’s referred to as the “Big Seven,” the leading national and city/state associations. The Big Seven includes the Council of State Governments, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association. www.csg.org www.nga.org www.ncsl.org www.naco.org www.nlc.org www.usmayors.org www.icma.org National Homeland Security Consortium—The National Homeland Security Consortium (NHSC) was established by NEMA to bring together key state and local government associations and the emergency responder community to share information on homeland security issues. Included in the consortium are state and local emergency management, fire, law enforcement, public health, emergency medical ser-
vices, public works, emergency communications, agriculture, National Guard, state homeland security advisors, state and local elected officials, and the private sector. www.nemaweb.org Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency—NEMA’s traditional partner in the federal government is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Formed in 2002, the DHS has responsibility for the federal government’s coordination with state and local governments on all homeland security and emergency management issues. www.dhs.gov Coordination with Other Federal Agencies—NEMA has also developed relationships with other federal departments and agencies with oversight on emergency management and homeland security issues. These include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Defense, the National Weather Service and others. Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus—The Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus is a Senate caucus focused on sharing information associated with natural disasters. The group does not take an advocacy position but occasionally briefs Senate members and their staffs on natural disaster issues. NEMA is a member of the caucus work group as well as the steering committee and helps drive the caucus’s agenda. www.hazardscaucus.org The Stafford Act Coalition—The Stafford Act Coalition is an informal group of associations that meets on an ad-hoc basis to discuss issues related to disaster legislation. It takes its name from the Stafford Act, the federal legislation that authorizes assistance to state and local governments before and after a disaster, which is often the subject of amendment by Congress. The coalition reviews pre-disaster mitigation, post-disaster mitigation, recovery issues and other related topics. It also advocates for public policy changes that make sense for state and local government organizations. There are approximately 15 groups that actively participate in the coalition, including the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the Association of State Flood Plain Managers, the International Association of Emergency Managers, the American Public Works Association, and the National Association of Home Builders. 3) Tackle Emergency Management Issues Through Our Proactive Committees The majority of NEMA’s work occurs within standing committees. These committees focus on specific emergency management and homeland security issues. Each year, directors are asked to indicate first, second, and third choices for committee assignment. Directors may, and often are, members of a number of committees. All committees meet in conjunction with NEMA conferences to review issues as well as develop position papers and make resolutions. These are presented to and voted on by the NEMA membership during the conference. NEMA position papers and resolutions are widely distributed to
[state emergency management director handbook] 7
congressional, federal, state and local policy makers. Most committees also meet one to two times a year outside conferences due to the number and complexity of issues facing the profession today. Meetings are frequently held via conference call. Committees and their general areas of concentration are as follows: Homeland Security—Homeland Security, Bio-terrorism, Homeland Security Grant Programs, Critical Infrastructure Protection, Borders & Transportation Security, Information Analysis, Detection and Prevention, National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, Interagency Board Liaison, National Homeland Security Consortium, coordinates with other NEMA policy committees on overlap homeland security/all hazards issues. Legal Counsel—Emergency Management/Homeland Security Legal Issues, Legal Counsel Training, EMAC Legal Support; NEMA Committee Support. Membership is open to all interested state legal counsels. This committee is a great resource and information-sharing network for your staff. Legislative—Legislative Tracking and Analysis, Legislative Alerts to Membership, Congressional Communications, Legislative Education, NEMA Congressional Relations Strategy, coordinates with other NEMA policy committees. Mitigation—Natural & Technological Hazards Risk Reduction, Risk Analysis & Mapping, Codes and Standards, Pre-Disaster Mitigation, Flood Mitigation Assistance, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Mitigation Planning. Pacific & Territorial Caucus—Concerns of the Pacific Rim territories, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico as members of NEMA; coordinates issues with NEMA Board of Directors and policy committees. Past Presidents—Strategic Planning, Rules, Nominations, Membership Development, Awards and Recognition, Support Legislative Activity, New Director Development. Membership is comprised of former presidents of NEMA. Preparedness—Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), Standards, Assessments and Accreditation, Planning, Training and Exercises, Public Warning, Information Technology, Interoperability, Hazardous Materials/Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP), Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP); Hurricane Subcommittee; Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) Commission representatives; Emergency Management Institute (EMI). Private Sector—Public/Private Partnerships; Technical Assistance on products, services and new technology to NEMA Policy Committees, and state and territorial directors. Membership is open to all corporate and organizational members of NEMA. Response & Recovery—National Response Framework, National Recovery Framework, National Incident Management System, Federal Disaster Assistance Programs, Urban Search & Rescue.
8 [a] overview of emergency management
Private Sector Liaisons—Members of the Private Sector Committee may be designated as non-voting liaisons to other NEMA standing committees. One liaison will be appointed to each standing committee by the Private Sector Committee Chair. Private Sector Liaisons play an active role on the committee, are invited participants in all committee activities and provide important technical assistance as policy positions are considered. 4) H old Two National Policy and Leadership Forums Featuring Emergency Management Professionals and Knowledgeable Speakers from around the Country Each year, NEMA’s two national policy and leadership forums (conferences) provide you the forum to discuss national and regional emergency management strategies with your counterparts from around the country and experts in the field. You can learn about best practices, and perhaps most importantly, establish a network of people who are dealing with the same issues that you’re facing. NEMA policy and leadership forums focus on policy development, state concerns, legislative issues and federal relations. They give you the opportunity to hear, first-hand, the latest on issues that impact your agency’s programs. This type of current and behind-the-scenes information isn’t available to state emergency managers elsewhere. The vast majority of states are represented at NEMA conferences. For that reason, federal agencies, members of Congress and their staff, administration officials, and other policy-makers attend the meetings so that they can discuss policy and program issues, and get input from state and territorial directors. Annual Emergency Management Policy and Leadership Forum—Why It’s Important to You The location of the NEMA annual emergency management policy and leadership forum rotates every year, taking place in the home state of the current NEMA president. In addition to the important benefits listed previously, one of the main reasons to attend the forum is to have a say in the election of new NEMA officers. These positions are voted on at the annual forum and include the president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer. Ten regional vice presidents are also selected by their respective region membership prior to the annual forum. The officers, regional vice presidents, and committee chairs constitute NEMA’s board of directors. Only you and your fellow state and territorial directors are allowed to elect the officers. Mid-Year Emergency Management Policy and Leadership Forum—Why It’s Important to You Scheduled in late winter and held in Washington, D.C., the mid-year emergency management policy and leadership forum takes place shortly after the president has released the budget request for the next fiscal year and delivered the State of the Union address. NEMA provides an analysis of the budget and members use the conference to learn more about the budget proposals, including the potential impact on emergency management. During the forum, the NEMA
Legislative Committee identifies legislative priorities for the year in accordance with the budget request and proposed legislation. Given the Washington, D.C., location, NEMA considers the forum crucial in its on-going efforts of educating elected officials about emergency management issues. Time is set aside for you to meet with your congressional delegation to discuss NEMA’s legislative priorities and your own state issues. As a director, you will either make your own arrangements for these appointments or work with your governor’s Washington, D.C., office. NEMA will also be happy to assist you in identifying the right person in your congressional office, answer any questions and provide you with speaking points and background information on all relevant issues. Depending on whether Congress is in session and the availability or legislators, NEMA may host a congressional recognition reception during the mid-year forum, where all members of Congress and selected staff are invited to network with state and territorial directors. NEMA typically honors members of Congress at this reception for their achievements. Directors have the opportunity to nominate members of Congress a couple of months prior to the conference and the Legislative Committee votes on the final selection. Some of the past NEMA congressional award winners include former Rep. Tom Ridge from Pennsylvania for his accomplishments in passing the Stafford Act, Sen. Susan Collins from Maine for her accomplishments on the Intelligence Reform legislation, and Rep. Jane Harman from California for her work in helping emergency responders secure public safety spectrum. 5) S erve as an Information-Sharing and Support Network for State and Territorial Directors and Senior Staff One of the great benefits of membership in NEMA is the information sharing and networking between directors. Through NEMA, you can reach out instantly and learn of the best practices and successful strategies employed in other states that may be replicated in your own. At the request of the state emergency management director, NEMA may conduct surveys or canvas member states on specific issues or areas of interest. The results are then provided to you on a timely basis. The professional and collegial relationships you establish through NEMA provide a support system that doesn’t exist within any other organization. Through NEMA, you will realize not only working relationships but also lasting friendships. 6) O ffer Professional Development and Training So That You Can Continue Honing Your Skills New State and Territorial Director Training Course In 2003, NEMA partnered with FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute (EMI) to develop a standardized training course for newly appointed state and territorial emergency management directors. The State Director Training Course (E257) is held annually and typically in the summer. The course includes presentations by subject-matter experts, class discussions, and problem-solving activities based on real-life events. These activities use a variety of disaster and emer-
gency situations and allow you to exercise decision-making skills and to share your experiences as a director. The target audience for the course includes people like you— state and territorial directors of emergency management— and/or deputy directors, who have been in their positions fewer than three years. As soon as dates for the training are scheduled, you will receive notification and registration information from NEMA and EMI. Typically, EMI is able to provide reimbursement for travel costs. The training is provided free of charge. For more information, go to the EMI website at www.training.fema.gov/emiweb. Professional Development NEMA periodically offers professional development opportunities and issue-specific seminars for state and territorial directors. In the past, NEMA has provided workshops and seminars in such areas as Crisis Communications and Media Relations, Risk Management, Congressional Relations, Measuring Performance, Dealing with Stress, Emergency Management Assistance Compact, National Weather Service Tools for Emergency Management and more. Professional development is offered in response to emerging trends and issues that affect directors and their agencies. Typically, professional development opportunities are offered free of charge to state and territorial directors and are held in conjunction with NEMA conferences for travel convenience. If there are issues that you’d like to see addressed in a workshop or seminar, please forward those recommendations to your NEMA regional vice president or the NEMA president. Mentors for New Directors New directors can often benefit from a trusted advisor or a mentor who can provide helpful information or good advice. Serving as a mentor to new directors is one of the responsibilities of your NEMA regional vice president who is glad to answer any questions you may have regarding NEMA and, more importantly, your job so that you can increase your chances of success in your new position.
NEMA Organization Board of Directors The NEMA Board of Directors is the driving force behind the organization and consists of five officers, 10 regional vice presidents and eight committee chairs. All of the leadership positions, as well as the vast majority of the committee membership, are filled by state emergency management directors. That’s why it’s vital that you become an active participant in NEMA. Officers and Regional Vice Presidents NEMA officers include the president, vice president, treasurer, secretary and past president. The 10 regional vice presidents match those regions as currently designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Committee Chairs Just prior to the annual conference, the incoming NEMA president selects the standing committee chairs. If you’re interested in a leadership position, become an active committee participant. It’s a great way to learn about the issues and the organization. [state emergency management director handbook] 9
Becoming an Officer You are eligible to become a NEMA officer candidate after having been a member in good standing for at least two years. To become a candidate, you must submit the following paperwork at least 90 days in advance of the next NEMA annual conference when elections will be held. • L etter to NEMA stating your candidacy and the office you seek • A copy of your bio or list of qualifications • L etter from the governor or immediate supervisor approving the time and travel necessary to fulfill the duties of the office
NEMA’s Relationship with CSG The formal relationship between NEMA and The Council of State Governments (CSG) began in 1990. CSG is the nation’s only organization serving every elected and appointed official in all three branches of every state government. NEMA has a memorandum of agreement with CSG, which is also headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky for secretariat services. Through our respective agendas, both CSG and NEMA are committed to promoting the role of the state and to foster excellence in the functions of government. CSG provides a variety of avenues for NEMA to educate and inform the broader community of state government on emergency management issues. Frequent emergency management and homeland security-related articles are published in CSG’s Capitol Ideas magazine, which is distributed to state officials representing the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. NEMA is represented on various CSG committees and task forces and provides reports and briefings to those standing bodies. In the past, CSG committees have endorsed a number of NEMA-sponsored policy papers, giving them increased credibility and visibility on a national scale. NEMA’s main office is co-located with CSG in Lexington, Kentucky. NEMA also maintains a presence in Washington, D.C., with staff co-located in the CSG Washington office in the Hall of the States building. By leveraging the resources of CSG, NEMA is able to expand its capacity to serve our members. www.csg.org
NEMA Staff NEMA has eight full-time staff located at the headquarters office in Lexington, Kentucky and two full-time staff in the Washington, D.C., office. Organizational Chart Government Relations Director, DC Office
Legislative Policy Analyst, DC Office
Sr. Policy Analyst
Meeting & Marketing Coordinator
EMAC Program Director
EMAC Technology Analyst
EMAC Exercise & Training Coordinator
10 [a] overview of emergency management
EMAC Training Assistant
NEMA Resources NEMA Library on Emergency Management and Homeland Security As a director, you have full access to the NEMA library of thousands of emergency management related documents. This includes everything from NEMA position papers to legislative committee reports, from congressional committee testimony to historical information on critical federal funding programs such as Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, State Homeland Security Grant Programs, and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs. There are conference presentations, training materials, copies of state plans and strategies, and much more. Most of the documents are located on the NEMA website at www.nemaweb.org. Directors should contact the NEMA administrative assistant at [email protected]
to receive a username and password to access protected information on the site. Surveys NEMA conducts surveys on an as-needed basis. Sometimes, NEMA surveys the directors in anticipation of response to changes in national emergency management programs. Frequently, survey requests come from state or territorial directors who are trying to learn how their counterparts in other states are managing a specific program or issue. Survey results are shared with all state directors and can be valuable tools in managing your state emergency management program. Publications The following is a listing of NEMA publications: State Director Update: Each week you will receive an e-mail update from NEMA that provides you with the very latest information on congressional activity, federal policy and program developments, reports on NEMA meetings and communication with Washington officials, notifications on national reports and studies that should be of interest to your agency, and updates on association activities and events. This is behind-the-scenes information you won’t find in any other resource. The State Director Update frequently contains information that is appropriate for directors only and we ask that the document be used only for official purposes and not be distributed publicly. EM Advocate: NEMA publishes a monthly electronic newsletter that is distributed to the entire membership, including those individuals on your staff who have joined NEMA. The newsletter provides a snapshot of the national scene as it relates to emergency management and homeland security and provides timely association-related information to members. The NEMA Biennial Report: Bi-annually, NEMA surveys all state emergency management agencies to gather comprehensive data regarding state organizational structures, budgets, staffing and much more. The data is published in a national report and provided to the administration, Congress, the federal government, governors, state legislators and other decision-makers who may play a role in budget or policy-making decisions related to emergency management. This is a one-of-a kind publication, as no other organization
in the country possesses this data. Data gathered through this survey is also used in NEMA congressional testimony to support funding increases for emergency management. In addition, directors frequently use this data to justify budget or staffing increases, internal reorganizations, or program advancements. NEMA has the ability to format the data in any way that best serves your needs. When the next survey period arrives, it is vital that you participate in the survey and verify the data submitted. Are You Ready to Lead? A Public Official’s Primer on All-Hazards Emergency Management: Educating and informing public officials about the importance of strong emergency management programs at the state and local level is an important aspect of your job as director. To assist in that effort, NEMA published a primer on emergency management that is geared toward new governors but can also be a valuable resource for members of Congress, state legislators, mayors and other elected and appointed officials. The publication is available free of charge to state and territorial directors as long as supplies last. Model Intrastate Mutual Aid Legislation: Building upon the success of an existing state-to-state mutual aid system, NEMA released Model Intrastate Mutual Aid Legislation to help states develop or refine statewide mutual aid agreements for their local jurisdictions. Through a FEMA grant awarded to NEMA, a working group of state emergency management professionals with a multi-disciplinary background was formed to draft the model agreement. It was completed in 2004 and addresses such issues as reimbursement, workers’ compensation, and license and permit portability, immunity and member responsibilities.
NEMA Emergency Management Policy and Leadership Forum Details Conference Registration Registering for a NEMA policy and leadership forum is completely automated, very easy and takes only a few minutes. Go to www.nemaweb.org; sign in using your e-mail address and password, choose “Fast Track Registration,” verify that the information is correct, select a payment option and submit. If you have forgotten your username or password, an icon on the front page of the NEMA website provides retrieval of the information. Registration fees vary among membership categories. Please see the conference page on the NEMA website for more information. Additional information on the conferences, including meeting agendas, logistics, sponsor and exhibitor information, and available conference papers are accessible from the web site. If you have any difficulty in locating this information, please contact the NEMA administrative assistant at (859) 244-8143. Committee Meetings Each NEMA committee meets during both the NEMA mid-year and annual policy and leadership forums. Agendas are
established ahead of time by committee leadership with input from committee members. In addition to the committee(s) on which you serve, you are welcome to participate in all committee meetings. It’s an excellent way for you to learn more about important issues, listen to subject matter experts and learn about NEMA action on a specific agenda item. Seating during Committee Meetings At each committee meeting, state and territorial director members, and the private sector and past president liaisons that serve on that committee, are seated around the conference table. Other conference attendees are invited to use the perimeter seating. Voting Only state and territorial director committee members are allowed to vote on any pertinent business during committee meetings. Directors unable to attend voting sessions may provide a written proxy to their NEMA regional vice president or another state director giving permission to that person to vote on their behalf. Sponsors/Exhibitors NEMA conferences are made possible through the generosity of corporate sponsorship. These sponsors are offered the opportunity to set up an exhibit during the conference. If additional exhibit space is available, space is offered to nonsponsoring companies on a first-come, first served basis. You’re encouraged to spend time viewing the exhibits and interacting with the sponsors. The private sector provides solutions to many pressing emergency management and homeland security concerns. NEMA conferences provide an excellent opportunity for you and your staff to learn about new and emerging technologies, products and services. Because NEMA conferences have very full agendas, and to ensure quality networking opportunities, the number of sponsors and exhibitors is deliberately limited. This allows you and members of your staff to spend reasonable time viewing the exhibits and speaking with exhibitors while maintaining your busy meeting schedule. At both conferences, NEMA also sponsors an exhibits reception to give you and other attendees an additional opportunity to visit the booths and speak with the sponsors and exhibitors about solutions for emergency management and homeland security programs.
NEMA Website The NEMA website, www.nemaweb.org, is the central repository for the latest emergency management news, issues and policies. As a NEMA member, you can find information on the website about registering for upcoming NEMA policy and leadership forums, download the NEMA membership directory, view the NEMA calendar of events, view and update membership information, download dues and conference invoices, post and review job listings, and do even more. Some information and areas of the NEMA website are restricted, based on membership categories or other specific
[state emergency management director handbook] 11
criteria. If you have any questions or need a username and password, please contact the NEMA administrative assistant at (859) 244-8143 or [email protected]
Membership The core membership of NEMA is you, the state emergency management director. Your annual state membership dues are $3,200.00. Associate (non-voting) membership categories include all areas of emergency management, such as state staff, homeland security advisors, federal agencies, corporations, non-profit organizations, international entities, local emergency managers, students, academia and retired emergency management professionals. You are strongly encouraged to sign up your senior staff for membership in NEMA as a key state staff member. Membership in a national organization like NEMA provides a broader perspective for your staff on national issues and how they may impact your state. NEMA also provides an instant information exchange and support network among emergency management professionals and enables them to communicate regularly on common issues. Finally, membership in NEMA provides professional development opportunities for you as well as your staff. Persons interested in joining NEMA may do so electronically through the website at www.nemaweb.org. Role of the Private Sector Though NEMA was founded for the exchange of information and perspectives among state emergency directors and their staffs, the association has long encouraged private sector representatives to actively participate in NEMA meetings and committees. From this collaboration, you can learn about important emergency management research and development initiatives that are underway. You can also share those concerns that might require a marketplace solution. While private sector members do not have voting privileges, their expertise can prove to be invaluable in helping to solve the critical issues that you face as an emergency management director. Role of the NEMA Past Presidents NEMA is fortunate in that its former association presidents remain engaged years after they have left office and even after they have left state government. The NEMA past presidents possess the organization’s historical and institutional knowledge and have responsibilities to serve as a resource for state directors. A past president liaison is assigned to each NEMA standing committee. Past presidents often serve as training instructors in order to share their years of experience and lessons learned with current state directors. You will see the NEMA past presidents in state director meetings and other forums where they can be a resource.
12 [a] overview of emergency management
Your Action Items NEMA •C ontact NEMA upon your appointment as state director and provide your contact information, electronic photo and a copy of your bio. You’ll then receive a user name and password for the NEMA website. • Indicate your preferred committee assignment. •R egularly update your profile online—NEMA relies on this to communicate with you, and if it is not updated, you could miss vital news. • Review your key state staff member contact information.
Congressional Relations •R eview the current list of NEMA congressional priorities and familiarize yourself with them. These are updated annually and/or as necessary. •A s you become more comfortable in your new job, schedule meetings or make phone calls to introduce yourself to the rest of your congressional delegation and their staffs. Invite them to your emergency operations center to visit with you or observe an exercise, so that the relationship will already be established and you can call on them when a disaster occurs. • If your governor’s office has a Washington, D.C., location, reach out and introduce yourself. Determine the lead person on emergency management and homeland security issues. Discuss those issues that Congress and the administration are considering and that are important to you and your state. Talk about how you can work together to address these issues. • If your governor’s office prefers that you don’t interface directly with your congressional offices, let the NEMA staff know so that we can cultivate those relationships on behalf of the association.
Contact NEMA Headquarters Office Trina Sheets NEMA Executive Director PO Box 11910 Lexington, KY 40578 859-244-8233 [email protected]
Washington, DC Office Matt Cowles NEMA Government Relations Director 444. N. Capitol St., NW Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5459 [email protected]
A-2. H istory of Emergency Management by Richard Andrews, Ph.D., former director, California Emergency Management Agency
Scope and Purpose: Inevitably, any brief “History of Emergency Management” will be highly selective in what’s discussed and what’s omitted. It will also reflect the moment in time it is written. Trends in emergency management are event driven—the significant floods, hurricanes, terrorist attacks, oil spills, wars, etc.— that are the very reason emergency management exists. Histories written before the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 almost never mentioned terrorism. From at least World War I forward civil defense was the main focus of what is today known as emergency management. Any history written during that period is replete with discussions of policy initiatives, institutional arrangements, budget inequities and rationales for Civil Defense. So too this history, written in 2010, reflects a period when risks from natural, technological and terrorist events are arguably increasing, the potential for unprecedented “catastrophic” disasters receives greater attention, the occurrence of extreme weather-related events appears to be an issue that could consume considerable attention from emergency managers, and rapid changes in technology provide both challenges and important new capabilities. This history is not a reference document of the laws, agencies and policies that have informed emergency management. Rather, it attempts to provide a perspective for understanding the legacy that emergency managers inherit and, maybe, some insight into future challenges. It is hopefully accurate in citing certain facts and events, but makes no pretense to “objectivity”. It is one perspective, nothing more. And it is written from the perspective of one involved in emergency management in state bureaucracies.
Policy and Institutional Context A fundamental axiom of emergency management is that “all disasters are local.” The wonderfully complex United States Constitution seems to recognize this and assigns core public safety responsibilities—securing the common good, maintaining order through law enforcement, fire protection, and essential public services—primarily to local governments. Governors of states are given, in all state constitutions, considerable authority during times of emergency. In most
states, Governors can (at least temporarily) suspend regulations, order evacuations, commander private property, call out the National Guard, and impose curfews. The primacy of the federal government related to threats at and beyond our borders is clear. However, federal responsibilities and authorities for public safety in the homeland, (i.e. the nation’s communities) are vague and evolved, until very recently, largely in an ad hoc manner as part of America involvement in World Wars I and II. After 1945 the Cold War highlighted the linkage between national security and security at home, i.e. civil defense. Federal initiatives established ambitious goals that drove the agenda of state and local civil defense agencies and officials. The problem of how to prepare residents for nuclear attack, especially how to shelter and feed survivors, occupied much of the attention of local, state and federal civil defense from 1948 to 1992. Reflecting a more general historical trend, the federal role in public safety and emergency management has—through funding priorities and policy initiatives -- steadily increased throughout the post-World War II period. Recent defining events–the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005—drive the latest funding and policy priorities. Currently, the federal government largely frames agendas for local and state emergency managers, though many of the most significant enhancements to the nation’s emergency management systems—for example the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)—came from state leaders, not the federal government. While federal resources and priorities have essentially defined much of emergency management for over a century, all disasters are still local. Nevertheless, even at the local level, except in some heavily populated urban areas, emergency management is often a secondary assignment to staff in law enforcement, fire services or general administration. At the state level, emergency management agencies have varied greatly in size, place in the organizational structure and status. A basic fact has historically been that, except during and immediately after major disasters, there is no “natural constituency” for emergency management.1 Related public safety functions—especially law enforcement and fire
[state emergency management director handbook] 13
services—have specific organizations that support programs and issues and make sure that their priorities are known to elected officials at all levels. Everyone knows what police and fire departments do. The services provided by emergency management, by contrast, are often poorly understood. Emergency managers frequently struggle for a seat at the policy table and in state and local budgets.
Fire protection remained a volunteer system throughout the colonial period, even after the formal establishment by Benjamin Franklin of the Union Fire Company in Philadelphia, and a year later, the Fire Department of the city of New York (FDNY). The volunteer fire companies and the fire insurance societies worked closely together and, in fact, volunteers frequently received payment for their services from the insurance societies.
Disasters and the Responses: 17th Century—1865
For protection, much of colonial America adopted the Constable-Watch system that originated in 13th century England. A locally selected Constable was empowered to enlist residents as “watchmen” who were then “required” to come to the aid of the Constable. In rural areas sheriffs and posses were commonplace.
As a series of colonial settlements spread over a vast geographic expanse along the eastern seaboard—adjacent to often hostile native tribes and, until 1763, French settlements with claims to the same expansive wilderness to the west—risk management in colonial America was to a considerable extent personal and part of daily life. Weather throughout the colonies was far more severe than most settlers had experienced in their native countries. The winters were long and intense and violent storms throughout the year disrupted seaborne and riverine commerce, causing fatalities (especially from sudden lighting strikes) and lost property. Roads were poor or nonexistent and swollen or flooded rivers and streams common. Hurricanes devastated Charles Town, South Carolina in 1713 and 1752. Some records site a M6.7-7 earthquake in New Hampshire in 1638, only a few decades after the first settlements. Subsequent earthquakes in Massachusetts caused damage from Boston to Portland, Maine in 1727 and, again three decades later. The Governors of the affected colonies generally reacted by establishing committees to consider how damaged areas could be rebuilt, especially when commerce might be disrupted. In England, catastrophic fires in London, first in 1633, then most dramatically in 1666 and in 1676 slowly led to the notion of local authorities establishing elementary standards for construction and a rudimentary insurance mechanism to help finance commercial losses. In 1666 a small fire in a bakeshop spread rapidly amidst highly flammable wood and pitch structures. After 4 days of conflagration, 13,000 homes, 89 churches and many government headquarters— approximately 80% of the city—lay in ruins. In America the first known insurance company, essentially a mutual society in which each member owned part of the risk, was established in Charles Town (now known as Charleston), South Carolina in 1715. The “Friendly Society For Insuring Homes Against Fire” endured until 1741, when a major fire caused insolvency. Just a decade later Benjamin Franklin took part in creating the “Philadelphia Contributorship for the Insurance of Houses from Loss from Fire”. This successful venture soon spread to virtually every major settlement in the colonies—Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Providence, Charleston, Baltimore, Richmond and Norwich.
Local law enforcement in colonial America originated with the creation of the Sheriff’s Office of New Amsterdam in 1626; a decade later, in 1635, Boston established a “Night Watch” which evolved, two centuries later, into the Boston Police Department. The New York Police Department became an organized entity in 1844; other cities soon followed the example. Disaster Assistance: Language in the Constitution, especially in the 10th amendment, ratified December 15, 1792, recognized that the basic responsibility and authority for protection and public safety rested with the states and, more directly, local communities. However, there is no reference in the Constitution to any role for the federal government—or any other level of government—for providing “disaster assistance.” The federal government had primacy with regard to external threats and interstate commerce, but state and local governments were given broad “police powers” to protect the public. Realistically this meant local sheriffs and police. State authorities might get involved if tax revenues were at issue, and, beginning in 1789 Congress created the U.S. Marshal’s service to perform a variety functions for the nascent federal bureaucracy. But the reality was that the federal government had few resources to reach out to local communities, a condition that would not substantially change until well into the 20th century. In 1802 and again 1805 serious fires devastated Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a thriving deep-water seaport and shipbuilding center integral to Atlantic commerce. Local officials widened streets after the first blaze and petitioned the state for building codes that would require brick construction for warehouses and key facilities after the second event. Private sector assistance rebuilt commercial enterprises and, for, the first time, Congress directed the Secretary of the Treasury to suspend “for a limited time” bonds due to the new federal government from merchants in Portsmouth affected by the conflagration. Following the 1805 fire Congress applied a twelve-month exemption, to all persons affected by the blaze.2 When major fires struck New York City in the winter of 1835 Congress again granted relief to merchants in the area and the city requested assistance from the State of
1 National Academy of Public Administration, Coping With Catastrophe: Building an Emergency Management System to Meet People’s Needs in Natural and Manmade Disasters (Washington, 1993) written in the aftermath of experience of Hurricane Andrew, along with the 2006 White House report The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington, 2006) are two of the most insightful assessments of the institutional and structural features of the nation’s emergency management system. 2 See “History of Federal Domestic Disaster Aid Before the Civil War.” Blot Report #379, July 24, 2006. for a good summary of early efforts.
14 [a] overview of emergency management
New York as well as other nearby cities. The historic New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-12 introduced a new form of federal disaster assistance. Though not yet a state, the Missouri Territorial government petitioned the Congress for assistance, citing as precedent the aid that Congress had authorized to Venezuela following a M9 earthquake in April 1812. Congress—in a precursor to the FEMA flood-buy out started in the 1990s—authorized anyone who lost property as a result of the earthquakes to claim up to 160 acres elsewhere in the territory and, if they owned more than 640 acres, to reclaim the entire spread. The federal government, in turn, bought out the damaged property.
Civil War to World War I The events of 1861-1865 with civilian and military casualties on both sides exceeding those for all other U.S. wars combined, introduced a set of new issues, some of which—the use of military units, and what should the policy be in providing assistance to individuals– remain basic to the emergency management policy debates. The Civil War was fought with little distinction between civilian and military authorities and an unprecedented expansion of federal involvement at the community level. Widespread riots throughout many northern cities, especially as the war dragged and Congress enacted a draft, led to military units attempting to contain what were often bitter race and ethnic battles. After 1865 the U.S. Army maintained a large presence throughout the states of the former Confederacy performing basic law enforcement and other functions. In 1865 Congress created, within the War Department, the Freedman’s Bureau charged with the responsibility to “help ease transition” of the newly freed slaves. To an unprecedented degree the federal government attempted to provide direct assistance to citizens for basic needs, education and health care. Though bitterly controversial and only occasionally effective, the actions undertaken by the Army in conjunction with the Freedman’s bureau marked a historic departure for the federal government in its relationship with residents in individual communities. The emotionally charged issue of the U.S. Army’s role in Reconstruction sparked Congress, after the bitter disputes of the election of 1876, to enact the Posse Comitatus Act. Based on provisions from the 1807 Insurrection Act that sought to limit the authority of the Executive to use military units within the United States, Posse Comitatus made it unlawful for the Army to execute laws, except under specific circumstances. The tenets of Posse Comitatus remain basic to defining how the federal military can be involved in domestic emergency management though not without an occasional policy debate on potential revisions.3 As the only national institution with even a rudimentary operational network, the Army became involved in virtually every major disaster in the late 19th century—epidemics, floods, fires, and locust infestation. The Johnstown, PA flood of 1889, with some 2200 fatalities, saw the American Red
Cross involved for the first time in a disaster relief effort extending over several months. Along with aid from dozens of states and 18 foreign governments, local community organizations, especially churches, played the central role in meeting needs of the survivors. The tragic event, which had been forecast by some engineers for years, illustrated ways in which risks increased from demographic and economic changes. The South Fork Dam was originally built by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as part of an expansion of a canal network. But railroads soon supplanted canal traffic. A railroad company purchased the dam and the abandoned reservoir, sold it to a commercial developer to construct a resort for wealthy Pittsburg residents. Changes to enhance fishing and vistas may have compromised the dam. Meanwhile, downstream the population of Johnstown and surrounding villages increased. Lawsuits followed for decades after the disaster, as did additional flooding in 1894, 1907, 1924, 1927, 1936, leading the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to enact a 10% surtax on all alcohol sales to help finance disaster recovery. Two of the nation’s most devastating disasters occurred during the first decade of the 20th century—the Galveston hurricane and San Francisco earthquake. Both required sustained relief efforts, again carried out by the Army, state controlled National Guard/militia units and hundreds of volunteer organizations. In San Francisco the mayor issued “shoot to kill” directives to field units in an effort to stem rioting. Local development interests, eager to minimize risk perceptions and promote commerce, suppressed data on the total losses and rushed redevelopment. Improved building codes were rarely enforced and ultimately abandoned for several decades. Through each of these events the histories never reference emergency management. Local officials—mayors, police chiefs, and fire chiefs—led the organized responses, volunteer organizations played a pivotal role in providing assistance, and disaster recovery was ad hoc and inconsistent at best. Private capital and a small insurance market provided some financial relief. Events later in the 20th Century led to the development of emergency management as a profession, but many of the basic elements, even issues, had been debated and considered from the earliest days of American settlement.
1914-1945 America’s involvement in World War I served as the first catalyst for attempting to cobble together a national system linking local, state and federal organizations involved in protecting the civil population. The Army Appropriations Act of 1916 authorized the Secretary of War to create the Council of National Defense with a broad mandate to coordinate industrial resources needed for the war effort as well as the resources of civil society. The Council was slow to secure funding and begin working. Its efforts became eclipsed by other organizations like the powerful War Industries Board.
For example, In 1992 Federal troops were used in Los Angeles at the request of the state’s Governor and in 2006, following Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration and Congress proposed to expand the authority of the President to use the military for domestic purposes, an effort later reversed.
[state emergency management director handbook] 15
With threats to the homeland vague—there were a few instances of German espionage and uncovered plots—support from the population for government programs was largely spotty. State and local governments were encouraged to follow the example of the federal government and form state defense councils but few records seem to exist documenting the scale of involvement.
These arguments were later echoed when federal funds for counter-terrorism increased dramatically in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Governors complained that federal requirements were too stringent. Mayors argued that states were not the appropriate conduit for funds that would meet local needs. Everyone agreed that federal projects were not being coordinated locally.4
This three-level structure, with local, state and federal agencies theoretically aligned to achieve shared purposes defined at the federal level continued to frame much of the policy dialogue and debates for emergency management for decades– what role should national goals play in setting priorities for a loose collection of local, state, volunteer, faith-based organizations that had historically assisted at the time of disaster. And the role of the U.S. Army and the military structure in this new concept of civil defense had to be rethought. External threats to America had to take priority and the Army might not have the resources to play the role it had been performing since 1789.
After visiting London during the German air attacks of 1940, New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia persuaded President Roosevelt to create a separate Office of Civil Defense with the specific charge “to protect the general population in the event of an attack, keep up public morale if the United States were to enter the war in Europe and involve civilian volunteers in the country’s defense.” LaGuardia served as the first head of the Office.
The initiatives developed during the brief American involvement in World War I were largely abandoned during the 1920s. Even the devastating hurricane that struck Miami in 1926 (estimated by some as the most costly disaster in U.S. history) did nothing to spark sustained federal interest—public safety and disaster response were local and state matters. In the aftermath of the Great Depression of 1929 various New Deal programs—the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (started under Herbert H. Hoover), the Civilian Conservation Corps, Works Progress Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—provided disaster relief, and major infrastructure development and mitigation projects across the nation. In 1933 Roosevelt created the National Emergency Council, a cabinet-level organization charged with a coordinating a broad array of programs, including emergency relief. With the ominous events in Europe, questions of how to prepare America’s economy and society for potential involvement in war became significant policy issues. In September 1939 President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8629 establishing an Office of War Production and Office of Emergency Management in the White House. These agencies had broad authorities, at least in statute, to “advise and assist the President in the discharge of extraordinary responsibilities imposed upon him by any emergency arising out of war, the threat of war, imminence of war, flood, drought, or other condition threatening the public peace or safety.” The Office of Emergency Management was principally charged with planning for continuity of government operations, but civil defense, i.e. developing strategies for how an at-risk public should respond in the event of an emergency, was part of the charter. Throughout 1940 and early 1941 there were debates between the national government, state governors and the Council of Mayors over the use of federal civil defense funds. Roosevelt established a Division of State and Local Cooperation in an effort to deflect local complaints that funds were being expended without coordination with local authorities.
The Office of Civil Defense became the administrative home for other Roosevelt initiatives, including social welfare services, physical fitness and nutrition. After December 1941 concern about the level of popular preparedness grew and Roosevelt reorganized the effort, appointing James Landis to head the Office. Landis set lofty goals of enlisting 10,000,000 civil defense trained volunteers. The Office eventually claimed over 8,500,000 citizens had enlisted and undergone training. As the threat of attack on the homeland receded after the first months of the war, even members of the Roosevelt administration called for OCD to be abolished.
1945-1979: Civil Defense, the Nuclear Threat and Establishment of FEMA With World War II ended, President Truman followed the recommendation to abolish the Office of Civil Defense. Within months, as relations between the United States and the Soviet Union deteriorated, the administration began to consider new policy initiatives for national security and civil defense. The responsibility for an amalgam of different programs related to industrial production and civil defense shuttled between the Army, the Office of Civil Defense Planning in the Department of Defense and the National Security Resources Board and then transferred to the White House in 1949. Nonetheless, the implicit assumption remained that the fundamental responsibility for managing the consequences of natural disasters was local, with states to provide assistance. It could be argued that many of the civil defense programs during the Cold War were rooted in a 1946 study by the U.S. Strategic Bombing survey on the effects of World War II air attacks on urban areas. The report concluded that civil defense actions could mitigate the impacts of strategic bombing. Mass evacuations and shelters were seen as reasonable approaches to population protection. While others questioned these findings, civil defense remained a low priority for the White House and many of the state and local level civil defense structures were essentially abandoned. The issue of what form civil defense should take consumed several studies and congressional hearings without much
4 The history of this period is summarized well in: Civil Defense and Homeland Security: A Short History of National Preparedness Efforts (FEMA, September 2006); How the Office of Civil Defense Worked, Stephanie Watson, www.howstuffworks,com; and “What Is Civil Defense: World War I through the Eisenhower Administration”, www.semp.us/publications.
16 [a] overview of emergency management
consequence. The explosion of an atomic bomb by the Soviet Union in August 1949 intensified the pressure for decisions. Some state and local officials publicly called for federal guidance and funding to meet this newly perceived threat to the American homeland. Truman believed civil defense was primarily a state and local responsibility. The Civil Defense Act of 1950 created the Federal Civil Defense Administration to formulate national policy and provide guidance to states, including encouragement to develop regional mutual aid agreements.5 FCDA was to be an independent agency with an Administrator confirmed by the Senate. FCDA was also charged to foster state and local organizations and develop plans to cope with major emergencies. Many state civil defense agencies—the direct forerunners of current state and local emergency management organizations—were established to carry out what were often vague goals related to civil defense and population protection. More importantly in 1950 Congress enacted the Disaster Relief Act that identified, for the first time, the need for an “orderly and consistent means of assistance by the Federal government to state and local governments to alleviate suffering and damage resulting from major disasters; to repair essential public facilities in major disasters” and to foster the creation of state and local civil defense organizations. President Truman assigned the Housing and Home Finance head to administer the program, a function then transferred to the Civil Defense Administration in 1953. During the Eisenhower administration debates over appropriate or feasible civil defense strategies continued. Given the risk environment, with the Soviet Union developing an H-Bomb and ballistic missile systems becoming operational, Eisenhower doubted the value of shelters. He favored population dispersal made feasible by warnings and the development of evacuation plans. Funding for civil defense programs remained stagnant. Both the Pentagon and advocates of strategic deterrence viewed civil defense funds as essentially wasted spending. At the state and local level, funding (almost always entirely from the federal government) allowed civil defense organizations to survive. Several significant hurricanes—Agnes, Carol, Edna and Hazel in 1954 and Audrey in 1957—resulted in scattered federal programs providing assistance; but emergency management remained largely the province of local and state officials in what were almost always small organizations. In perhaps the most fundamental enhancement to local and state emergency management in the nation’s history, the 1958 Civil Defense Act allowed the federal government to provide 50/50 matching funds for personnel and support to agencies involved in civil defense preparedness. This program, in varying guises and permutations—it is now known as the Emergency Management Performance Grant—has remained a keystone of the emergency management system in the United States, especially at the local level. The political posturing of the early 1960s, especially the crisis over missiles in Cuba, provided a boost to the civil de-
fense program nationwide. Responsibilities were again split between an Office of Emergency Planning in the White House and an Office of Civil Defense in the Pentagon. The Department of Defense managed most of the funding. Increased support to state and local governments for shelter survey and development programs, procurement and management of stockpiles and public education programs enabled both state and local civil defense organizations to begin hiring staff and slowly increase operational capabilities. The funding and public attention to the shelter program was short-lived. The Johnson administration, faced with the growing crises spawned by civil rights protests and the war in Vietnam, gave scant attention to civil defense programs. Arguments continued over intercontinental strategic missile systems, almost always including some reference to the civilian population. In some versions sheltering and other defensive strategies were naïve and inevitably ineffective; others envisioned a widely disbursed network of shelters as a back up should anti-ballistic missile defenses develop glitches. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s Presidents annually issued between 15-25 emergency declarations. As mentioned, the 1950 Disaster Relief Act established the basic structure of federal assistance programs. State, local and some federal officials from various agencies were involved in administering the limited relief programs, but it was always clear that civil defense, not disaster relief, was the primary mission for emergency management. Not until the Disaster Relief Act of 1969 did the range of federal programs available after a disaster grow significantly, to include infrastructure repair, debris removal, temporary housing, unemployment assistance, with a Federal Coordinating Officer managing the relief efforts. A series of congressional measures—the Disaster Relief Act of 1950 and the 1988 Stafford Act—created the current system of disaster assistance. In 1968 Congress, after pressure from the insurance industry and numerous federal studies, created the Flood Insurance Program. Initially housed in Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), flood insurance was swept up a decade later in the creation of FEMA. Lasting changes occurred during Richard Nixon’s tumultuous administrations. Severe natural disasters—Hurricane Camille in 1969, the San Fernando earthquake in 1971 plus widespread flooding in 1972 and 1973—focused attention away from civil defense to natural disasters. Assessments after Camille noted the fragile arrangements to provide assistance in significant emergencies. In a major policy change, strongly supported by state and local agencies that were often hesitant participants in nuclear attack planning, the Nixon administration authorized “dual use” of federal funds. For the first time dollars previously allocated exclusively for preparation against enemy attack could now be used by state and local governments for natural hazards preparedness. There were, however, no significant changes in the level of federal funding. As part of a larger federal reorganization plan, the Nixon administration assigned responsibilities for disaster pre-
5 See Federal Emergency Management and Homeland Security: Historical Development and Legislative Options (Congressional Research Service, June 2006) for a more detailed recounting of the federal legislative and executive maneuverings after World War II.
[state emergency management director handbook] 17
paredness and relief to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The General Services Administration assumed responsibility for continuity of government, resource mobilization and strategic national stockpiles and the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency was created within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Each office had some level of authority to work with state and local counterpart agencies. Among the small state and local civil defense/emergency management offices, the fragmented federal organizational complex was painfully difficult to navigate. The growing frustration acted as a catalyst for exchanges among state directors regarding the need for a central federal focus for the jumble of programs that made up civil defense, resource mobilization, disaster response and recovery. The frequent federal organizational changes, especially over the issue of dual use of civil defense dollars, created frustration among state officials, especially when the elimination of all support to states was proposed. After several initial discussions state civil defense directors came together in 1974 to create the National Emergency Management Association to provide a professional forum to consider the complex of issues that comprised the “discipline” of emergency management. The shuffle that had characterized civil defense planning continued during President Jerry Ford’s administration when the principle of “dual use” of civil defense funds was rescinded. Civil defense funds could be used only for attack-related preparedness, including a newly conceived strategy of “Crisis Relocation Planning” in which urban residents would be relocated to rural areas. State and local agencies were involved in evacuation planning including sheltering, logistics, food and medical care, among other things. Planning for natural disasters and disaster recovery programs were clearly second-level activities. Responsibility for natural disasters was, again, viewed as the responsibility of state and local jurisdictions.
1979-2001: FEMA to 9/11 Congressional committees as well as state and local officials were vocal in their criticism of the limitations of the disjointed and narrow focus of the federal approach to civil defense. The Carter administration indicated its interest in consolidation in a plan submitted to Congress in June 1978 to combine programs in Defense, Commerce, HUD and GSA into a new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Coincidently, an incident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant on March 28, 1979 illustrated for many the fragmented status of the nation’s disaster response system. The event highlighted the complex relations between private companies, local, state and federal public authorities that continue to be part of emergency management. Soon the chemical and petroleum sectors would also become part of a complex regulatory, financial and operational mixture. Incidents in Bhopal, India in 1984 and five years later with the ExxonValdez oil spill in Alaska, resulted in federal and in some cases state, programs to create specific operational capabilities and legal frameworks that were clearly related to, but in many ways separate from, the existing civil 6
defense/emergency management systems. In March 1979 President Carter formalized creation of the FEMA with authorities, programs and personnel brought from, by one estimate, 22 different entities. Civil defense, including crisis relocation planning, continued as FEMA’s core responsibility. The agency’s mandate was broad, its range of program responsibilities included portions of the emergency broadcast system, flood insurance, civil defense, and fire prevention among others. Coordinating these disparate programs into an effective agency proved troublesome. President Carter turned to a seasoned federal government executive, John Macy, to serve as the first FEMA Director.6 Macy had a wide-ranging career in government, academe and the private sector. A series of high profile events—the Love Canal toxic emergency in New York, the eruption of Mt. St. Helen’s in 1980 -- occurred within months of FEMA’s creation. In each case FEMA often found itself with a very public role, but relatively few resources, or authorities, to promote coordination between many federal agencies, as well as state and local jurisdictions. The program disparities within FEMA became clear during the tenure of Californian Louis Giuffrida as President Reagan’s first FEMA Director. Despite growing state and local interest in natural disasters, in 1982 FEMA became embroiled in controversies surrounding an unprecedented seven-year, $4.6 billion administration proposal to vastly expand crisis relocation planning. Under the initial proposal two-thirds of the nation’s population would be “relocated” to some 3000 rural “host areas”. By some accounts, the proposal was part of an overall strategy for pressuring the Soviet Union into unsustainable defense expenditures. The rationale for the U.S. program was the assertion that the Soviet civil defense program had an effective operational plan for protecting citizens should a U.S. nuclear attack occur. Nevertheless, state emergency management agencies were pressing for funding for hurricane, flood and earthquake preparedness. The FEMA leadership, while paying lip service to an all-hazards emergency management strategy, was largely immersed in attempting, unsuccessfully, to interest Congress in funding civil defense at a level beyond anything seen in the post World War II period. When Giuffrida left in the administration in 1985 amid allegations of financial improprieties, the next FEMA Director, Julius Becton, essentially continued the separation between the agency’s national security programs and those initiatives that enjoyed the greatest support from state and local emergency management organizations. Many jurisdictions balked at the requirements of the crisis relocation strategy, even when some of the planning, especially evacuations in hurricane-prone states, was clearly beneficial. Defeat of Reagan’s civil defense proposal essentially marked the last public debate over whether a feasible “population protection” strategy for nuclear attack was possible. FEMA continued its involvement in a variety of national security programs, especially continuity of government in a postattack environment. Again, however, a sequence of major
See: “The First Ten FEMA Directors: 1979-1993,” Biot Report #561, November, 2008, www.semp.us/publications for a colorful if not always accurate account of the personalities and travails of FEMA’s first leaders.
18 [a] overview of emergency management
disasters focused attention on not just FEMA, but how local, state as well as federal organizations were, or were not, prepared to manage the aftermath of large events. These events complicated the efforts to make FEMA work as a coherent agency. In late 1984 a toxic release at a chemical plant in Bhopal, India caused the death of some 15,000 persons. In the U.S. concern over the preparedness of communities to manage the “off site” consequences of a toxic release led to a major new initiative to develop emergency plans that included warning systems, sheltering strategies, risk potential and financial responsibilities. In April 1986 the catastrophic failure of a nuclear reactor in Chernobyl, Ukraine refocused attention on the American nuclear preparedness program, again involving FEMA and a number of other federal agencies. Then in March 1989 the Exxon-Valdez oil spill led to further legislative initiatives. These events resulted in essentially independent risk management, disaster recovery and emergency preparedness programs. Each program had its own funding streams, legislative advocates, financial and liability obligations, and program requirements to be carried out by federal, state and local agencies and the private sector. FEMA, a small agency, found itself potentially saddled with even more wide-ranging if somewhat ambiguous responsibilities, but few additional authorities. In September 1989 Hurricane Hugo caused widespread damage in the Virgin Islands and the Carolinas and unleashed a torrent of criticism regarding the condition of the nation’s emergency management systems. Congressional leaders saw FEMA as slow to respond to requests for assistance from affected states and communities. A month later, the Loma Prieta earthquake struck northern California. State and local officials, often hoping to deflect criticism of the limitations of their own emergency management programs, joined the chorus of critics. A variety of proposed “fixes” were introduced—transferring emergency management to the Department of Defense and creating a Federal 911 among them. Though subsequent Congressional reports concluded “FEMA generally fulfilled its statutory obligations to supplement state and local efforts,” both Congress and the media questioned the nation’s ability to effectively coordinate the response and recovery efforts following a major disaster. President George H.W. Bush’s administration was slow to fill the top positions in FEMA and at one time a majority of the key policy posts were occupied by interim appointments of career civil servants. The criticisms leveled at the responses to these events pushed FEMA to begin developing a Federal Response Plan that would detail how the nation’s resources would be mobilized in a “multi-hazard” environment. Again, however, events intervened to make the limitations of the overall system all too apparent. FEMA’s role remained unclear. Should it be it a disaster recovery agency with limited authority for a few recovery programs, or the overall coordinator of planning, preparedness, response and recovery activities for the federal government
in cooperation with state and local entities? Hurricane Andrew devastated south Florida in late August 1992. With both local and state agencies overwhelmed by the scale of the damage, attention focused on FEMA and the federal response. Again the criticism was withering. Following a precedent he had set earlier in the responses to Hurricane Hugo, the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the Los Angeles Riots the President’s decision to appoint a cabinet secretary, and not the FEMA Director, to head the federal recovery efforts was seen by most observers as a clear sign that the administration had minimal confidence in its principal emergency management agency. The perceived inadequacies in the nation’s emergency management system in Hurricane Andrew sparked changes. Most notably, the Southern Governors’ Association, frustrated by the complexities of trying to provide support from state-tostate during a major emergency, began discussions that led to the creation of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). The Compact establishes a process for states to provide resources, logistic support and personnel to each other during times of emergency or disaster. Subsequent ratification by Congress in 1996 as Public Law 104-321 led to formal adoption by state legislatures, first in the south and, by 2005 all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands became signatories to EMAC. Following Hurricane Andrew a congressionally mandated study by the National Academy of Public Administration assessed emergency management in the United States. The Academy concluded that while a small agency like FEMA could theoretically coordinate the federal response to a major disaster, it could do so only with support of the White House and Congress. That had rarely been evidenced in the history of the nation’s emergency management efforts. The report also noted that FEMA was responsible to too many Congressional committees and that, except when a disaster occurred, no consistent constituency for emergency management existed. With the criticisms leveled at his predecessor clearly in mind, President Clinton sought to raise FEMA’s profile. In a move broadly supported by state and local emergency managers, the President appointed James Lee Witt, state director from Arkansas, to head FEMA. Witt enjoyed strong support from a White House that recognized, unlike previous administrations, that an inadequate emergency response led to political trouble, but the perception of effectiveness could have benefits. For perhaps the first time, initially with the Midwestern floods of 1993 and then the Northridge earthquake in January 1994, FEMA frequently received glowing reviews from Congress, the media and the public. In 1995 Clinton made Director Witt a member of the Cabinet and FEMA was touted as one of the “most effective” federal agencies. But, as in previous decades, events served to complicate the emergency management environment. A terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City in April, 1995 propelled a new debate over national security issues, this time known
[state emergency management director handbook] 19
as “domestic preparedness”, then “counter-terrorism” and, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 2001, “homeland security.”
issues, not the matters that had been on the emergency management agenda in the late 1990s, dominated the policy debate.
In 1996 Congress enacted the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Act, providing the first round of what would become a series of unprecedented appropriations to federal agencies and state and local jurisdictions to respond to the terrorist threat. Responsibility for setting program priorities and managing the billions of dollars allocated by Congress was assigned first to the Department of Defense, then to the Department of Justice and, after 2002, to the newly created Department of Homeland Security.
In 2004 a series of damaging hurricanes struck Florida in quick succession. The response and recovery efforts were well managed locally and by the state. FEMA performed without significant criticism. These events essentially masked the fact that FEMA’s role within DHS was uncertain and reporting relationships within the executive branch vague.
FEMA’s role in this new national priority was unclear. Witt’s emphasis was on natural hazards and “mitigation as the foundation of emergency management.” Through the wildly popular Project Impact program, FEMA provided modest funds directly to local jurisdictions for grants to enlist public and private support into risk reduction. Domestic preparedness and its relation to emergency management seemed, for FEMA and many state and local emergency mangers, unclear.
Homeland Security, Emergency Management and Katrina
In August 2005 Hurricane Katrina again altered the landscape. Devastation along the gulf coast was extreme and the nation’s emergency management system struggled to respond. In many areas the response was effective. In Mississippi, local, state and federal systems cooperated with good results. Some programs worked well—EMAC for example—with every state involved in either providing assistance or receiving persons displaced by the hurricane. However, national and international media and public attention focused overwhelmingly on the catastrophe unfolding in New Orleans. There, criticisms of emergency management, especially FEMA, were again withering. Reporting systems were overwhelmed, decisions delayed, and political disputes inevitably complicated operations.
In a four-year span two events again altered the environment of emergency management. The September 11, 2001 attacks involved national security, law enforcement, fire and rescue services, emergency management professionals and many others, first in the response and then in the debates on what lessons should be learned. The consequences of such a serious attack on the American homeland were certain to be significant.
As Congress considered how to respond, state and local emergency managers effectively informed the outcome, with the resulting legislation further defining and enhancing FEMA’s role. The Post-Katrina Reform Act sought to clarify federal reporting relations, rather strict professional standards stated for the position of FEMA administrator as well as requirements for specific preparedness objectives and detailed planning for future “catastrophic” events.
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002, and the requirement for Governors to establish homeland security functions, essentially reintroduced many of the national security preparedness/domestic preparedness issues that had dominated policy and program debates since at least 1939. The context was different—international and domestic terrorism, what needed to be done to make prevention of future attacks the top objective, what role should local and state law enforcement play in “intelligence” and what equipment was needed. The strain between a focus on national priorities like homeland security (or earlier civil defense) and natural disasters had been going on for decades.
The Obama administration made clear that FEMA would remain part of DHS, apparently, for the time being, ending the debate over where federal emergency management should be housed in the bureaucracy. At the state and local level homeland security and emergency management functions remain varied, but relations generally good. The massive Deep Water Horizon oil spill of 2010 illustrated that the emergency management portfolio remains very broad, the stakeholders involved widely varied, and that many programs are not necessarily consistent with one another. Then again, it seems clear that they never have been.
Emergency management was clearly active in this environment. In some states homeland security and emergency management were the same, in others Governors set up separate offices of homeland security. New, well-funded programs had to be administered and emergency services offices often performed this function while feeling that their priorities were being ignored. FEMA was now part of the very large DHS, not a separate agency with cabinet status. The emergency management community at all levels was openly skeptical that FEMA belonged in DHS. Funding for programs in all-hazards preparedness remained largely constant, but homeland security
20 [a] overview of emergency management
From 1917 forward the stated goals first of civil defense and now homeland security have consistently exceeded the resources allocated, except perhaps for a brief period immediately after the terrorist attacks of 2001. State and local support has been inconsistent and generally modest. At a time of growing fiscal constraints at all levels of government long-term support for emergency management remains problematic, even while the risks from natural, technological and man-made disasters are increasing worldwide. And then there’s climate change…
A-3. Roles and Responsibilities of State Government States recognize that local governments have the first line of responsibility in the preparation for, response to and recovery from most emergencies and disasters. Actions by the state are always in support of local government. Strengthening the capabilities of local government will help prevent the loss of life and property during disasters, deliver assistance to victims most expediently, and reduce costs. An effective emergency management system recognizes the necessary integration of local, tribal, state, regional and federal organizations capable of creating a single management structure in response to disasters. State government should ensure that: •E mergency management is recognized as a critical government service. •H azards and threats are identified and emergency operations plans are in place to address them; mitigation and prevention activities are encouraged and supported. •E mergency management agencies are appropriately staffed, trained and resourced. •Emergency operations centers are functional and used to coordinate disaster response; interoperable communications systems are in place; and information-sharing takes place between all response entities. •E mergency warning and notification systems exist. Government has the ability to provide clear and timely information to the public during times of disaster. •M utual aid systems help facilitate the request or provision of supplemental disaster assistance when needed. • T he private sector, volunteer agencies and other key stakeholders are engaged with government in planning and preparedness activities, and are effectively utilized during disaster response and recovery. •C itizens understand their responsibility and take action to prepare for disasters and lesson their reliance on government. •C ommunication and coordination take place regularly between emergency management agencies at all levels of government.i
Role of the Governor As the state’s chief executive, the governor is responsible for the public safety and welfare of the people of his or her state. During and following an emergency or disaster, a governor may be called upon to make difficult or controversial decisions in order to save lives and protect property and resources. During a proclaimed emergency or disaster, a governor has extraordinary powers, including the authority to call up the National Guard, order evacuations, access emergency resources including emergency funding, seize property and suspend state laws and regulations. Effective emergency management efforts enhance the public’s perception of the
governor and the emergency management program; lessthan-effective efforts reflect unfavorably upon an administration. The governor’s role in emergency management is to: • Establish direct and close working relationships with the emergency management team. • Understand the hazards that threaten jurisdictions in the state and what is being done to address them. • Understand state laws and authorities for emergencies and disasters and execute them when needed. Understand the state emergency operations plan and the role of the governor. • Assess the state’s emergency management resources and capabilities and support efforts to address gaps or shortfalls. • Encourage all government agencies and business leaders to coordinate and collaborate with the emergency management agency. • Encourage individuals, families and businesses to develop an emergency plan and be self-sufficient in the immediate aftermath of a disaster.
Phases of Emergency Management Preparedness: Activities undertaken to prepare for disasters and emergencies and facilitate future response and recovery efforts. Includes writing emergency operations plans and procedures, training, exercises, evacuation planning, public education and warning. Mitigation: Activities undertaken to avoid, eliminate or reduce the probability of occurrence, or to lessen the effects of an emergency or disaster. It involves actions to protect lives and property and to defend against attacks. Response: Activities undertaken in the immediate aftermath of a disaster that help to reduce casualties and damage, and that expedite recovery. Response activities include warning, evacuation, rescue and other similar operations. Recovery: Reconstruction, repair and rebuilding activities intended to restore a community. In addition to permanent repairs to bridges, roads and buildings, these activities include helping victims return to permanent housing, community redevelopment activities, and long-term redevelopment planning.
• Know what actions to take before requesting a presidential or other disaster or emergency declaration. • Learn the types of assistance available for state and local governments, private citizens and businesses in the event of an emergency or disaster. • Determine actions to take following a disaster or emergency declaration, to effectively implement state and federal assistance. • Know and prepare the process for requesting federal and other assistance. • When a disaster occurs, establish communication with the emergency management agency and coordinate messages to the public.
[state emergency management director handbook] 21
The National Governors Association (NGA) produced A Governor’s Guide to Emergency Management, a very useful document for governors and staff. The guide is accessible from the NGA website www.nga.gov.
Role of the Emergency Management Agency Emergency management is an activity, a profession, a discipline and a critical government agency. Its purpose is to apply resources and efforts to mitigate, prevent when possible, protect where feasible, and to respond and to recover from all threats and hazards that impact the safety and security of the nation. Government has the responsibility to ensure an effective response to any disaster or emergency that threatens the residents and communities of a state. The emergency management agency is responsible for: • Identifying and assessing potential hazards; •D eveloping comprehensive emergency operations plans and procedures; • Training personnel; • Conducting drills and exercises to test plans; •W orking among levels of government, volunteer agencies and the private sector to ensure that all understand their roles and responsibilities during disaster response; •P roviding critical information to the public before, during and after a disaster occurs; • Facilitating mutual aid; •A dministering disaster assistance programs; and •P roviding overall coordination for disaster response.ii
Role of the State Emergency Management Director The state emergency management director is an appointed position in 47 states. In 34 states the position is appointed by the governor. In some states, the emergency management director also serves as the homeland security advisor. More than half of state emergency management directors serve as the state administering agency (SAA) which has responsibility for the administration of federal emergency management and homeland security grant programs. The state emergency management director is a subject matter expert and trusted advisor to the governor. At all times and regardless of personal consequences, the emergency management director provides a full and honest account of the capabilities of state and local government and is responsible for addressing any gaps or shortfalls.
“The state director is a leader of his/her agency, within state government, and within the state itself. You have management and leadership roles, and expectations will be high.” Jim Mullen, Director, Washington Division of Emergency Management
The duties of the emergency management director are to: • Establish and maintain an integrated statewide emergency response structure. • Establish and maintain an effective organization that includes plans, staff, facilities, and equipment. • Gauge, monitor, and support improvement of the emergency management capabilities of local government. • Continuously assess and improve state emergency management capabilities. • Develop an effective public information capability and establish media relations. • Develop effective coalitions with volunteer agencies, nongovernmental organizations, business and industry. • Plan for the whole community including children, the elderly, the poor, disabled and pets. • Serve as the state coordinating officer (SCO) during emergencies declared by the governor, facilitating the acquisition and application of state and federal resources upon request by impacted jurisdictions. • Serve as the governor’s authorized representative (GAR) during the recovery process, channeling and coordinating federal recovery aid and assistance to impacted jurisdictions. State director recommended qualities, abilities, and knowledge include: • Experience in or knowledge of the principles of emergency management • Experience in or understanding of local, state and/or federal government • Working knowledge of public policy development and the states’ role in the federal system • Ability to work with elected officials at all levels of government; demonstrated understanding of the legislative process • A record of progressively challenging leadership positions; ability to manage organizations that expand during crisis and rapidly changing situations • Experience in strategic planning, organizational development, and financial management
22 [a] overview of emergency management
•A bility to coordinate across organizations and agencies and among different levels of government, and work with the private sector •D emonstrated ability in problem solving and successful decision-making, especially during crisis and rapidly changing situations •E xcellent communications skills to deal effectively with state executive branch, legislature, Congress, other state agencies, the media, citizens and other constituents and stakeholders State director desirable qualities, abilities and knowledge include: •U nderstanding of the concept of all-hazards emergency management • L eadership experience in prior disasters; understanding of disaster declaration processes •S kills in developing, implementing and assessing comprehensive emergency response plans, training programs and exercises •F amiliarity with state and federal programs, policies, laws and authorities related to emergency management •U nderstanding of the National Incident Management Systemiii Consider the Following: •E mergency management is a coordinating and facilitative operation. • T he image or reputation of the emergency management organization among the public and within the government is vital. •N o one person or organization can be successful in major crisis management. Good operations will have lots of people and agencies to take credit. •E ffective emergency management embraces the “whole community” concept, recognizing that government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and citizens all play an important role.
“It’s not about me or my agency. It’s about our purpose and what we’re trying to accomplish together.” Nancy Dragani, Executive Director, Ohio Emergency Mgmt Agency
Top 10 Things a New State Emergency Management Director Needs to Know to Be Successful—An Emergency Management Perspective By Doug Hoell, Director, North Carolina Emergency Management Agency; and Mike Womack, Director, Mississippi Emergency Management Agency 1. Establish a solid/positive working relationship with your local emergency management coordinators and local elected officials. 2. Evaluate your state’s likely hazards and associated risks to people, property and infrastructure. In the process, attempt to identify and understand the critical interdependencies between systems and across boundaries. It is possible for an event in another state to cause your state significant impact. 3. Develop function based response plans based on the emergency support functions (ESFs), and the National Incident Management System (NIMS) so the plan may be easily adapted to any hazard. 4. Train and exercise your emergency response network of personnel, communications systems, response teams and capabilities, and partnerships with external organizations on a frequent and regular basis. Additionally, promote and support the emergency management profession by advocating for standards and certification. 5. Build a reliable mutual aid system internal to your state, and participate in the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). 6. Build a strong working relationship with members of your state legislature, and constantly promote emergency management as a priority business of government. 7. Manage your budget and operate within your means. Seek new and innovative ways to generate revenue. 8. Recognize disaster as an opportunity to promote and advance emergency management (awareness, programs and funding). 9.Recognize that the fundamental function of emergency management is “problem solving”. The best approach is to solve problems before they happen through quality preplanning, training and exercise. However, there will always be issues in disaster response and recovery that have not been addressed in the pre-planning. Practical, logical, innovative thinking is required. 10. Become an active member of NEMA where you may share your experience and learn from your peers.
[state emergency management director handbook] 23
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Definition, Vision, Mission, Principles Definition Emergency management is the managerial function charged with creating the framework within which communities reduce vulnerability to hazards and cope with disasters. Vision Emergency management seeks to promote safer, less vulnerable communities with the capacity to cope with hazards and disasters. Mission Emergency management protects communities by coordinating and integrating all activities necessary to build, sustain, and improve the capability to mitigate against, prepare for, respond to, and recover from threatened or actual natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or other man-made disasters. Principles Emergency management must be: 1. C omprehensive – emergency managers consider and take into account all hazards, all phases, all stakeholders and all impacts relevant to disasters. 2. P rogressive – emergency managers anticipate future disasters and take preventive and preparatory measures to build disaster-resistant and disaster-resilient communities. 3. R isk-Driven – emergency managers use sound risk management principles (hazard identification, risk analysis, and impact analysis) in assigning priorities and resources. 4. Integrated – emergency managers ensure unity of effort among all levels of government and all elements of a community.
5. C ollaborative – emergency managers create and sustain broad and sincere relationships among individuals and organizations to encourage trust, advocate a team atmosphere, build consensus, and facilitate communication. 6. Coordinated – emergency managers synchronize the activities of all relevant stakeholders to achieve a common purpose. 7. Flexible – emergency managers use creative and innovative approaches in solving disaster challenges. 8. Professional – emergency managers value a science and knowledge-based approach based on education, training, experience, ethical practice, public stewardship and continuous improvement. iv
i Are You Ready to Lead? An Elected Official’s Guide to Emergency Management, National Emergency Management Association, 2010, http://www.nemaweb.org. ii Are You Ready to Lead? An Elected Official’s Guide to Emergency Management, National Emergency Management Association, 2010, http://www.nemaweb.org.
State Emergency Management Director Recommended Criteria, National Emergency Management Association, 2006.
24 [a] overview of emergency management
Principles of Emergency Management, Emergency Management Institute, 2010.
[B] Managing the Organization B-1. Laws and Authorities: Local, Tribal, State and Federal The state emergency management director must be familiar with emergency management-related laws and authorities at all levels of government. Federalism 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Dec. 15, 1791) The National Response Framework recognizes that virtually all emergencies start and end locally; as the scale and/or complexity increases, state and then federal support may be needed. The 10th Amendment also reserves “police powers” to the states. Police powers are the inherent authority of a state government to impose restrictions on individual rights for the sake of public welfare, security, morality and safety. The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States. The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.i Arguably, from time to time the federal government has been known to overreach with its powers, and this may be particularly true during large-scale or catastrophic disasters. When this occurs it may be advisable to remind federal partners of the sovereign rights of states.
Local Government In the United States, some states constitutionally or legislatively grant home rule to cities, counties, and municipalities within their borders. These are called “home rule states.” Local governments in home rule states are free to pass laws and ordinances as they see fit to further their operations, within the bounds of the state and federal constitutions. In other states, local governments have only the authority expressly granted to them by state legislatures, typically in accordance with the legal principle known as Dillon’s Rule.
John Forest Dillon, for whom Dillon’s Rule is named, was the chief justice of the Iowa Supreme Court approximately 100 years ago. He was also one of the greatest authorities of his time on municipal law and a prolific writer on local governments. Judge Dillon was a man who greatly distrusted local governments and local government officials. He is quoted as saying that “those best fitted by their intelligence, business experience, capacity and moral character” usually did not hold local office and that the conduct of municipal affairs was generally “unwise and extravagant.” Perhaps largely because of such strong beliefs, Judge Dillon expounded his famous rule, which was quickly adopted by state supreme courts around the nation. What is Dillon’s Rule? Dillon’s Rule is used in interpreting state law when there is a question of whether or not a local government has a certain power. Lawyers call it a rule of statutory construction. Dillon’s Rule construes grants of power to localities very narrowly. The bottom line is that if there is a question about a local government’s power or authority, then the local government does not receive the benefit of the doubt. Under Dillon’s Rule, one must assume that the local government does not have the power in question. In legal language, the first part of Dillon’s Rule reads like this: Local governments have only three types of powers, those granted in express words, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted and those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation, not simply convenient, but indispensable. It is the second part of Dillon’s Rule however, that puts the vice on local government’s powers. This part states that if there is any reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred on a local government, then the power has not been conferred. This is known as a rule strict construction of local government powers.
Thirty-nine states employ Dillon’s Rule to define the power of local governments. Of those 39 states, 31 apply the rule to all municipalities and eight appear to use the rule for only certain municipalities. Ten states do not adhere to Dillon’s Rule at all; yet Dillon’s Rule and home rule states are not polar opposites. No state reserves all power to itself, and none
[state emergency management director handbook] 25
devolves all of its authority to localities. Virtually every local government possesses some degree of local autonomy, and every state legislature retains some degree of control over local governments.ii Dillon’s Rule is used in interpreting state law when there is a question of whether or not a local government has a certain power. It is important for the state emergency management director to be familiar with the specific authorities of local government in order to understand the appropriate state/local interface on emergency management-related activities.
Tribal Government There are 565 federally recognized tribes in the United States. Federal recognition is granted by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This means the tribes are sovereign nations and have been granted the right to self-govern. They are entitled to certain federal benefits, services, and protections because of the trust relationship they have with the federal government. As such, tribal governments are responsible for coordinating resources to address incidents. When tribal resources are overwhelmed, tribal leaders seek assistance from states or the federal government. Tribal governments can elect to deal directly with the federal government for certain types of assistance, but to obtain assistance through the Stafford Act, a state governor must request a presidential declaration on behalf of a tribe. Once a presidential declaration is given, tribes may choose to work with the state as a sub-grantee or have the option to work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a direct grantee. There are 314 federally recognized reservations. This means that some tribes do not have a land base and members live within other jurisdictions but still retain the rights of tribal governance. Each tribe has a unique culture. It’s important to acknowledge this and not make assumptions that any two tribal communities will look like or operate in the same way. FEMA updated its tribal policy on June 29, 2010 after extensive consultation with tribal governments. This policy outlines the guiding principles and establishes implementation objectives under which all employees of FEMA are to operate with regard to federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal governments.iii www.fema.gov/government/tribal/natamerpolcy.shtm.
• Mutual aid • Emergency funding • Continuity of government operations In at least 50 states and two territories, the governor has the authority to issue a state disaster declaration or to initiate a state response that is comparable to the authority given the president of the United States in the Stafford Act. The mayor has the authority in the District of Columbia. The lieutenant governor also has the authority to make a state disaster declaration in at least seven states, while the state emergency management director has the authority in four states. To move citizens out of harm’s way, the governor has explicit authority codified in law to direct and compel emergency evacuations in 41 states. In 23 states, the mayor has the authority to issue mandatory evacuations. Nine states allow the county/parish commissioner or judge executive to issue a mandatory evacuation. Other states allow a wide range of individuals to require evacuations, from sheriffs to public health officers. States use a variety of penalties to enforce evacuation orders. Most of the punishments are classified as misdemeanors. The most common penalties are removing individuals by force, arresting them or imposing fines. However, in most states there are no penalties for violating a mandatory evacuation order.iv It is important for the state emergency management director to also be familiar with public health authorities. In a public health emergency, the public health secretary has the authority to issue an emergency declaration in many states and serves as the lead state agency in the response. Public health statutes may address such controversial issues as quarantine and isolation. These authorities will vary from state to state. It’s important that state emergency management and public health officials understand their respective roles and responsibilities during public health emergencies. They must plan, train, and exercise together and communicate well to ensure an integrated and seamless response. The state emergency management director may also need to become familiar with the emergency authorities of other state agencies that play critical roles during times of emergency or disaster. Other agencies may include the National Guard, department of public safety, department of transportation, or similar agencies.
State Government Every state, territory and the District of Columbia has statutes in place that provide specific authorities during emergencies and disasters. It is vital that the state emergency management director be intimately familiar with state emergency management laws and able to advise the governor on his or her authorities. Typically, statutes address the following issues: • Identification of key positions within state government and their responsibilities • Emergency declaration procedures • Types of assistance that may be provided by the state
[b] managing the organization
Federal Government U.S. Department of Homeland Security The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is the primary authorizing legislation for the Department of Homeland Security.
The DHS authorized missions are: (6 U.S.C.111) • Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; •R educe the vulnerability of the United States to terrorists at home; •M inimize the damage and assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks that occur; and •A ct as the focal point regarding natural and manmade crises and emergency planning. www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf Homeland Security Presidential Directives Homeland security presidential directives are issued by the president on matters pertaining to homeland security. www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/editorial_0607.shtm •HSPD – 1: Organization and Operation of the Homeland Security Council. Ensures coordination of all homeland security-related activities among executive departments and agencies and promotes the effective development and implementation of all homeland security policies. •HSPD – 2: Combating Terrorism Through Immigration Policies. Provides for the creation of a task force which will work aggressively to prevent aliens who engage in or support terrorist activity from entering the United States and to detain, prosecute, or deport any such aliens who are within the United States. •HSPD – 3: Homeland Security Advisory System. Establishes a comprehensive and effective means to disseminate information regarding the risk of terrorist acts to federal, state, and local authorities and to the American people. •HSPD – 4: National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. Applies new technologies, increases emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis, strengthens alliance relationships, and establishes new partnerships with former adversaries to counter this threat in all of its dimensions. •HSPD – 5: Management of Domestic Incidents. Enhances the ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents by establishing a single, comprehensive national incident management system. •HSPD – 6: Integration and Use of Screening Information. Provides for the establishment of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. •HSPD – 7: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection. Establishes a national policy for federal departments and agencies to identify and prioritize United States critical infrastructure and key resources and to protect them from terrorist attacks. •HSPD – 8: National Preparedness. Identifies steps for improved coordination in response to incidents. This directive describes the way federal departments and agencies will prepare for such a response, including prevention activities during the early stages of a terrorism incident. This directive is a companion to HSPD-5.
•HSPD – 8 Annex 1: National Planning. Further enhances the preparedness of the United States by formally establishing a standard and comprehensive approach to national planning. •HSPD – 9: Defense of United States Agriculture and Food. Establishes a national policy to defend the agriculture and food system against terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. •HSPD – 10: Biodefense for the 21st Century. Provides a comprehensive framework for the nation’s biodefense. •HSPD – 11: Comprehensive Terrorist-Related Screening Procedures. Implements a coordinated and comprehensive approach to terrorist-related screening that supports homeland security, at home and abroad. This directive builds upon HSPD – 6. •HSPD – 12: Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors. Establishes a mandatory, government-wide standard for secure and reliable forms of identification issued by the federal government to its employees and contractors (including contractor employees). •HSPD – 13: Maritime Security Policy. Establishes policy guidelines to enhance national and homeland security by protecting U.S. maritime interests. •HSPD – 15: U.S. Strategy and Policy in the War on Terror (classified directive). •HSPD - 16: Aviation Strategy. Details a strategic vision for aviation security while recognizing ongoing efforts, and directs the production of a national strategy for aviation security and supporting plans. •HSPD - 17: Nuclear Materials Information Program (classified directive). •HSPD – 18: Medical Countermeasures against Weapons of Mass Destruction. Establishes policy guidelines to draw upon the considerable potential of the scientific community in the public and private sectors to address medical countermeasure requirements relating to CBRN threats. •HSPD – 19: Combating Terrorist Use of Explosives in the United States. Establishes a national policy, and calls for the development of a national strategy and implementation plan, on the prevention and detection of, protection against, and response to terrorist use of explosives in the United States. •HSPD – 20: National Continuity Policy. Establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of federal government structures and operations and a single national continuity coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of federal continuity policies. •HSPD – 20 Annex A: Continuity Planning. Assigns executive departments and agencies to a category commensurate with their COOP/COG/ECG responsibilities during an emergency.
[state emergency management director handbook] 27
•HSPD – 21: Public Health and Medical Preparedness. Establishes a national strategy that will enable a level of public health and medical preparedness sufficient to address a range of possible disasters.
Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of states, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.”
•HSPD – 23: National Cyber Security Initiative (classified directive).
Emergency Emergency means “any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement state and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lesson or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.”
•HSPD – 24: Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security. Establishes a framework to ensure that federal executive departments use mutually compatible methods and procedures regarding biometric information of individuals, while respecting their information privacy and other legal rights. •HSPD-25: Arctic Region Policy. Establishes the policy of the United States with respect to the Arctic region and directs related implementation actions.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Primary FEMA Legal Authorities •Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq., as amended by the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA); www.fema.gov/about/stafact.shtm •H omeland Security Act, P.L. 106-296, as amended; www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf •4 4 CFR Part 206 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title44/44cfr206_ main_02.tpl
The Stafford Act The Stafford Act authorizes the president to provide major disaster and emergency declarations to states for events in the United States that overwhelm state and local capability, upon request by a governor. Major Disasters and Emergencies Section 401 provides the requirements to be included in the Governor’s request for a declaration of a major disaster. Section 501 provides requirements to be included in the Governor’s request for a declaration of an emergency. Major Disaster In the Stafford Act, a major disaster is defined as “any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this 28
[b] managing the organization
A full description of federal disaster assistance programs authorized through the Stafford Act can be found in Section F. Recovery in the State Director Handbook. Code of Federal Regulations Title 44 – Emergency Management Assistance The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. Title 44 is Emergency Management Assistance. The emergency management director and senior staff, particularly legal staff, should be familiar with CFR 44, Section 206. Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKREMA) was enacted to address various shortcomings identified in the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. The act enhances FEMA’s responsibilities and its autonomy within DHS. FEMA is to lead and support the nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. The Post-Katrina Act extends beyond changes to FEMA’s organizational and management structure and includes legislative reforms in other emergency management areas that were considered shortcomings during Hurricane Katrina. PKREMA represents the most significant legislation to affect FEMA in recent years. At the request of Congress, NEMA served as a subject matter expert and provided technical assistance in developing the legislation.
Other Significant Emergency Management Legislation and Authorities Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 Public Law 110-53 provides for the implementation of various recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, created by Congress following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Much of the law addresses improving intelligence and information sharing within the federal government, and with state, local and tribal governments.
The 9/11 Act also reauthorized the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, authorized the Emergency Operations Center Grant Program and the Homeland Security Grant Program. It also created a voluntary private sector preparedness accreditation and certification program.
the risk to life and property from future earthquakes. FEMA is designated the agency with primary responsibility with planning for the federal response to a catastrophic earthquake.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 More popularly known as “Superfund,” CERCLA was passed to provide the needed general authority for federal and state governments to respond directly to hazardous substance incidents and requires facilities to notify authorities of accidental releases of hazardous materials.
Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006 The Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act (PETS) (Public Law 109-308) was a bi-partisan initiative in the United States House of Representatives to require states seeking FEMA assistance to accommodate pets and service animals in their plans for evacuating residents facing disasters. www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusfd2006pl109_ 308.htm Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), often referred to as DMA2K, provides the legal basis for FEMA mitigation planning requirements for state, local and Indian tribal governments as a condition of mitigation grant assistance. DMA 2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by repealing the previous mitigation planning provisions and replacing them with a new set of requirements that emphasize the need for state, local, and Indian tribal entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. The requirement for a state mitigation plan is included as a condition of disaster assistance, adding incentives for increased coordination and integration of mitigation activities at the state level through the establishment of requirements for two different levels of state plans. DMA 2000 also established a new requirement for local mitigation plans and authorized up to seven percent of HMGP funds available to a state for development of state, local, and Indian tribal mitigation plans. At the request of Congress, NEMA served as a subject matter expert and provided technical assistance in developing the legislation. www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1935 Executive Order 12148, FR 43239, Federal Emergency Management, July 20, 1979 This Executive Order transferred functions and responsibilities associated with federal emergency management to the FEMA director. It assigns the FEMA director the responsibility to establish federal policies for and to coordinate all civil defense and civil emergency planning, management, mitigation, and assistance functions of executive agencies.
www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 Public Law 99-499 governs hazardous materials planning and right-to-know. www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/lawsregs/ epcraover.htm Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA) Public Law 101-615 provides funding to improve capabilities to respond to hazardous materials incidents. www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/ sr0980/rev1/vol-1-sec-6-to-end.pdf The Atomic Energy Act, as amended Public Law 85-256 provides for a system of compensating the public for harm caused by a nuclear accident. www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/governing-laws.html Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended Public Law 94-498 created the U.S. Fire Administration and National Fire Academy; improved professional training and education oriented toward improving the effectiveness of the fire services, including an increased emphasis on preventing fires and on reducing injuries to firefighters; created a national system for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of fire data to help local fire services; and otherwise established a coordinated program to support and reinforce the fire prevention and control activities of state and local governments. http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/ PL93-498.pdf
www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/ executive-order/12148.html Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Public Law 108-360) provides for the establishment of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) to reduce
[state emergency management director handbook] 29
B-2. State Emergency Management Organizational Structures Organizational structures for emergency management agencies vary widely among states and are usually based on the specific needs of a state. Currently, in 13 states, the emergency management agency is located within the department of public safety; in 18 states it is located within the military department under the auspices of the adjutant general; and in 12 states, it is within the governor’s office. It should be noted that in seven of the ten states with the most disaster declarations since 1953, the emergency management director reports directly to the governor.v
what are referred to as “disaster reservist programs.” Such programs are mainly comprised of retired state government personnel and/or military personnel who are trained and on call during emergencies and disasters. Typically, they serve in community relations positions and provide information to impacted communities and citizens regarding the availability of disaster assistance and how to access it. This is a good way to enhance staff capacity without adding positions and salary costs, and it ensures that a trained cadre of supplemental personnel is available when needed.
Regardless of where the emergency management agency is located within state government, it is imperative that the director have access to the governor during times of emergency and disaster. Layers of bureaucracy can impede communication and decision-making when time is of the essence during a crisis.
The state director must be able to manage an organization that may expand or contract, based on the number and frequency of disasters that impact the state. For those states that have infrequent disasters or emergencies, it’s important to maintain the skill levels of the emergency management staff. Besides training, allowing staff to go on mutual aid deployments through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) can help not only to maintain current skills, but may also enable staff members to collect new ideas and best practices from other states. Mutual aid is another way to surge staff capacity when needed and provides access to some of the most experienced emergency management personnel in the nation.
Staffing levels also vary widely among states and may range from eleven personnel in a small state to more than 250 personnel in a large state. It is the responsibility of state government to ensure that adequate numbers of personnel are assigned to public-safety related agencies and appropriately trained. During times of disaster, many states have the need to “surge” their staff and therefore have created
State Emergency Management Organizational Structures
ADJUTANT GENERAL/ MILITARY AFFAIRS
COMBINED HOMELAND SECURITY/ EMERGENCY MGT.
Arkansas California Connecticut Florida Georgia Guam Illinois Louisiana Maryland New York Oklahoma Pennsylvania U.S. Virgin Islands
Alaska Arizona Hawaii Idaho Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Montana Nebraska North Dakota Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Washington West Virginia Wisconsin
American Samoa District of Columbia Indiana Puerto Rico
Massachusetts Minnesota Missouri Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio South Dakota Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
Michigan New Jersey
Alabama Colorado Mississippi New Mexico
[D] [b] mitigation managing the organization
B-3. How States Fund Emergency Management Programs Historically, emergency management has been underfunded in most states, particularly during lean budget years. During non-disaster periods it is difficult for emergency management to compete for funding against other more politically popular programs, such as education, economic development, and health and welfare. The challenge for the state emergency management director is to “tell the story” of emergency management in a way that continues to make emergency management a priority relative to a broad array of constituencies and generates budget support from the governor’s office and the state legislature – even in the absence of a disaster.
State Funding Mechanisms States rely on a variety of funding streams to support emergency management programs at the state and local government level. An appropriation by the state legislature is the primary funding mechanism. In states where nuclear power plants are located, fees or assessments are collected and used to support emergency management. In some states other fees or assessments are in place to provide supplemental funds. Gas taxes and fees on public and private insurance policies have been used to pay for emergency management in some states; however, state legislatures have become increasingly unwilling to impose any new “tax” on citizens or business.
State Disaster Funding States pay for disasters in a variety of ways. The majority of states have a separate disaster trust fund in place, and funds are appropriated either annually or as needed to maintain an adequate amount of money available at all times. Some states request that the legislature appropriate funds for disasters only after they occur. Many states have established their own state-funded assistance programs to help citizens and businesses when a disaster or emergency doesn’t meet the criteria for a presidential disaster declaration. According to a NEMA survey published in 2010, twenty-eight states provide some kind of assistance, in either the form of public assistance; individual assistance; unmet needs; and/ or other assistance. This last category includes programs and sources such as unemployment assistance, local government loans and a governor’s disaster fund.vi The breakdown for these state-funded programs is as follows: • 22 states with public assistance programs;
One example of an innovative approach to generating funds is the “Secure Indiana” license plate sales program which funds the Indiana Homeland Security Foundation. The foundation, one of the first of its kind in the nation, offers financial support for critical public safety needs across Indiana. Local public safety organizations in Indiana communities are eligible to apply for such projects as equipping emergency responders with personal protective equipment, acquiring equipment for use by emergency responders, and training for emergency responders.
• 9 states with individual assistance programs;
The state of Florida has a program that generates funding for competitive emergency management grants to state or regional agencies, nonprofit organizations, and local governments. The purpose of the grant is to support projects that will further state or local emergency management objectives. The Florida Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund was implemented in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew which devastated the state in 1992. Just three weeks after the disaster, then Governor Lawton Chiles appointed what became known as the “Lewis Commission” to make recommendations for improving the state’s disaster preparedness. Recommendation #94 stated, “The Legislature should establish an Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust fund to be administered by the Department of Community Affairs.” The legislature did enact a law that assessed an annual $2.00 surcharge per policy on homeowner insurance policies and an annual $4.00 surcharge per policy on business/commercial insurance policies. The Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund may not supplant existing funds.
Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG)
• 1 state with an unmet needs program; and • 5 states with other assistance programs. State-funded programs include various types of support, including loans, grants, matching funds and other assistance. In some cases, states have established the programs, but they are un-funded, have no permanent funding source or the amount fluctuates due to financial constraints.
Federal grant funding is critical to increasing and sustaining the capabilities of state and local emergency management. Provided through FEMA, the EMPG is the only source of federal funding directed to state and local governments for all-hazards emergency preparedness capacity building. The EMPG is designed as a pass-through program that allows states to share funds with local governments. While there is no pass-through requirement, most states allocate portions of the grant to support local emergency management. The EMPG is intended to be a 50 percent federal and 50 percent state/local matching program. This shared commitment demonstrates the importance of a strong emergency management program at all levels of government. In most cases, the state and local government commitment far outweighs the match requirements.
[state emergency management director handbook] 31
In recent years Congress has steadily increased funding for EMPG; however, there remains a significant shortfall, and not all jurisdictions are reimbursed for their emergency management expenses at the 50 percent level. Further, the funding shortfall prevents some eligible jurisdictions from being able to participate in the program. The current budgetary environment on Capitol Hill does not bode well for continued increases in EMPG funding. Congress is also asking that performance measures be established to quantify what capabilities are being built with EMPG funds. NEMA is working in partnership with IAEM to develop performance metrics that will demonstrate to Congress the capabilities being built with EMPG funds. It’s important that state directors regularly communicate with their congressional delegation to “tell the story” of emergency management and how EMPG funds are at work in their districts. EMPG funds are used, in part, to supplement the costs of full-time and part-time staff positions. Additional emergency management activities that are eligible under EMPG include: • Planning • Training • Exercise • Emergency Operations Centers • Public Education and Awareness • Equipment (based on the Approved Equipment List) • Assessment and Accreditation While EMPG funds are flexible and can be used for any number of emergency management related programs and activities, it is important to note once again that EMPG is a “performance” grant. As such, citizens, local and state leaders, FEMA and Congress are interested in measuring the effectiveness of this investment. Performance measurement should be a key consideration in demonstrating the need and use of these grant dollars.
EMPG Allocations to Local Government States allocate EMPG funds using a variety of factors. For example, in FY 2009, 24 states allocated EMPG dollars by determining a base amount for each jurisdiction, while 30 states used population as a determinant. Eight states require local jurisdictions to meet certain performance goals within their programs. On average, states allocate a little more than 47 percent of EMPG funds to local jurisdictions. There are other factors as well, including hazards or risks, the number of staff in the program, and whether the local emergency management director works full or part-time. Twelve states have either state statutes or administrative rules that influence how EMPG funds are to be allocated. In New Hampshire, for instance, an administrative rule requires local communities to have a local emergency operations plan as well as a hazard mitigation plan. State statute in Idaho requires that the state pass through 34 percent of EMPG funds to local jurisdictions.vii States may maintain some portion of EMPG funds to support local programs through such activities as statewide conferences, training, planning expertise, grant administrative assistance, public education and outreach, interoperable
[b] managing the organization
communications, statewide alert and warning systems, and facilitation of exercises. States may vary in how they choose to allocate funds to local jurisdictions. Regardless of the approach, it’s recommended that the state emergency management director ensure transparency with local directors regarding the methodology used to allocate funds, and to seek early input and buy-in on statewide, regional or other priorities for the use of funds. This approach will build credibility and trust between state and local emergency managers and prevent unnecessary speculation about inequity or favoritism in funding decisions.
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program Funding for state and local emergency operations centers remains a critical issue for emergency management. This includes primary and alternate facilities. A NEMA survey revealed that states estimate their funding needs to build, retrofit and upgrade emergency operations centers are more than $398 million. For local EOCs, the amount needed is more than $1.3 billion.viii In Fiscal Year 2008, Congress appropriated $20 million that allowed FEMA to establish for the first time, a separate, competitive grant program for EOCs. The cost share for the program was 75 percent federal and 25 percent state/local matching funds. The president’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 recommended that the EOC Grant Program be eliminated based on the fact that EMPG funds can be used for EOCs; however, the cost share under EMPG is 50 percent federal and 50 percent state/local matching funds. Obviously, it is more cost effective for state and local governments to pursue EOC funding through the EOC grant program which provides a more favorable cost share for major construction or renovation projects. In the current budget environment it is unclear whether Congress will continue to fund a separate EOC grant program.
NEMA as a Resource NEMA maintains information on state emergency management and homeland security structures, staffing and budgets on its website at www.nemaweb.org.
History and Evolution of the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG) 1950s and Civil Defense Prior to the establishment of the federal Civil Defense Program in the 1950’s, there was little attention paid to the coordination of activities among the various levels of government to address preparedness for, response to and recovery from threats facing the nation’s communities. With the advent of the Cold War, inter-governmental coordination took on a new emphasis. The federal government acknowledged that the nation’s ability to recover from a nuclear attack was dependent upon the coordination of an effective response at the lowest levels of government. In late 1950, the Congress passed the Federal Civil Defense Act, which authorized a $3.1 billion federal/state civil defense program. Although the act mandated that attack preparedness was a joint federal-state-local responsibility, the availability of federal funds was used as an incentive for state and local government participation. At the height of the civil defense era in the United States, a core group of grant programs was made available to the states and, through the states, to local governments, to promote a national civil defense capability from the bottom up. Among these core programs were: •E mergency Management Assistance for support of personnel and administrative expenses necessary to maintain an office; •E mergency Operating Centers to build and or refurbish operational facilities; •S tate/Local Warning and Communications Systems to support the purchase of communication equipment and public warning equipment; and,
State and local governments quickly adapted to the new federal emphasis by renaming their civil defense offices and adopting the precepts of all-hazards comprehensive emergency management—preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. 1980s and the Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement The Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement (CCA) was created in the early 1980s, soon after FEMA was formed. As originally envisioned, the CCA was supposed to combine the various funding programs now within FEMA into one integrated document for the states. However, distinctions between funding authorities and programs continued, which caused “stovepiping” of funding and work elements. The concept of an integrated funding mechanism never reached full maturity until FEMA Director James Lee Witt requested in 1993 that a restructuring of the CCA take place. As part of that process, NEMA was asked to provide 10 state representatives (one from each FEMA region) to serve on a committee that became known as the large working group (LWG). This LWG met quarterly between 1993 and 1995 with one main goal: to simplify the CCA process and give the states the flexibility to negotiate with FEMA, in good faith, a meaningful emergency management program that requires accountability by both organizations. 1990s and the Performance Partnership Agreement Also in 1993, President Clinton and James Lee Witt signed a performance agreement that clearly defined mutually agreed upon five- year strategic goals and priorities for FEMA. In 1994 FEMA transformed the agreement into a five-year strategic plan that had the following goals: 1. Create an emergency management partnership with the states and private industry.
•M aintenance and Services to pay for recurring costs associated with essential systems and equipment.
2. Establish a comprehensive all-hazards emergency management system.
With 50% matching fund support from this core group of programs, state and local governments created and staffed Civil Defense offices, constructed emergency operations centers, established communications and warning systems and budgeted annually to maintain their civil defense program.
3. Make mitigation the foundation of the system.
1970s and Comprehensive Emergency Management Beginning in the 1970s the need for such a robust program solely for civil defense began to be questioned. As a result, a change in federal emphasis occurred that allowed the dual use of civil defense resources for both natural disasters and attacks. Continued debate on the civil defense issue culminated in 1978 with President Carter’s Reorganization Plan #3, which created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and established Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM) as the nation’s emergency management system.
4. Ensure rapid and effective response and recovery at federal/state/local levels. 5. Strengthen state and local emergency management systems. During 1995 a partnership performance agreement (PPA) was developed between FEMA and the state directors of emergency management – through NEMA. It was based on the president’s performance agreement (PPA) and FEMA’s strategic plan. The purpose of the PPA was to: 1. Build the emergency management capability of state and local jurisdictions. 2. Ensure that federal/state/local governments can operate effectively in disasters/emergencies.
[state emergency management director handbook]
3. Focus effort on specific goals. 4. Increase flexibility. 5. Increase accountability. The PPA contained joint state and FEMA goals and allowed the state, for the first time, to establish its own goals over the next five years. It was the intent of FEMA to have the “nonbinding” document signed by the president and the governor to focus efforts of both parties to the state’s needs in emergency management. The PPA execution document was called the cooperative agreement (CA) and was a binding document. It defined (with FEMA concurrence) by definitive, measurable actions how the state’s five-year goals outlined in the PPA would be executed on a year-to-year basis. In return for these focused and measurable outcomes, FEMA provided the state a grant to execute the program and the freedom to use FEMA paid staff in any way the state chooses to reach the performance goals. The CAs were signed by the state director of emergency management and the FEMA regional director. This was a major breakthrough in permitting states to tailor federal financial support to their needs.
[b] mitigation managing the organization [D]
2000 and the Emergency Management Performance Grant In 2000, FEMA implemented the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) that consolidated funding for FEMA’s non-disaster programs, for which the state emergency management agency was the primary recipient, into a grant with one source of funding. The grant program included transfers from the preparedness, mitigation, disaster relief fund, and pre-disaster mitigation fund budget activities. It also streamlined the application, financial, and progress reporting processes, provided flexibility for states to target funds (with the exception of terrorism) to meet emergency management priorities, and allow for efficient use of limited financial and staff resources for both FEMA and the states. The programs included in EMPG at that time were: State and Local Assistance; Disaster Preparedness Improvement Grants; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III; Mitigation Assistance (hurricane, earthquake, state hazard mitigation officer); and Project Impact.ix
B-4. Establishing and Maintaining Executive and Legislative Support by Matt Cowles, NEMA Government Relations Director As part of your governor’s executive leadership team, there will always be a fine line between politics and policy. This line exists in the governor’s office, with the state legislature, and in the halls of Congress. As is often said throughout NEMA, “no emergency manager ever got their governor elected, but they sure can get them unelected.” Despite the need to consider political ramifications of decisions made before, during, and after a disaster, the need to remain open and honest with political leadership will always be a reality in the emergency management community. You may not be political personally or in your position within the state government, but in working with politicians, it will remain critically important for you to take into account certain political considerations. Election cycles, relationships with other politicians (up to and including the White House), and other factors impacting state residents will often be on the mind of executive leaders. To help facilitate the lines of communication, this chapter will discuss some helpful tips for working with and through your governor’s office, the state legislature, and congressional delegations.
Executive Support The Executive Office of the Governor includes a team of experts, political appointees, and confidants to the chief executive providing a broad range of opinions and counsel. As the emergency manager, your role is to navigate through them all to help provide the governor the best possible information. Among some of the positions, personnel in key roles will include: Central Staff The central staff of a governor’s office usually consists of key management, communications/outreach, and personal staff such as: • The chief of staff or a deputy chief of staff • A communications director or press secretary • Office of external affairs • Governor’s personal staff The chief of staff or a deputy chief of staff is likely your conduit into the governor’s office. Keep this person abreast of issues and ensure you are the trusted agent for emergency management and homeland security (if part of your portfolio). Especially during a disaster, the communications director, press secretary, or office of external affairs needs to fully understand all emergency operations functions and how your agency functions. Ensure this person is tied closely to any public information officer or like position in your agency. The governor’s personal staff is responsible for scheduling the governor and helping gain access. More important than the details of your agency, maintaining a personal relationship with this person or team might be most important. Support Staff In addition to the central staff, support staff includes those
offices under the governor’s control that interact more directly with the day-to-day operations of government agencies and departments including: • General counsel • Budget director • Legislative liaison • Office of the lieutenant governor • Washington, D.C., office The general counsel will provide you the knowledge and “top cover” to make decisions specific to the state in terms of what is (or is not) possible. Mandatory evacuations, orders of succession, and determining potential legislative changes to state law will all need to be coordinated with a general counsel. Since budget time comes for most states, you will want to keep the budget director well informed. But for their purposes, keep the big picture view and ensure they are aware of how your agency impacts issues statewide. The governor’s legislative liaison will be critical to know in order to understand the legislative strategy of the administration and where emergency management fits into the strategy. The office of the lieutenant governor is part of the team as well. How you interact with the lieutenant governor will likely depend solely on their relationship with the governor and status within state government. Many states maintain an office in Washington, D.C., to advocate for state issues, keep the governor’s team informed, and aid visits by the governor to the Nation’s capital. These organizations are often quite small and staffed by a minimum of personnel. Interaction with the federal government is discussed later in this chapter and these offices are critical for you to understand.
Legislative Support Each state legislature and congressional delegation is unique and requires special attention. In beginning work with your legislative representatives, here are some general tips in working with each of them individually and as a group. Know Your Legislators As a state emergency management director, you meet many people upon taking office. You and your staff will need to build relationships with numerous individuals and organizations at the local, state, and federal level. Two groups that your department should cultivate strong relationships with are your state legislators and your state congressional delegations in Washington, D.C. Maintaining a positive relationship with each member is the key to achieving your agency’s goals throughout the year. Meeting other agencies involved in disaster response in the midst of a major disaster is not an effective method of communication, and the same applies to legislators and their staff. By engaging the offices in Washington and in your own state before the disaster, you create an effective and efficient relationship when it truly counts. You and your staff should
[state emergency management director handbook] 35
be a timely and accurate source of information before, during, and after the disaster. If they don’t get the information from you, they will go elsewhere! Here are a few things to keep in mind: •T here May Be Organizational Differences. Within each office, the organizational structure you must navigate may look different. Key staff may not have the same titles, and many staffers cover a wide variety of issues. Homeland security and emergency management may just be one issue in their portfolio, so always be mindful of their level of expertise. Be ready to deal with high staff turn-over (especially in Washington offices), and make sure to maintain contact with the offices through periods of transition. •U nderstand Both Personal and Committee Staff. Senators and representatives are assigned to various committees, and maintain both personal and committee staff to handle the various issues on both levels. While the personal staff may cover multiple issues at once, the committee staff will often specialize and will be the key contact related to any committee hearings or legislation. It is important to remember their differences, but both personal and committee staff are essential to your work. •N ot All Delegations Get Along. When dealing with your delegations, remember that regardless of party affiliation, some members may just not get along. Whether personal or political, members’ relationships can be complex and affect how you do business. Remain cognizant of these issues as you work with various offices. Treating senators or representatives, Republican or Democrat fairly is essential and building relationships with members from all parties and districts should be a top priority. Remember, however, the difference between treating them fairly and equally. •B e Mindful of Election Years. It can often feel like at any given time, someone is always running for reelection. Understanding the election cycle in your own state and in Washington is critical when dealing with legislators. A member in a tight election race may be constantly on the road campaigning, but should still be kept in the loop with regard to emergency management news. Similarly, election pressure can affect members’ voting tendencies, penchant for introducing controversial legislation, and decisionmaking process.
requests, breaking news alerts, as well as information about organizational or staff changes. •E xchange social media outputs. In the age of Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, and YouTube, communication during disasters can be spread across many mediums. While conference calls or face-to-face meetings are the ideal form of information sharing with legislative offices, your offices should share social media usernames to allow for a quick dialogue and monitoring capability. • Invite legislators to tour facilities. Illustrating the work that emergency management and homeland security offices do on the state and local level is critical to the survival of many programs. Without a clear understanding of what you and your staff do on a daily basis, it often becomes difficult to stress the importance of continued congressional support and funding. Invite legislators and staff to tour your facilities, meet your staff, or even sit in on an exercise, and their understanding of your office could prove beneficial in the long run. During a Disaster In the midst of a disaster, your first thoughts will not always include communication with legislative offices in your state or in Washington, but their first thoughts will include finding you. Depending on the size of your delegations, calls will be flowing into your office requesting various types of information to keep that legislator informed of the current situation. This is a situation in which it is best to identify a plan of action before the disaster. • By delegating communication with legislators to a staff liaison, you can be sure that accurate and timely information will be delivered. • Some state emergency management offices choose to schedule conference calls with their entire delegations and allow a question-and-answer period to take place. Small states may be able to speak with delegates individually. Regardless of how you decide to address these communication issues, it is always best to have this plan mapped out and tested before you ever need to use it.
NEMA D.C. Office
Keep Them Informed Information is key for legislators and their staff. While information sharing during a disaster is often forced and done on an ad hoc basis, the best communication strategy is one that involves constant dialogue throughout the year. There are a few key actions that will help gain the trust of legislators and their staff.
Navigating the legislative maze in Washington, D.C., is not easy and depending on the size of your state, it can be very time consuming. As a member of NEMA, you have full access to the NEMA D.C. office where staff is always prepared to assist you. The relationship you have with your congressional delegation is one that must be cultivated by you and your staff, and the NEMA D.C. office can help sustain communication in person when travel is not an option.
•A llow access to your regular newsletter. Congressional offices enjoy hearing from their constituents and appreciate state-specific information they can then use to illustrate success of state and federal programs. By putting staff on your distribution lists, you avoid the inevitable requests for information, and you may foster goodwill by being transparent. This may include informational newsletters, EMAC
The NEMA D.C. office staff consists of a director of government relations and a legislative policy analyst, who attend congressional hearings, monitor future and current legislation, interact with congressional staff, and assist state directors who are called to testify before congressional committees. NEMA D.C. staff can provide research capabilities on topics affecting your state and can often meet with members
[b] managing the organization
of your delegation to discuss pending legislation. If you are called to testify before Congress, the NEMA D.C. staff can help with the content of your testimony, administrative requirements with the committee, and your time on Capitol Hill. In addition, the NEMA D.C. office publishes the weekly State Director Update, or SDU, which provides information on legislation, agency initiatives, and NEMA efforts that are of interest to the states. At the end of each month, a bill tracking chart is attached to the SDU providing key information about NEMA’s priority legislation including status updates, amendments, and NEMA’s action. In conjunction with the NEMA mid-year emergency management policy and leadership forum each March in Washington, D.C., NEMA sets aside one full day for state directors to visit with their congressional delegations. This provides an opportunity to update your delegation on state-specific issues as well as to discuss national emergency management priorities for which NEMA provides background information and talking points.
1 Wikipedia, Posse Comitatus Act, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act (accessed November 4, 2010). ii Brookings, Web Page: Is Home Rule The Answer? Clarifying The Influence Of Dillon’s Rule On Growth Management, www.brookings.edu/reports/2003/01metropolitanpolicy_richardson.aspx (accessed November 3, 2010). iii iv v
FEMA Tribal Policy, Federal Emergency Management Agency, June 29, 2010.
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
State Director Handbook, National Emergency Management Association, 2001.
[state emergency management director handbook] 37
[C] Preparedness C-1. EM Building Blocks Preparedness is one of the foundations of emergency management. Preparedness can be described as activities undertaken to prepare for disasters and emergencies and to facilitate future response and recovery efforts. Preparedness includes such activities as writing emergency operations plans and procedures, training, exercises, evacuation planning, ensuring interoperable communications, public education and warning, and encouraging citizen and community preparedness.
Planning The comprehensive state emergency operations plan providing for the mitigation of, response to, and recovery from a disaster, is the guiding document for the emergency management agency. It must be maintained, updated as needed to incorporate lessons learned, and all emergency management personnel must be trained to it. In addition, state elected and appointed officials with roles and responsibilities in the plan must be familiar with it. A plan that sits on the shelf serves no purpose except to gather dust. Emergency operations plans must be exercised and include elected and appointed officials. Many state and local emergency response efforts have failed over the years as a result of not following their own plans. Correctly written plans should be flexible, scalable, and adaptable for most any incident that may occur. Well-trained, professional staff has the ability to adapt plans to a given situation to ensure a successful outcome.
Federal Planning Requirements for State Preparedness Plans The Stafford Act stipulates that any state desiring financial assistance from the federal government must designate or create an agency to plan and administer a disaster preparedness program and will submit a state plan to the president, which shall: (1) set forth a comprehensive and detailed state program for preparation against and assistance following emergencies and major disasters, including provisions for assistance to individuals, businesses, and local governments; and (2) include provisions for appointment and training of appropriate staffs, formulate of necessary regulations and procedures and conduct of required exercises.i “Whole Community” Approach to Emergency Management Under the leadership of Administrator Craig Fugate, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has initiated a national dialogue on what he refers to as a “whole community” approach to emergency management. FEMA recognizes that it takes all aspects of a community (volunteer, faith and community-based organizations, the private sector, and the public, including survivors themselves) – not just the government – to effectively prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against any disaster. It is critical that all of these entities work together to enable communities to develop collective, mutually supporting local capabilities to withstand the potential initial impacts of these events, respond quickly, and re-cover in a way that sustains or improves the community’s overall well-being. How communities achieve
[state emergency management director handbook] 39
this collective capacity calls for innovative approaches from across the full spectrum of community actors to expand and enhance existing practices, institutions, and organizations that help make local communities successful every day, under normal conditions, and leverage this social infrastructure to help meet community needs when an incident occurs.
•P lans must clearly identify the mission and supporting goals.
Building community resilience in this manner requires emergency managers to do several things. First, they should engage effectively with and holistically plan for the needs of the whole community. Next, they need to realign emergency management practices to support local needs. Finally, they should work to strengthen the institutions, assets, and networks that work well in communities on a daily basis. FEMA emphasizes this can be done by greatly expanding the traditional emergency management team to include the full fabric of the community, increasing the capacity of all team members, broadening participation in all aspects of emergency management, and strengthening underlying economic, social, and environmental conditions. A “whole community” approach to emergency management encompasses three key concepts:
•P lanning involves senior officials throughout the process to ensure both understanding and approval.
•U nderstanding and meeting the true needs of the entire affected community.
•P lanning identifies tasks, allocates resources to accomplish those tasks, and establishes accountability.
• T ime, uncertainty, risk and experience influence planning. •E ffective plans tell those with operational responsibilities what to do and why to do it, and they instruct those outside the jurisdiction in how to provide support and what to expect. •P lanning is fundamentally a process to manage risk. •P lanning is one of the key components of the preparedness cycle.iii There are three tiers of planning: strategic planning, operational planning, and tactical planning. Planning approaches include: scenario-based planning, function-based planning, and capabilities-based planning. Most planners use a combination of the three approaches.
•E ngaging all aspects of the community (public, private, and civic) in both defining those needs and devising ways to meet them.
•S trengthening the assets, institutions, and social processes that work well in communities on a daily basis to improve resilience and emergency management outcomes.ii
Planning for Integration of Functional Needs Support Services in General Population Shelters When discussing planning, it is important for the state director to be familiar with the legal requirements that general population shelters must be able to accommodate all people with functional needs. This means that children, seniors and adults with disabilities have the same right to services in general population shelters as other residents. Emergency managers and shelter planners have the responsibility of planning to ensure that sheltering services and facilities are accessible. The decisions made in the planning process determine whether integration or segregation occurs during response.
Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans, FEMA Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 CPG 101 provides guidance for local, tribal and state governments in developing all-hazards, all-threats emergency operations plans. It’s also a useful guide for the private sector and other organizations. CPG 101 promotes a common understanding of the fundamentals of risk-based planning and decision-making in order to develop and maintain viable emergency plans. CPG 101 places emphasis on planning that engages and strives to meet the needs of the whole community – to include those with access and functional needs, children, and those with household pets and service animals. According to CPG 101, necessary planning principles include: •P lanning must be community-based, representing the whole population and its needs. •P lanning must include participation from all stakeholders in the community. •P lanning uses a logical and analytical problem-solving process to help address the complexity and uncertainty inherent in potential hazards and threats. •P lanning considers all hazards and threats. •P lanning should be flexible enough to address both traditional and catastrophic incidents.
• Planning depicts the anticipated environment for action.
In November 2010, FEMA published Guidance on Planning for Integration of Functional Needs Support Services in General Population Shelters. The guidance is designed to assist in the planning and resourcing of sheltering operations whether government, nongovernmental organization, faithor private-based to meet the access and functional needs of children and adults. It is also designed to ensure that individuals are not turned away from general population shelters and inappropriately placed in other environments (e.g., “special needs” shelters, institutions, nursing homes, and hotels and motels disconnected from other support services). Functional needs support services (FNSS) are defined as services that enable individuals to maintain their independence in a general population shelter. FNSS includes: • r easonable modification to policies, practices, and procedures • durable medical equipment (DME)
• consumable medical supplies (CMS) • personal assistance services (PAS) • other goods and services as needed Children and adults requiring FNSS may have physical, sensory, mental health, and cognitive and/or intellectual disabilities affecting their ability to function independently without assistance. Others that may benefit from FNSS include women in late stages of pregnancy, elders, and people needing bariatric equipment. While this legal requirement is not new, the recent FEMA guidance has raised questions by state emergency managers as to the ability of local shelter providers to meet the letter of the law, particularly nongovernmental and faith-based groups with limited resources. FNSS Resources: FNSS Guidance: www.fema.gov/pdf/about/odic/ fnss_guidance.pdf DOJ ADA Website: www.ada.gov Chapter 7 of the ADA Tool Kit: www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/ toolkitmain.htm National Incident Management System On February 28, 2003, the president issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5), “Management of Domestic Incidents,” which directed the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a National Incident Management System (NIMS). NIMS provides a systematic, proactive approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work seamlessly to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the loss of life and property and harm to the environment. NIMS works hand in hand with the National Response Framework (NRF). NIMS provides the template for the management of incidents, while the NRF provides the structure and mechanisms for national-level policy for incident management. NIMS is not an operational incident management or resource allocation plan. NIMS represents a core set of doctrines, concepts, principles, terminology, and organizational processes that enables effective, efficient, and collaborative incident management. HSPD-5 requires all federal departments and agencies to adopt NIMS. The directive requires federal departments and agencies to make adoption of NIMS by state, tribal and local organizations a condition for federal preparedness assistance (through grants, contracts, and other activities).iv Concepts and Principles NIMS is based on the premise that utilization of a common incident management framework will give emergency management/response personnel a flexible but standardized system for emergency management and incident response activities. It is flexible because the system components can be utilized to develop plans, processes, procedures, agree-
The Importance of Flexible Plans •Neither the disaster nor the survivors have read your plan, so don’t be surprised when they don’t do what the plan says. • T he same goes for elected officials—brief them on the plan before the next disaster. • Plans are worthless. Planning is priceless. • Plans document how your team is organized and functions. •P lans don’t answer all the questions, but planning builds the team that can. –FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate
ments and roles for all types of incidents; it is applicable to any incident regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity. NIMS Components a. P reparedness Preparedness involves the combination of assessment; planning; procedures and protocols; training and exercises; personnel qualifications, licensure, and certification; equipment certification; and evaluation and revision. b. C ommunications and Information Management NIMS describes the requirements necessary for a standardized framework for communications and emphasizes the need for a common operating picture. This is based on the concepts of interoperability, reliability, scalability, and portability, as well as the resiliency and redundancy of communications and information systems. c. R esource Management Resources such as personnel, equipment, and supplies are needed to support incident management. NIMS defines standardized mechanisms and establishes the resource management process to identify requirements, order and acquire, mobilize, track and report, recover and demobilize, reimburse, and inventory resources. d. C ommand and Management This component of NIMS is designed to enable effective and efficient incident management and coordination through a structure based on three key organizational constructs: the Incident Command System, Multiagency Coordination Systems, and Public Information. e. O ngoing Management and Maintenance This component includes the National Integration Center and supporting technologies. www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/index.shtm Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-8: National Preparedness On March 30, 2011, President Barack Obama signed a new Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) on National Preparedness. The directive outlines the president’s vision for strengthening the security and resilience of the United States through sys-
[state emergency management director handbook] 41
tematic preparation for threats to the security of the nation, including acts of terrorism, pandemics, significant accidents, and catastrophic natural disasters. The directive replaces Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8) (2003) and HSPD-8 Annex I (2007). The directive emphasizes three national preparedness principles: •A n all-of-nation approach, aimed at enhancing integration of effort across federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments; closer collaboration with the private and non-profit sectors; and more engagement of individuals, families and communities; •A focus on capabilities, defined by specific and measurable objectives, as the corner-stone of preparedness. This will enable more integrated, flexible, and agile “all-hazards” efforts tailored to the unique circumstances of any given threat, hazard, or actual event; and •A focus on outcomes and rigorous assessment to measure and track progress in building and sustaining capabilities over time. The directive calls for the development of an overarching National Preparedness Goal that identifies the core capabilities necessary for preparedness, defined as a spectrum of five broad efforts: •P revention – those capabilities necessary to avoid, prevent, or stop a threatened or actual act of terrorism; •P rotection – those capabilities necessary to secure the homeland against acts of terror-ism and man-made or natural disasters; •M itigation – those capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters; •R esponse – those capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic human needs after an incident has occurred; and •R ecovery – those capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by an incident to recover effectively. The directive also calls for development of a National Preparedness System to guide activities that will enable the nation to achieve the goal; a comprehensive campaign to build and sustain national preparedness; and an annual National Preparedness Report to measure progress in meeting the goal. www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1215444247124.shtm The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) was consulted by the White House National Security Council staff in the development of PPD-8, and upon preliminary review of the policy, it appears to take the association’s recommendations into account. Issuance of the new policy is the first step in the Obama Administration’s efforts to enhance and strengthen the national preparedness system and it remains to be seen what the exact impact will be on existing planning efforts at all levels of government.
Organize and Equip Organizing and equipping provide the human and technical capital stock necessary to build capabilities and address modernization and sustainability requirements. Organizing and equipping include identifying what competencies and skill sets people delivering a capability should possess and ensuring that an organization possesses the correct personnel. Additionally, it includes identifying and acquiring standard and/or surge equipment an organization may need to use when delivering a specific capability. Resource Management Overview Emergency management and incident response activities require carefully managed resources (personnel, teams, facilities, equipment, and/or supplies) to meet incident needs. Utilization of the standardized resource management concepts, such as typing, inventorying, organizing, and tracking, will facilitate the dispatch, deployment, and recovery of resources before, during, and after an incident. Resource management should be flexible and scalable in order to support any incident and be adaptable to changes. Efficient and effective deployment of resources requires that resource management concepts and principles be used in all phases of emergency management and incident response. The resource management process can be separated into two parts: resource management as an element of preparedness and resource management during an incident. The preparedness activities (resource typing, credentialing, and inventorying) are conducted on a continual basis to help ensure that resources are ready to be mobilized when called to an incident. Resource management during an incident is a finite process, as shown in the below figure, with a distinct beginning and ending specific to the needs of the particular incident.
Preparedness Activities for Resource Management -Resource Typing -Credentialing
Inventory Order & Acquire
Mobilize Recover/ Demobilize -Expendable -Non-expendable
Track & Report
Credentialing The credentialing process entails the objective evaluation and documentation of an individual’s current certification, license, or degree; training and experience; and competence or proficiency to meet nationally accepted standards, provide particular services and/or functions, or perform specific tasks under specific conditions during an incident.
For the purpose of NIMS, credentialing is the administrative process for validating personnel qualifications and providing authorization to perform specific functions and to have specific access to an incident involving mutual aid.
EMAC Training NEMA often provides training and professional development opportunities for state directors and staff in the form of webinars and with workshops that take place in conjunction with national conferences. NEMA also provides a variety of training on the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), such as topical webinars for state and local emergency managers and response personnel, basic EMAC education for public officials, and Advance Team (A-Team) training for individuals who have responsibility for coordinating mutual aid for the state and are willing to be deployed through EMAC to assist other states when requested.
The National Integration Center (NIC) is developing a national credentialing system that will help verify, quickly and accurately, the identity and qualifications of emergency personnel responding to an incident. The National Emergency Responder Credentialing System will document minimum professional qualifications, certifications, training, and education requirements that define the standards required for specific emergency response functional positions. Resource Typing Resource typing is the categorization and description of response resources that are commonly exchanged in disasters through mutual aid agreements. Resource typing definitions can give emergency responders the information they need to make sure they request and receive the appropriate resources during an emergency or disaster. Credentialing documents minimum professional qualifications, certifications, and training and education requirements that define baseline criteria expected of emergency response professionals and volunteers for deployment as mutual aid to disasters.v Mission Ready Packages Mission Ready Packages (MRPs) are based on NIMS resource typing but take the concept one step further by considering the mission, limitations that might impact the mission, required support, the footprint of the space needed to stage and complete the mission, and the estimated cost. Mission Ready Packages also include credentialed personnel: those who are identified by the resource provider as having the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for their job positions. MRPs are developed in cooperation with resource providers and coordinated with state emergency management agencies. Mission Ready Packages make response and recovery capabilities more readily identified, more easily deployed, and more effectively used. Developing and maintaining a Mission Ready Pack-age with a complete cost estimate will result in a more efficient deployment and facilitate the reimbursement process. NEMA has developed more than one hundred examples that serve as useful models when resource providers are creating their own Mission Ready Packages for capabilities to be deployed through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). www.emacweb.org
Training provides emergency management personnel with the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to perform specific tasks. It is the responsibility of the state director to ensure that the emergency management agency maintains the ability to identify training needs and deliver or acquire training for staff as well as senior managers.
“Never turn down the chance to help other states during their disasters - the training and education is invaluable.” Kris Eide, Director, Minnesota Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management
National Training Program The National Training Program (NTP) provides an organized approach to training for emergency managers and emergency response providers. The NTP provides policy, guidance, and tools that address training design, development, delivery, and evaluation, as appropriate.
FEMA Training Organizations Center for Domestic Preparedness The Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) develops and delivers advanced training for emergency response providers, emergency managers, and other government officials from state, local, and tribal governments. The CDP offers more than 50 training courses at its resident campus in Anniston, Alabama, focusing on incident management, mass casualty response, and emergency response to a catastrophic natural disaster or terrorist act. Training at the CDP campus is federally funded, and at no cost to state, local, and tribal emergency response professionals or their agency. For more information on the CDP’s specialized programs and courses, visit http://cdp.dhs.gov/. Emergency Management Institute The Emergency Management Institute (EMI) serves as the national focal point for the development and delivery of emergency management training to enhance the capabilities of federal, state, local, and tribal government officials, volunteer organizations, and the public and private sectors to minimize the impact of disasters. A course list and schedule is available on the FEMA website http://training.fema.gov/ EMICourses. EMI’s independent study program is designed
[state emergency management director handbook] 43
for people who have emergency management responsibilities as well as for the general public. All are offered free-ofcharge to those who qualify for enrollment. Each year NEMA and EMI partner to deliver the State Director Training Course (E257) – a two- and-a-half day training opportunity for newly appointed state emergency management directors and deputy directors. Instructors primarily consist of experienced state directors, FEMA senior leaders and individuals serving in the role of federal coordinating officer. National Training and Education Division Training and Exercise Integration/Training Operations (TEI/ TO) serves the nation’s first responder community, offering more than 125 courses to help build critical skills that responders need to function effectively in mass consequence events. NTED primarily serves state, local, and tribal entities in 10 professional disciplines but has expanded to serve the private sector and citizens in recognition of their significant role in domestic preparedness. NTED draws upon a diverse group of training providers, also referred to as training partners, to develop and deliver NTED-approved training courses. These training providers include the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC), the Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) at the Naval Postgraduate School, and others. NTED also provides oversight to the Competitive Training Grants Program (CTGP), which awards funds to competitively selected applicants to develop and deliver innovative training programs addressing high-priority national homeland security training needs.vi National Domestic Preparedness Consortium: www.ndpc.us/about_ndpc.html Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium: www.ruraltraining.org Center for Homeland Defense and Security: www.chds.us Professionalization of Emergency Management Many states have certification programs for either the state or local emergency management staff. Additionally, some states have established specific professional requirements for the state and local emergency management director. Such programs support the professionalization of emergency management and can assist in the development of future leaders. The International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) has established a Certified Emergency Manager (CEM®) and Associate Emergency Manager (AEM®) Program. The program objective is to raise and maintain professional standards and to certify achievements in the profession. www.iaem.com/certification/generalinfo/cem.htm#what. The ongoing evolution of emergency management necessitates the creation of a national training and education program supported by the emergency management community. Such a program should recognize that people bring a diversity of backgrounds to the job, that some have spent most of their careers in other public safety-related disciplines
and have now been appointed into an emergency management leadership position, and that some individuals are in positions with a role to play in emergency management but are not practitioners themselves. NEMA, FEMA and IAEM have been working collaboratively over the past several years to identify an agreed-upon, comprehensive training and education program for senior leaders and executives in emergency management. In 2010 and 2011 FEMA convened several meetings to identify core emergency management competencies. At the June 2011 meeting, participants identified core competencies within the following four training and education levels: Foundations: provides general information (knowledge) on key emergency management principles, doctrine, policies, and practices for all emergency management professionals (i.e., what they need to know at the beginning of their tenure.) Specialized: provides the requisite knowledge and skills for coordinating key components/phases of all-hazards emergency management (i.e., the technical skills, knowledge, and abilities). Executive/Managerial: provides management knowledge and skills for executive/management professionals in the emergency management field (i.e., the new managers and mid-managers of an emergency management agency). Strategic Leadership (Capstone): provides strategic leadership knowledge and skills for senior-level leaders in the emergency management field. The training model is under development and pilots will be conducted in 2011. Today, the vast majority of states have colleges, universities or institutions that offer emergency management-related programs from the certificate level to graduate degrees. EMI maintains a list of colleges with emergency management programs on its website. www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/collegelist
Exercise Exercises allow emergency management personnel, from first responders to senior officials, to train and practice prevention, protection, response, and recovery capabilities in a realistic but risk-free environment. Exercises are also a valuable tool for assessing and improving performance, while demonstrating community resolve to prepare for major incidents. The state emergency management agency should periodically include other key state agencies in exercises. Joint exercises provide a valuable opportunity for emergency response personnel to practice plans, test systems, and build relationships across agencies.
“When including other agencies in exercises, be inclusive with a purpose. Make their time valuable as well as yours.” Nancy Dragani, Executive Director, Ohio Emergency Management Agency
EMAC Exercises States are strongly encouraged to integrate EMAC into their exercises to ensure that personnel understand how to request, receive, and send mutual aid resources through the compact. NEMA has developed a series of EMAC exercises, and the materials are available at no charge through the EMAC website at www.emacweb.org. Also available are discipline-specific exercises for state and local public health officials, and fire officials, as well as checklists for law enforcement deployments. New EMAC exercise resources are constantly under development.
National Exercise Program The National Exercise Program (NEP) provides an organized approach to set priorities for exercises, reflect those priorities in a multi-year schedule of exercises that serves the strategic and policy goals of the U.S. government, and address findings from those exercises through a disciplined interagency process. The NEP established the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) as the exercise methodology and tools to support the NEP. Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) HSEEP is a capabilities-and performance-based exercise program administered by FEMA. The intent of HSEEP is to provide common exercise policy and program guidance capable of constituting a national standard for all exercises. HSEEP includes consistent terminology that can be used by all exercise planners, regardless of the nature and composition of their sponsoring agency or organization.vii Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) Exercises Since 1988, FEMA and the U.S. Army have assisted communities surrounding the seven chemical stockpile sites to enhance their abilities to respond to the unlikely event of a chemical agent emergency. The U.S. stockpile of chemical agents is safely stored at six sites across the country. These sites are located in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana/Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon/Washington, and Utah. Sites comply with annual CSEPP exercise requirements. Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program Exercises FEMA established the Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program to (1) ensure that the health and safety of citizens living around commercial nuclear power plants would be adequately protected in the event of a nuclear power plant accident and (2) inform and educate the public about radiological emergency preparedness. REP Program responsibilities encompass only “offsite” activities, that is, state, tribal and local government emergency planning and
preparedness activities, including exercises that follow REP exercise methodology. NEMA has established a Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Subcommittee under the Preparedness Committee. The subcommittee is made up of directors with nuclear power plant facilities in their states who have volunteered to serve as subject matter experts and a sounding board for FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on REP issues impacting the states. National Level Exercise (NLE) Every two years the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leads the National Level Exercise (NLE) requiring senior-level participation among the federal interagency community. States and local governments have the opportunity to participate as players in the exercise, de-pending on the scenario and location.
Interoperable Communications Interoperability refers to the ability of emergency responders to work seamlessly with other systems or products without any special effort. Wireless communications interoperability specifically refers to the ability of emergency response officials to share information via voice and data signals on demand, in real time, when needed, and as authorized. For example, when communications systems are interoperable, police and firefighters responding to a routine incident can talk to each other to coordinate efforts. Communications interoperability also makes it possible for emergency response agencies responding to catastrophic accidents or disasters to work effectively together. Interoperable communications have been an ongoing challenge since the response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Some of the issues are technical, some are financial, and some stem from such human factors as inadequate planning and lack of awareness of the real importance of interoperability. According to a report published in February 2003 by the National Task Force on Interoperability, the emergency response community views the following as the key issues hampering emergency response wireless communications: • Incompatible and aging communications equipment; • Limited and fragmented budget cycles and funding; • Limited and fragmented planning and coordination; • Limited and fragmented radio spectrum; • Limited equipment standards. The National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) is a strategic plan that sets goals and identifies key national priorities to enhance governance, planning, technology, training and exercises, and disaster communications capabilities. The NECP provides recommendations, including milestones, to help emergency response providers and relevant government officials make measurable improvements in emergency communications over the next three years. Federal grant funding is provided to states and territories to achieve these goals. Much progress has been made in recent years; however, few have truly achieved statewide interoperable communications.
[state emergency management director handbook] 45
D-Block Public Safety Wireless Broadband Network The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has licensed 10 MHz of radio spectrum in the 700 MHz band to public safety for broadband services. Many national organizations agree that this 10 MHz is insufficient to meet public safety’s bandwidth needs. Public safety needs greater spectrum. For economic and technical reasons, additional public safety broadband spectrum should be in the same band as the current public safety broadband spectrum. Such spectrum exists and is available. The D-Block is two complementary segments of radio spectrum comprising 10 MHz in the upper 700 MHz spectral band, located directly adjacent to the spectrum currently licensed to public safety for broadband services. The D-Block is also the only substantial contiguous spectrum remaining in the 700 MHz band yet to be licensed, so no licensed users would be dis-placed. Should public safety be forced to build an interoperable network in two separate bands, additional fiscal challenges would result due to the need of new technologies to bridge the disparate systems required to fulfill the comparable need of the singular D-Block. Under current statute, the FCC is required to auction the D-Block spectrum for commercial services. Once auctioned, the D-Block would be encumbered and out of public safety’s reach for the foreseeable future; in practical effect, it would be gone forever. To prevent such an auction, NEMA has joined the Public Safety Alliance (PSA) and numerous other organizations in urging Congress to pass legislation allocating the D-Block to public safety and providing a funding mechanism to aid in the build-out and operation of a nationwide broadband network. The PSA includes associations representing police, sheriffs, fire chiefs, emergency medical personnel, and emergency management.
Public Alert and Warning Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) Executive Order 13407 established as policy the requirement for the United States to have an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people. FEMA is designated within the Department of Homeland Security to implement the policy of the United States for a public alert and warning system as outlined in Executive Order 13407 and has established a program office to implement IPAWS. FEMA and its federal partners, the Federal Communications Commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service (NOAA/NWS) and the DHS Science and Technology Directorate are working together to transform the national alert and warning system to enable rapid dissemination of authenticated alert information over as many communications channels as possible.
What is IPAWS? During an emergency, alert and warning officials need to provide the public with life-saving information quickly. IPAWS is a modernization and integration of the nation’s alert and warning infrastructure. IPAWS will integrate new and existing public alert and warning systems and technologies. Federal, state, territorial, tribal and local government alert and warning systems will be able to integrate with the national alert and warning infrastructure providing a broader range of message options and communications pathways for the delivery of alert and warning information to the American people, before, during, and after a disaster.
What IPAWS will do: • Allow the president of the United States to speak to the American people under all emergency circumstances, including situations of war, terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other hazards. • Build and maintain an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive alert and warning system. • Enable federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local alert and warning emergency communication officials to access multiple broadcast and other communications pathways for the purpose of creating and activating alert and warning messages related to any hazard impacting public safety and well-being. • Reach the American public before, during, and after a disaster through as many means as possible. • Diversify and modernize the Emergency Alert System (EAS). • Create an interoperability framework by establishing or adopting standards such as the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). • Enable alert and warning to those with disabilities and to those without an understanding of the English language. •Partner with NOAA to enable seamless integration of message transmission through national networks. State and local officials will be responsible for generating alert and warning messages to the public through the voluntary cooperation of the broadcast community. FEMA is in the process of inventorying up to 2,200 federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local emergency operations centers. Inventory results analysis will be used to: • Catalog and evaluate existing federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local government alert and warning systems • Assess how well the infrastructure meets the needs of emergency managers • Record capabilities and limitations of current alert and warning systems
• Identify shortfalls between required, actual, and/or planned capabilities A major IPAWS milestone will be to implement the participation of commercial mobile carriers beginning in the first quarter of 2012. IPAWS will continue the expansion of the
national EAS primary entry point (PEP) network to directly cover 90 percent of Americans. Future integration and inclusion of Internet service alerting capabilities to the IPAWS suite is ongoing. www.fema.gov/emergency/ipaws
C-2. National Preparedness Grant Programs Emergency management and homeland security are shared responsibilities between levels of government, the private sector and the public. The federal government provides billions of dollars each year to state and local governments to build and maintain capabilities for all-hazards emergency preparedness. The primary source of funding is DHS/FEMA, which administers national emergency preparedness grants to provide critical assistance in preparedness planning, equipment acquisition, training, exercises, management and administration. This section provides a brief description of the grant programs most applicable to state and local governments. A complete listing and description of all the grant programs available through DHS/FEMA is available at www.fema.gov/grants. State Administering Agency DHS and FEMA ask every governor to designate a single point of contact in the state to administer federal emergency preparedness grant programs. This designation is called the state administering agency (SAA). In more than half the states, the emergency management director fills this role. In 2010, FEMA announced that in those states where the emergency management director is not the SAA, they are eligible to submit the application for the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) and serve as administrator for that particular program. This is important, as it allows the emergency management agency to have responsibility and oversight for the primary source of federal funding that supports state and local programs. Since the SAA designation is made by the governor to DHS, it can also be changed at the request of the governor.
In those states where the emergency management director is not the SAA, the director is eligible to submit the application for the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) and serve as the program administrator.
Homeland Security Grant Program The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) suite consists of five subprograms: the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), Operation Stonegarden (OPSG), Metropolitan Medical Response
System (MMRS), and Citizen Corps Program (CCP). These grants are fully funded by the federal government and don’t require a state or local cost share match. State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) - provides funds to build capabilities at the state and local levels and to implement the goals and objectives included in state homeland security strategies and initiatives in their State Preparedness Reports. States are required to ensure that at least 25 percent of SHSP-appropriated funds are dedicated toward law enforcement terrorism prevention-oriented planning, organization, training, exercise, and equipment activities, including those activities that support the development and operation of fusion centers. Funds are allocated based on three factors: minimum amounts as legislatively mandated, DHS’s risk methodology, and effectiveness. Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) - focuses on enhancing regional preparedness in major metropolitan areas. The UASI program directly supports the National Priority on expanding regional collaboration in the National Preparedness Guidelines and is intended to assist participating jurisdictions in developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection, response, and recovery. Funds are allocated based on DHS’ risk methodology and effectiveness. Operation Stonegarden (OPSG) - enhances cooperation and coordination among local, state and federal law enforcement agencies in a joint mission to secure the United States’ borders along routes of ingress from international borders to include travel corridors in states bordering Mexico and Canada as well as states and territories with international water borders. Funds are allocated competitively to designat-
[state emergency management director handbook] 47
ed localities within U.S. Border States based on risk analysis and the anticipated feasibility and effectiveness of proposed investments by the applicants. Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) Program - supports the integration of emergency management, health, and medical systems into a coordinated response to mass casualty incidents caused by any hazard. The program is intended to reduce the consequences of a mass casualty incident during the initial period of a response by having augmented existing local operational response systems before the incident occurs. MMRS funding is divided evenly among the 124 MMRS jurisdictions. Citizen Corps Program (CCP) – brings together community and government leaders to coordinate community involvement in emergency preparedness, planning, mitigation, response and recovery. CCP allocations are determined by the USA PATRIOT Act formula, which specifies that all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico receive a mini-mum of 0.75 percent of the total available grant funding and that four territories receive a minimum of 0.25 percent of the total available grant funding. The balance of CCP funds is distributed on a populationshare basis.
Targeted Grant Programs Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZP) - provides funding to increase the preparedness capabilities of jurisdictions responsible for the safety and security of communities surrounding high-priority pre-designated Tier 1 and Tier 2 critical infrastructure and key resource (CIKR) assets, including chemical facilities, financial institutions, nuclear and electric power plants, dams, stadiums, and other high-risk/high-consequence facilities, through allowable planning and equipment acquisition. All BZPP sites have been selected prior to the grant announcement based on the risk of the individual sites themselves. Driver’s License Security Grant Program (DLSGP) - provides funds to prevent terrorism by reducing fraud and improving the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents that states and territories issue. All 56 states and territories receive a base amount with the balance of funds distributed based on the total number of drivers licenses/ identification documents issued in each state. Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG) - assists state and local governments in enhancing and sustaining all-hazards emergency management capabilities. All 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico receive a base amount of 0.75 percent of the total available grant funding. Territories receive a base amount of 0.25 percent of the total available grant funding. The balance of EMPG funds is distributed on a populationshare basis. EMPG has a 50 percent federal and 50 percent state cost share, cash or in-kind match requirement. Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program – a competitive program intended to improve emergency management and preparedness capabilities by supporting flexible, sustain-able, secure, and interoperable EOCs, with
a focus on addressing identified deficiencies and needs. This program provides funding for construction or renovation of a state, local or tribal government’s principal EOC. Fully capable emergency operations facilities at the state and local levels are an essential element of a comprehensive national emergency management system and are necessary to ensure continuity of operations and continuity of government in major disasters caused by any hazard. The EOC Grant Program requires a 75 percent federal and 25 percent state cost share. EOCs are also eligible expenses under the EMPG Program, with a 50 percent state cost share consistent with the program requirement. Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) - provides governance, planning, training and exercise funding to states, territories, and local and tribal governments to carry out initiatives to improve interoperable emergency communications, including communications in collective response to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters. Grant funds are based on risk. Each state receives a minimum allocation of 0.45 per-cent of the available funds, and territories receive a minimum of 0.08 percent of the available funds using the thresholds established in the 9/11 Act. Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) - enhances catastrophic incident preparedness in selected high-risk, high-consequence urban areas and their surrounding regions. RCPGP is intended to support coordination of regional all-hazards planning for catastrophic events, including the development of integrated planning communities, plans, protocols and procedures to manage a catastrophic event. One non-competitive award is made to each of the pre-designated eleven high-risk, high-consequence urban areas within the ten RCPGP sites. Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP) – provides funds to directly eligible tribes to help strengthen the nation against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks. Funds are allocated based on tribal eligibility per the 9/11 Act and the effectiveness of the applicant’s THSGP investment justification as determined through a peer review process. Urban Areas Security Initiative Nonprofit Security Grant Program (UASI NSGP) – provides funding support for target-hardening activities to nonprofit organizations that are considered to be at high risk for terrorist attacks. NSGP is designed to promote coordination and collaboration in emergency preparedness activities among public and private community representatives, state and local government agencies and Citizen Corps Councils.
Transit Security Grant Program Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) – provides grant funding to the nation’s key high-threat urban areas to enhance security measures for their critical transit infrastructure, including bus, ferry and rail systems. The following are components of the TSGP: •F reight Rail Security Grant Program: funds security training for frontline employees, the completion of vulner-
ability assessments and the development of security plans within the freight rail industry and GPS tracking systems for railroad cars transporting toxic inhalation materials (TIH). • Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP): creates a sustainable program for the protection of intercity bus systems and the traveling public from terrorism. Program priorities include the development of vulnerability assessments and security plans; facility, driver and vehicle security enhancements; emergency communications technology; coordinating with local police and emergency responders; training and exercises; and passenger-and-baggagescreening programs in defined UASI service areas. • Intercity Passenger Rail (Amtrak): creates a sustainable, risk-based effort to protect surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of terrorism, major disasters and other emergencies within the Amtrak rail system. •P ort Security Grant Program (PSGP): provides grant funding to port areas for the protection of critical port infrastructure from terrorism. Funds are primarily intended to assist ports in enhancing maritime domain awareness; enhancing risk management capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from attacks involving improvised explosive devices (IEDs), weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and other non-conventional weapons; as well as training and exercises and transportation worker identification credential (TWIC) implementation. •T rucking Security Program (TSP): sustains the First Observer program to enhance homeland security through increased vigilance and awareness on the nation’s highways. The TSP is awarded competitively to trucking professionals for communications planning and equipment used to track and secure the transport of Tier I Highway Sensitive Security Materials.
State Homeland Security Grant Allocation to Local Jurisdictions States rely on a variety of factors in determining how federal homeland security-related grant funds are allocated to local jurisdictions. Some states designate a portion of grant funds by requiring competitive investment justifications from local jurisdictions. Many states consider population in their allocation decision, and others base the decision partially on risk and vulnerability assessments. Other approaches include providing a base amount for jurisdictions and meeting performance standards or specific program requirements.
State Preparedness Report The state preparedness report (SPR) showcases the capabilities and targets of a state’s all-hazards preparedness program and provides a method for states to communicate their plans to increase preparedness to FEMA. The SPR enables states to articulate their current preparedness capability levels and how they used federal assistance to achieve these capability levels. Additionally, the SPR tracks progress made in achieving targets developed by states to enhance their capability levels and future monetary resources required to achieve these targets. Submission of the SPR is an annual requirement for a state to be eligible to apply for federal home-land security grant funds. FEMA utilizes the information in the individual SPRs to produce the National Preparedness Report that is submitted to Congress.
Fire Grants Assistance to Firefighter Grants (AFG) – provides resources directly to fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services organizations to obtain critically needed equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training and other resources needed to protect the public and emergency personnel from fire and related hazards. Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) – helps fire departments to in-crease the number of frontline firefighters and ultimately attain 24-hour staffing.
[state emergency management director handbook] 49
C-3. Encouraging Citizen and Community Preparedness Educating the public about the importance of disaster and emergency preparedness is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government, yet it’s also one of the most challenging. Often individuals and businesses fail to prepare themselves for the risks that face their communities. They mistakenly believe that disasters won’t happen to them or that government will be able to quickly get them back on their feet when disaster does strikes. The fact is that government will need to focus on saving and sustaining lives and helping the most vulnerable citizens during disaster response. Most people will need to be self-reliant in the immediate aftermath and possibly for more than 72 hours following a disaster.
nities safer, stronger, and better prepared to manage any emergency situation. The finalists exemplify excellence in community emergency planning, foster successful publicprivate partnerships, prioritize collaboration, demonstrate creative and innovative local problem solving, and implement sound programs that can be modeled for use by other communities. The finalists are selected by a panel comprised of representatives from FEMA, the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) and NEMA.
FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate is causing a shift in the way that we think about people impacted by disasters. Instead of disaster “victims,” Fugate has termed them “survivors” who should be viewed as an asset rather than a liability. Disaster survivors can help check on and care for their neighbors, family and friends. Organizations that exist in communities every day can help meet the needs of individuals during disaster response and recovery. Emergency managers need to better engage community groups, faith-based organizations, and nonprofits and leverage their resources in order to better serve the needs of the community following dis-asters.
Citizen and Community Resources Citizen Corps Following the tragic events that occurred on September 11, 2001, state and local government officials have increased opportunities for citizens to become an integral part of protecting the homeland and supporting the local first responders. Officials agree that the formula for ensuring a more secure and safer homeland consists of preparedness, training, and citizen involvement in supporting first responders. In January 2002, the president of the United States launched Citizen Corps to capture the spirit of service that emerged throughout communities following the terrorist attacks. Citizen Corps was created to help coordinate volunteer activities that will make communities safer, stronger, and better prepared to respond to any emergency situation. It provides opportunities for people to participate in a range of measures to make their families, their homes, and their communities safer from the threats of crime, terrorism, and disasters of all kind. Citizen Corps’ mission is accomplished through a national network of state, local, and tribal Citizen Corps Councils. These councils build on community strengths to implement the Citizen Corps preparedness programs and carry out a local strategy to involve government, community leaders, and citizens in all-hazards preparedness and resilience. FEMA provides grant funding to states to support Citizen Corps programs. Each year, national awards are given to recognize innovative practices and achievements of Citizen Corps Councils across the nation that are making commu-
Ready Campaign The FEMA website provides one-stop-shopping for information on emergency preparedness for individuals, businesses and children. A simple three-step plan is outlined on the site with resource materials for the public. 1. G et a Kit – recommended items to include in a basic emergency preparedness kit 2. M ake a Plan – tools to help develop a family emergency plan 3. B e Informed – information for individuals regarding risks that face their communities and emergency plans that have been developed for their area by state and local government Publications, including brochures, manuals, checklists, plan templates, handouts and more, are available to download and order. For the past seven years, September has been designated the annual National Preparedness Month (NPM). Sponsored by the Ready Campaign, activities during this month encourage Americans to take simple steps to prepare for emergencies in their homes, businesses, and communities. www.ready.gov
State Preparedness Campaigns Most states have developed their own emergency preparedness messages and public education campaigns that are designed to address the specific risks facing their communities and citizens. These campaigns are most effective when leveraging the reach and the resources of both public and private organizations. While each state is different, the basic message of preparedness is universal. Through the NEMA Public Information Officers (PIO) Subcommittee, states have the ability to share messaging, campaign materials and model practices. This is an invaluable resource as most emergency management agencies have limited staff to develop and implement new programs.
For example, McReady Oklahoma is a grassroots initiative that provides activities and materials aimed at preparing Oklahoma families, businesses, schools, churches and other venues and groups regarding the steps that can be taken to stay safe from tornadoes, severe storms and other natural disasters. The same disaster relief agencies and organizations that respond to Oklahoma disasters have come together to deliver this unique, award-winning program. By providing preparedness information to a diverse audience, McReady issues a call to action that can ultimately mitigate the effects of tornadoes and other natural disasters. The message is delivered statewide, primarily within McDonald’s restaurants. Major elements to the program include in-store informational displays with preparedness literature, educational tray liners and bag stuffers; the opportunity for local emergency managers to customize the program with weather radio programming and other local events; a weather safety show presented at schools; a weather safety DVD provided to schools and local emergency managers; and the website www.mcready.org. The State of Florida has developed a website that allows families to develop their own personalized family disaster plans. The site asks for information about their home, families, and pets. Using the information provided, the website will create a personalized family disaster plan that can be printed out and saved for future emergencies. Included in plan are: •R ecommendations for the amounts of food and water to have on hand, based on family information •C ontact information for local emergency responders and maps of local evacuation zones •C hecklists of important steps to take before, during, and after a disaster www.floridadisaster.org/family Map Your Neighborhood is a program designed by the Washington Division of Emergency Management to help neighborhoods prepare for disasters and is offered through many local emergency management offices. Through the program, citizens will:
The Great California Shake-Out In 2010 more than 7.9 million Californians simultaneously practiced “drop, cover, and hold on” at work, home, school or wherever they were to simulate how they would protect themselves during earth-quakes and improve their emergency preparedness. This was the largest earthquake drill in U.S. history at the time. The annual drill was initiated in 2008, with 5.4 million participants spanning eight counties in southeastern California. Since then ShakeOut has continued to grow. Participants include individuals, businesses, schools, faithbased organizations, community groups, scouts, and others. A website, www.shakeout.org, allows for online registration and provides access to a myriad of resources to promote the drill and educate citizens on what to do during an earthquake. Re-sources include videos, brochures, drill manuals, posters, flyers, PowerPoint presentations, Web banners, descriptions of preparedness kits and more. ShakeOut is made possible by partnerships among numerous organizations, including the California Earthquake Authority, California Emergency Management Agency, American Red Cross, State Farm Insurance and many more.
•C reate a Neighborhood Map identifying the locations of natural gas and propane tanks for quick response, if needed. •C reate a Contact List that helps identify those with specific needs such as the elderly, disabled, or children who may be home alone during certain hours of the day. •W ork together as a team to evaluate your neighborhood after a disaster, and take the necessary actions. www.emd.wa.gov/myn/index/shtml
• L earn the “9 Steps to Take Immediately Following a Disaster” to secure your home and to protect your neighborhood. It is hard to think clearly following a disaster, and these steps will help you to quickly and safely take actions that can minimize damage and protect lives. • Identify the Skills and Equipment each neighbor has that would be useful in an effective disaster response. Knowing which neighbors have supplies and skills helps your disaster response be timely and allows everyone to contribute to the response in a meaningful way.
[state emergency management director handbook] 51
Preparedness Issues to Consider • How do you measure preparedness in your state? • Is emergency management considered a profession? What constitutes a profession? Why is, or isn’t it, important to be perceived by other disciplines as a profession? •D oes your state have a certification program for state and/ or local emergency management personnel? For emergency management programs? •W hy don’t people prepare to take care of themselves and their families during disasters?
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as Amended, and Related Authorities, Title II Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation Assistance, Sec. 201 Federal and State Disaster Preparedness Programs, August 2007.
“Whole of Community” Approach to Emergency Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, February 24, 2011. Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101, Version 2.0, Federal Emergency Management Agency, November 2010.
National Incident Management System, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Preparedness, Organize and Equip, http://www.fema.gov/prepared/ org.shtm, (accessed April 19, 2011).
[D] Mitigation D-1. Role of Emergency Management in Mitigation by David Miller, former administrator, Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency
Beginning in the 1980s, continuing through the 1990s, and into recent years, the costs of major disasters for both government and the private sector have become extraordinarily high. Prospects for the future indicate a continued escalation in the nation’s vulnerability to the adverse effects of natural, technological, and humancaused disasters. Continued U.S. population growth, increased urbanization and concentration in hazard-prone areas, increased capital and physical plan development, accelerated deterioration of the urban infrastructure and emerging but unknown vulnerabilities posed by technological advances, virtually grants that economic losses from natural hazards will continue to rise sharply. Losses of $100 billion from individual events, and perhaps unprecedented loss of life, loom in our future.i According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website, in the fifteen years succeeding this 1996 report from the National Science and Technology Council (1996-2010), there have been 876 presidential declarations of major disaster. During the preceding fifteen years there were only 440 major disaster declarations. Even accounting for changes in policy, administration, law, and regulations, the predictions of the council have held true. America’s investments in disaster response and recovery efforts have continued to increase.
As a result of the escalating costs of disasters, the administration of President Bill Clinton was the first to emphasize and mount a nationwide effort focused on reducing the impact of disasters and the economic consequence. Investing resources and capital to prevent or reduce harm before it occurs is a rational and logical course of action, but social, political, and economic realities tend to drive public choice away from investments that attempt to minimize or eliminate disaster impacts before they occur.
The psychological, social, and political reality should not deter efforts of governments, businesses, and individuals to encourage proactive and preventive measures that save lives, protect property, and preserve the economic base from the consequences of probable disasters. But our approaches to the challenges of implementing effective mitigation measures require innovative programs and specific policies along with the consideration of the successes of the past. A truly national mitigation strategy must be grounded on themes of partnership, total hazards awareness, and on requirements driven by local and community needs. ii
It’s tough to convince people to prepare for the worst when the sun is shining and the skies are blue. It is also hard for mitigation to compete for funding with the many urgent and immediate emergency funding needs facing federal, state, and local governments.
As the head of a state emergency management agency, the director should assume a leadership role in the coordination of his or her state’s program for hazard mitigation. The emergency management agency can, and should, serve as the principal advocate and leading participant in the efforts by state and local government to reduce the escalating costs of disasters. For most states, there is a range of local, state, federal, private, and nonprofit sector programs and funding sources that can be effectively brought to bear on this issue. The state director’s role is to continuously strive for maximization of all these resources.
Understanding the Terminology •H azard mitigation: sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards and their effects. •P roactive mitigation: actions taken before a disaster to decrease vulnerability.
[state emergency management director handbook] 53
•R eactive mitigation: actions after a disaster to avoid or lessen vulnerability from future events.
• Controls community development and reconstruction efforts by the public and private sectors
•P ost-disaster or long-term redevelopment: actions taken after a disaster to control reconstruction of the damaged infrastructure and buildings to avoid or mitigate future damages.
• Enforces applicable codes, standards, and plan requirements
Roles for Mitigation Programming
• Provides public information and education
Federal Government • Identifies, develops, and implements a “National Mitigation Strategy”
Private Sector: Business, Industry, and Institutions • Assesses vulnerabilities of facilities and operations
•S ponsors programs for mitigation through various agencies
• Implements and complies with government codes, standards, and requirements
• Provides funding and technical assistance
• Develops and implements risk management plans
•P rovides training and public information regarding mitigation
• Insures property for physical or operational loss
•E xercises approval authority for certain state and local mitigation programs •U ndertakes federal environmental permitting actions State Government •D evelops statewide plans and programs for hazard mitigation and reconstruction • Implements state and federal programs through various agencies •C oordinates and administers the distribution of federal funds •D evelops requirements and standards for mitigation and redevelopment programs •O versees or coordinates mitigation planning and programming by local government •P rovides technical assistance and funding to local government •E xercises approval authority over certain local government mitigation planning and implementation programs •C oordinates with federal agencies and applicants to complete processing of project and funding applications •P rocesses state and certain federal environmental permitting actions •P rovides mitigation training and public information • Integrates mitigation in other emergency preparedness programs Local Government •E xercises local authority for control of development and construction via codes, ordinances, and land use requirements • Implements state and federally sponsored mitigation programs •D evelops local mitigation and redevelopment plans and requirements • Implements local mitigation programs and projects 54
• Develops information and understanding regarding locally hazardous conditions
• Plans for the restoration or replacement of operational capability • Provides information for government emergency planning Nonprofit Sector: Nongovernmental Organizations, Faith-based, and Other Nonprofits • Assesses vulnerabilities of adversely affected communities • Helps community develop and implement risk management mitigation plans • Builds community support and consensus for developing and undertaking mitigation projects • Secures donations to assist with nonfederal match requirement for mitigation projects While the above information denotes the responsibilities of the various levels of government, as well as the roles for the private and nonprofit sectors, mitigation is most successful and effective when there is a collaborative approach and partnership between the various groups. No single agency or level of government, no private sector business or enterprise, nonprofit organization, or individual community can achieve successful mitigation on its own. hile a few professional disciplines identify hazard W mitigation as a core mission area, the activities of these disciplines alone are not nearly enough to achieve effective investments and policies that protect against the hazards that lead to future disasters. Further, the traditional community of mitigation partners often does not include the leaders or citizens that will have the most influence on its success or failure. Local governments often have the lead responsibility for implementing mitigation strategies and differ both on the challenges and solutions for mitigation. Furthermore, in order to facilitate the most comprehensive dialogue, greater effort should be made to bring into the process those stakeholders with dissenting viewpoints. Future mitigation endeavors must build non-traditional partnerships: they must include those who disagree or are skeptical of the benefits, and they must rely on community leaders to buy into and then champion the efforts to effect good mitigation activities. These endeavors must allow local communities with sufficient capabilities to not become handicapped by
overly bureaucratic processes, but rather to provide the appropriate level of assistance to communities with lesser capabilities. As broader partnerships evolve, roles and responsibilities of all participants must also be defined and shared, allowing for evolution over time. What can be offered by or expected from any entity today may change as the collaborative enterprise develops.iii Typical state agencies with significant roles in hazard mitigation include not only the emergency management agency but also agencies involved in land planning and growth management, housing and community development, commerce and economic development, environmental protection and natural resources management, building codes and standards, historic preservation, agricultural services, insurance and risk management, geological and hydrological services, fire and law enforcement, transportation, and public utilities regulation. In other words, successful mitigation strategies involve almost every agency of state government. The role of the state emergency management agency includes coordinating and facilitating the activities of partners to ensure the integration of hazard mitigation into emergency planning, response, and recovery operations. Through such efforts, hazard mitigation should become a routine function of state agencies and local governments. Emergency managers can further facilitate these actions by providing technical assistance to other state and local agencies. Such assistance may include developing methodologies and conducting hazards and vulnerability assessments; developing ways to maximize funding opportunities; and
providing technical guidance, training, and public education materials. Emergency managers should strive to be state government’s leading advocates for enhanced mitigation planning and program implementation. By ensuring effective practices are put in place prior to disaster, opportunities for mitigation are recognized and developed during the response and recovery phases of a disaster. As mitigation remains a function of controlled redevelopment after a disaster, emergency managers play a leading role in protecting and ensuring the resiliency of their communities and state. A number of challenges face the emergency management director in implementing a successful program. Directors must overcome the apathy among some federal, state, local, and industry leaders about the human and economic needs for effective mitigation; and the need for mitigation strategies to be a part of comprehensive planning and community development processes. Budget and personnel limitations are ever present. During times of disaster, the need for speed in rebuilding and redeveloping impacted areas must be balanced with the need to discover, discuss, and implement effective mitigation strategies. Directors must work to understand the numerous programs and statutory responsibilities at the federal, state, and local government levels that confuse and deter effective mitigation policy. In addition, they must often overcome the lack of technical and scientific data to support mitigation planning and decision-making.
D-2. Funding Hazard Mitigation Programs and Initiatives Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs The federal government provides mitigation funding opportunities through a number of grant programs, primarily authorized through the Robert T. Stafford Act and National Flood Insurance Program. Stafford Act programs include: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). This postdisaster program provides grants to state and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The program is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). The amount of funding available for HMGP under a particular disaster declaration is limited. The program may provide a state with up to 15 percent of the total disaster grants awarded by FEMA. States that meet enhanced state mitigation plan criteria are eligible for assistance not to exceed twenty percent of the total estimated federal assistance as established under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
An enhanced state mitigation plan documents the state’s demonstrable and sustained commitment to the objectives of hazard mitigation. This designation recognizes the state as a proactive leader in implementing a comprehensive statewide program. The enhanced status acknowledges the extra effort a state has made to reduce losses, protect its resources, and create safer communities. For mitigation plans to receive this designation, the state must obtain a “satisfactory” score on all of the standard state plan requirements as described in the state multi-hazard mitigation planning guidance. In addition, it must receive a “satisfactory” score on each of the enhanced state requirements. FEMA can fund up to 75 percent of the eligible costs of each mitigation project. The state or grantee must provide a 25 percent match, which can be fashioned from a combination of cash and in-kind sources. Funding from other federal sources cannot be used for the 25 percent share, with one exception. Funding provided to states under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development can be used to meet the nonfederal share requirement. www.fema.gov/government/grant/hmgp
[state emergency management director handbook] 55
Public Assistance Mitigation. Public Assistance Mitigation is authorized under Section 406(e) Repair, Restoration, and Replacement of Damaged Facilities of the Stafford Act 42 U.S.C. 5172 and is further implemented under Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §206.226 Restoration of damaged facilities. Section 406 provides discretionary authority to fund mitigation measures in conjunction with the repair of the disasterdamaged facilities. These opportunities usually present themselves during the repair efforts. Mitigation measures must be relevant to eligible disaster-related damages and directly reduce the potential of similar future disaster damages to the eligible facility. Normally, this work is performed on the parts of the facility actually damaged by the disaster. Mitigation measures must be determined to be cost effective and may amount to up to 15 percent of the total eligible cost of the eligible repair work on a particular project. www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/9526_1.shtm. Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM). The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program provides funds to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, communities, and public universities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the population and structures while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. PDM grants are awarded on a competitive basis and without reference to state allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation of funds. Mitigation funding under PDM is dependent on congressional authorization and appropriation levels. Funds are awarded through a competitive process managed by FEMA. Under this process FEMA provides ranking points for all eligible mitigation planning and project applications on the basis of predetermined, objective, quantitative factors to calculate a final national ranking score for each application. In making final grant allocation decisions, FEMA will rely on panels composed of representatives from FEMA, states, territories, local governments, federally recognized Indian tribal governments, and other federal agencies to peer evaluate project and planning applications on the basis of these qualitative factors. www.fema.gov/government.grant/pdm.index.shtm. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) funding opportunities include: Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA). The FMA program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the NFIP. FEMA provides FMA funds to assist states and communities in implementing measures that reduce or eliminate the longterm risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Three types of FMA grants are available to states and communities: • Planning grants to prepare flood mitigation plans. Only NFIP-participating communities with approved flood mitigation plans can apply for FMA project grants. • Project grants to implement measures to reduce flood losses, such as elevation, acquisition, or relocation of NFIP-insured structures. States are encouraged to prioritize FMA funds for applications that include repetitive loss properties; these include structures with two or more losses each with a claim of at least $1,000 within any ten-year period since 1978. • Management cost grants for the state to help administer the FMA program and activities. Up to ten percent of project grants may be awarded to states for management cost grants. An allocation is provided to each state or territory based on the total number of NFIP insurance policies and the total number of repetitive loss properties within the state or territory. An applicant may apply for funding up to or exceeding its allocation. Sub-applications received from applicants exceeding their allocation amount will be forwarded for national consideration. www.fema.gov/government/grant/fma/index.shtm. Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC). The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant program was authorized by the BunningBereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–264), which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al). Up to $10 million is available annually for FEMA to provide RFC funds to assist states and communities in reducing flood damages to insured properties that have had one or more claims to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA may contribute up to 100 percent of the total amount approved under the RFC grant award to implement approved activities, if the applicant has demonstrated the proposed activities cannot be funded under the FMA program. Residential or non-residential (commercial) properties that have received one or more NFIP insurance payments are eligible for RFC funds. Properties included in a sub-application must be NFIP-insured at the time of the application submittal. Flood insurance must be maintained at least through completion of the mitigation activity. www.fema.gov/government/grant/rfc/index.shtm. Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL). The Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grant program was authorized by the BunningBereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which amended the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to severe repetitive loss structures insured under NFIP. The definition of severe repetitive loss as applied to this program was established in section 1361A of the NFIA, 42
U.S.C. 4102a. An SRL property is defined as a residential property covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and: (a) That has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or (b) For which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made, with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building. For both (a) and (b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any ten-year period and must be greater than ten days apart.
The purpose of the Severe Repetitive Loss program is to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through project activities that will result in the greatest savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF). Federal/non-federal cost share may range from 75/25 percent up to 90/10 percent cost-share funding for projects approved in states, territories, and federally-recognized Indian tribes with FEMA-approved standard or enhanced mitigation plans or Indian tribal plans that include a strategy for mitigating existing and future SRL properties. www.fema.gov/government/grant/srl/index.shtm. A number of other federal agencies provide mitigation funding opportunities that complement or add to the grant funding provided by FEMA. Below is a chart that outlines some of the assistance available:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Control beach and shore erosion.
Emergency Streambank and Shoreline Stabilization Program Design & construction of projects
Study Cost: The feasibility study is 100 percent federally funded up to $100,000. Costs over the $100,000 are shared 50/50 with the non-federal sponsor.
State and local governments
Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act provides the Corps of Engineers authority to construct emergency shoreline and streambank protection works to protect public facilities, such as bridges, roads, public buildings, sewage treatment plants, water wells, and non-profit public facilities, such as churches, hospitals, and schools. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Housing redevelopment after a president declared disaster; for long-term needs, such as acquisition, rehabilitation or damaged property
The maximum federal expenditure at any one site is $1,500,000, and each project must be economically justified and environmentally sound.
Final design (plans and specifications) and construction costs are 65 percent federal 35 percent non-Federal. Project Cost: Design and construction cost are 65 percent Federal 35 percent non-Federal.
Community Planning and Development Grants to cities and urban counties under the “Community Development Block Grant Program”
None. May reallocate planned use of CDBG funds for disaster recovery
Certain metropolitan cities and qualified urban counties (Entitlement Communities). States managing CDBG programs for nonentitlement communities may reallocate planned funds after a disaster
continued next page
[state emergency management director handbook] 57
U.S. Economic Development Administration
To address the needs of distressed communities experiencing adverse economic changes that may occur suddenly or over time, and generally result from industrial or corporate restructuring, new federal laws or requirements, reduction in defense expenditures, depletion of natural resources, or natural disaster. Economic Adjustment Assistance grants are intended to enhance a distressed community’s ability to compete economically by stimulating private investment in targeted areas.
Economic Adjustment Assistance Project Grants
Generally, the amount of the EDA grant may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the project. Projects may receive an additional amount that shall not exceed 30 percent, based on the relative needs of the region in which the project will be located, as determined by EDA.
States, counties, cities and other political subdivisions; public or private nonprofit groups representing redevelopment areas
Small Business Administration
For reconstruction of disaster-caused uninsured losses to businesses
Physical Disaster Loans up to $2 million for businesses of all size and private, nonprofit organizations to repair or replace damaged real estate, equipment, inventory and fixtures.
The loan may be increased by as much as 20 percent of the total amount of disaster damage to real estate and/or leasehold improvements, as verified by SBA, to protect the property against future disasters of the same type. These loans will cover uninsured or under-insured losses.
Small Business Administration
For reconstruction of disaster caused uninsured losses to real estate or personal property
Home Disaster Loans up to $200,000 for real estate reconstruction and $40,000 for personal property reconstruction
Loans to homeowners or renters for uninsured losses from disaster may be increased 20% to include mitigation measures.
U.S. Department of Agriculture / Natural Resources Conservation Service
To undertake emergency measures, including the purchase of flood plain easements, for runoff retardation and soil erosion prevention to safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and the products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire, flood or any other natural occurrence is causing or has caused a sudden impairment of the watershed.
Emergency Watershed Protection grants; direct payments; technical assistance
NRCS provides up to 75 percent of the funds needed to restore the natural function of a watershed and up to 90 percent in limited resource areas. The community or local sponsor of the work pays the remaining cost-share, which can be provided by cash or in-kind services.
Public and private land owners or operators lacking funds to undertake needed measures
In the case of EDA investment assistance to a (n) (i) Indian tribe, (ii) state (or political subdivision of a state) that the assistant secretary determines has exhausted its effective taxing and borrowing capacity, or (iii) non-profit organization that the assistant secretary determines has exhausted its effective borrowing capacity, the assistant secretary has the discretion to establish a maximum EDA investment rate of up to 100 percent of the total project cost.
Further information detailing these federal programs can be found on the respective websites of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Economic Development Administration, Small Business Administration, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. State and Local Funding for Hazard Mitigation Initiatives Each state and local government will have a unique set of mitigation concerns and may employ a mix of programs to address them. While several federal programs provide funding for supporting mitigation initiatives, directors should explore and ensure the use of state and local funding opportunities as well. By promoting consideration of mitigation actions in routine state programs such as direct construction and maintenance of infrastructure elements; or by using state and local authorities in licensing or permitting to incorporate mitigation actions, significant progress may be realized in achieving state-wide mitigation capacity and capability. Commitment of state and local funding to such programs is a symbol of leadership and indicates a willingness to commit their own resources to building more disaster resilient and sustainable communities. Promoting Effective Mitigation FEMA provides a variety of information sources in support of effective mitigation, citing relevant case studies and state and local best practices on their website at: www.fema.gov/ plan/prevent/bestpractices/index.shtm. In the wake of disasters, people often wonder whether there is a way to protect both people and property from such devastating losses. The answer is a resounding “YES!” Mitigation is the way to provide that protection. Hazard mitigation means taking action to reduce or prevent future damage, preferably before a disaster strikes. The FEMA website provides a “Best Practices Portfolio” containing a collection of illustrated stories, ideas, activities, and projects that show how others have worked to reduce or prevent damage from disasters. In addition, the “Case Studies” portion of the website provides in-depth, analytical information about innovative projects throughout the United States, addressing a variety of hazards. Additional resources are provided through two publications available through the website:
• Telling the Tale of Disaster Resistance: A Guide to Capturing and Communicating the Story provides some of the “best practices” of those who have promoted disaster-resistance efforts throughout the country. In this guide, you will find the key considerations for successfully telling the tale of disaster resistance—developing story leads, researching and documenting projects, creating a finished product, and promoting those projects. •D eveloping and Promoting Mitigation Best Practices and Case Studies - Community Strategy Toolkit is designed to help guide efforts to capture and promote effective mitigation techniques employed throughout the country to reduce adverse impacts of disasters. States should seek opportunities to explore, document, and provide information about local mitigation success stories and work with the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and FEMA to share this information with their colleagues and communities. Mitigation represents a societal investment, not a cost. The benefits of this investment are clearly evidenced in several ways. Effective mitigation: • Averts loss of life and injury to people; • Reduces damage to public and private property; • Lessens expenditure of resources and exposure to risk for first responders; • Reduces costs of disaster response and recovery; • Accelerates recovery of communities and businesses affected by disasters; and • Enhances community resiliency and sustainability.
[state emergency management director handbook] 59
D-3. A Typical Approach to Hazard Mitigation Programming Desirable characteristics in mitigation and redevelopment programming include an approach that is comprehensive in its scope, addressing: • All natural, technological and societal hazards • All types of communities • All sectors of the community: government, business, institutions, nonprofit organizations, and the general public Effective strategies ensure broad participation by the public and private sectors in a process utilizing public involvement and input. Program initiatives should be prioritized by risk, rely on risk reduction measures ensuring long-term economic success for the whole community, be compatible with reducing risk for all types of hazards, and display the best mix of protection for a given location. Mitigation efforts should be an integral and routine part of organizational function.
A General Approach to Hazard Mitigation Programming
Hazard Identification Natural Hazards • Severe Weather • Flooding and Drought • Seismic Hazards • Wildfire • Agricultural Crisis
Vulnerability Assessment • Public Health & Safety
Mitigation Plan Development
• Emergency Response Capability
• Continuity of Government • Property and Infrastructure
• Economic Stability
•R adiological and Hazardous Materials
• Environmental Resources • Quality Of Community Life
Mitigation Plan Implementation
•Codes & Regulations
• Code Enforcement
• Establish All Non-Structural Options
• Land Use Controls • Education & Training • Redevelopment Plans
• Implement Structural Options as Funding Is Available Post-Disaster
• Utility/Infrastructure Failure
• Communications Outage
• Demolition & Removal
• Implement Redevelopment Plans
• Rebuild to Higher Standards
• T errorism and Civil Disorder
• Protective Structures
• Retrofit/Remove Structures
• Employment Crisis
• Implement Structural Options
• Mass Casualty/Fatality
In addition, successful programs ensure that: • Mitigation actions for natural hazards are compatible with those for technological hazards and vice versa; • All mitigation ultimately occurs at the local level; • Both pre-disaster (preventive) and post-disaster (corrective) initiatives are incorporated; • Hazard identification and risk assessment are cornerstones of mitigation; • Federal-state-local-private-nonprofit sector partnerships are fully utilized; • Those who choose to assume greater risk are responsible for that choice; and • Protecting natural and cultural resources are program components.
Staffing a state’s mitigation program will, more than likely, not be fully contained within the emergency management agency, but may be more reflective of a cooperative effort between agencies of state and local governments, and the private and nonprofit sectors. The chart below illustrates those inter-relationships.
Staffing a State’s Mitigation Program The State’s Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Mitigation Plan Development
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Liaison and Program Coord.
Emergency Management Agency Staff Personnel of Other State Agencies
Grant Program Coordinator Flood Plain Management Coordination Flood Mitigation Assistance Point of Contact Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Coordinator
Support Staff Risk Assessment Engineering and Environmental Analysis
Leaders of Public and Business Associations Leaders of Nonprofit Organizations
Economic Analysis Public Education Liaison with External Organizations
Role of the State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Role of the State Floodplain Manager
The state hazard mitigation officer (SHMO) is a key position that is responsible for the development and implementation of the state hazard mitigation program. The SHMO is directly responsible for developing complex hazard mitigation plans and projects for state and local government. Grant writing and overall coordination is necessary to gain funding for worthwhile mitigation projects and is a significant responsibility. Other functions involve advising and assisting the state emergency management director in mitigation activities, making frequent contacts with federal, state and local officials and public agencies to facilitate complex discussions, conducting studies and surveys, and planning and participating in workshops, conferences, and exercises.
The principal roles played by states in floodplain management include planning and implementing programs and projects for managing their own floodplains including statelevel regulations, providing technical expertise of all kinds to individuals and to other levels of government, especially localities, coordinating local, state, regional, and federal programs within their jurisdictions, coordinating the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) activities within their jurisdictions, entering into agreements with other states to cope with multi-jurisdictional flood problems, and acting as liaisons with the federal government. Some states directly regulate certain aspects of land use, selected types of lands, and specific kinds of activities. Some states emphasize public outreach and direct technical assistance to local governments. Others focus on enforcement. Still others focus on training local partners through state offices and state and regional floodplain management organizations.
NEMA has established a State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) Subcommittee of the Mitigation Committee. Any SHMO interested in joining the subcommittee is invited to do so. The purpose of the group is to serve as a technical resource to the NEMA Mitigation Committee as it considers mitigation issues, make suggestions and recommendations to the committee for improvements to national mitigation programs, serve as a forum for states to share information and best practices, and encourage networking among SHMOs in order to expand and enhance their knowledge and skills. The subcommittee meets in conjunction with NEMA national conferences and provides reports to the Mitigation Committee. SHMO subcommittee members also hold conference calls and communicate through social networking sites as needed.
The many activities and programs that contribute to floodplain management—emergency preparedness and response, natural resources protection, environmental quality, structural control measures, planning, economic development, etc.—along with the wide variety in local and regional efforts, makes the floodplain management picture of each state unique. The state floodplain management position is typically located in a department or agency of natural resources, water resources or environmental protection. Some are located within the state emergency management agency. Some of the duties of the floodplain manager include:
[state emergency management director handbook] 61
• Providing technical assistance to local governments • Monitoring local floodplain management programs •E ducating and training of local officials and other professionals • Administering grant programs •M apping flood hazards or conducting engineering activities or support • Providing technical assistance to property owners
• Helping with enforcement of local floodplain management ordinances • State-level enforcement • Promoting the sale of flood insurance It is important that the state floodplain manager and the state hazard mitigation officer work closely together to achieve common objectives identified in the state hazard mitigation plan.
D-4. Assessing Your Mitigation Program Directors should apply the following checklist to assess the status and achieve an understanding of their state’s mitigation program. m Identify existing program responsibilities of the emergency management agency
m R eview current training and education programs in mitigation and redevelopment
m Identify mitigation-related program responsibilities held by other state agencies
m C onfirm the current status of mitigation plans and procedures
m R eview the state’s mitigation program staff and organization of positions. For the state hazard mitigation officer, state floodplain management coordinator, and flood mitigation assistance point of contact, determine:
m S tate hazard mitigation plan is current and approved by FEMA
o Full or part time
o Agency in which located
o Specified responsibilities
o Experience and capabilities
o O rganizational relationship to emergency management staff
o Active / current programs and assignments
o Relationships / success with local government program involvement
m A ssess the level and effectiveness of interagency coordination and cooperation m Interagency mitigation team established and active m State priorities for mitigation and redevelopment established m M itigation programs for state resources and facilities in place m P rocedures for interagency processing of hazard mitigation initiatives
o P rogram in place to achieve local hazard mitigation and redevelopment planning
o F lood mitigation assistance program is supporting development of local flood mitigation plans
o P lans and procedures in place for rapid application of additional resources and personnel for mitigation efforts immediately after a major disaster
o P lans and procedures are “operationalized” to facilitate expeditious implementation of mitigation programs and rapid processing of applications for mitigation funding
m R eview program budget and funding sources m Seek staff recommendations regarding program needs and enhancements
D-5. Recommendations for an Effective National Mitigation Effort In 2009, NEMA worked in conjunction with a number of partner organizations to publish the white paper Recommendations for an Effective National Mitigation Effort: Building Stronger Partnerships, Increased Resilience, and Disaster Resistance for a Safer Nation. This effort, funded by FEMA and led by NEMA, was endorsed by the following organizations: • American Public Works Association • American Society of Civil Engineers • Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers • Association of State Flood Plain Managers • Central United States Earthquake Consortium • Federal Emergency Management Agency • Institute for Building Technology and Safety • International Association of Emergency Managers • International Code Council • National Association of Counties • National Emergency Management Association • Reinsurance Association of America • Western States Seismic Policy Council • U.S. Chamber of Commerce This paper offers a number of strategic themes and suggested next steps for improving mitigation efforts nationally. It provides in relevant part: Strategic Themes – To advance the nation’s resilience and protection from the hazards it faces, several themes must be recognized as the foundation for successful mitigation programs, initiatives, and strategies. Broader Collaborative Partnerships – No single agency or level of government, sector of business, nonprofit organization, or individual community can achieve successful mitigation on its own. While a few professional disciplines identify hazard mitigation as a core mission area, the activities of these disciplines alone are not nearly enough to achieve effective investments and policies that protect against the hazards that lead to future disasters. Further, the traditional community of mitigation partners does not include the leaders or citizens who will have the most influence on its success or failure. Local governments often have the lead responsibility for implementing mitigation strategies and differ both on the challenges and solutions for mitigation. Furthermore, in order to facilitate the most comprehensive dialogue, greater effort should be made to bring into the process those stakeholders with dissenting viewpoints. Future mitigation endeavors must build non-traditional partnerships: they must include those who disagree or are skeptical of the benefits, and they must rely on community leaders to buy into and then champion the efforts to effect good mitigation activities. These endeavors must allow local communities with sufficient capabilities to not become handicapped by overly bureaucratic processes but, rather, to provide the appropriate level of assistance to communities with lesser capabilities. As broader partnerships evolve, roles and
responsibilities of all participants must also be defined and shared, allowing for evolution over time. What can be offered by or expected from any entity today may change as the collaborative enterprise develops. T otal Hazard Awareness – Individuals, communities, and agencies will not invest in preventing hazardous consequences if they do not know what might impact them. Hazards identification and risk assessments need to be acknowledged, personalized, and internalized if there is to be any expectation of investment of effort to protect against them. There are two critical steps to this task. First, there needs to be an ability to identify hazards on a large geographic scale (i.e. hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.), but, even more importantly, the hazards and potential consequences must be known on specific locality, community, or unique individual levels. Second, the risks must be communicated effectively nationally, regionally, and individually. An intensive effort to identify risks globally and uniquely, combined with a robust endeavor to more effectively communicate the threats and hazards including a strong public awareness campaign, is the formula to promote and more effectively enact sound decisions in risk avoidance measures. The mitigation planning process as required by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act is a good tool for this purpose. An ironic aspect of this issue is that most individuals and agencies already make significant mitigation investments without recognizing them as mitigation. For instance, purchasing insurance – property, health or vehicle – and using seat belts while driving are personal risk management measures. The use of hurricane straps to secure roofs to homes or earthquake straps on water heaters are examples of more traditional disaster mitigation measures. Federal, state, and local leaders and the private sector may still decide against taking some mitigation measures, but at least those decisions would be made with a full awareness and knowledge of the costs versus the benefits. ull Spectrum – Community-to-Federal Emphasis – F Federal, state, local, and tribal efforts to encourage, mandate, and/or fund mitigation actions are important and necessary. But when local communities or individual agencies that actually implement preventive, protective, or resilient measures choose not to act or are not treated as full and complete partners, many actions of the federal and state entities turn out to be for naught. This “push” methodology by the federal and state governments needs to combine with or shift to a “pull” approach initiated by
[state emergency management director handbook] 63
local communities. If the communities and individuals where mitigation acts are resourced and enacted created the demand side of the investment equation, then an environment of satisfying mitigation needs would be created rather than a top-down attitude of dictation and enforcement. The state-federal focus would shift from trying to convince locals to act to a focus on organizing and resourcing to keep up with locally driven requirements within the context of federal mitigation programs. Necessary Elements of a National Mitigation Strategy – The above ideas should be the recurrent themes running through any future mitigation strategies, programs, and initiatives. Additionally, several unique elements and concepts need to be included in future national mitigation approaches. trive for Common or Symbiotic Objectives - Risk reducS tion actions are most effective either when the multiple parties that must be involved have the same outcomes in mind or when individual objectives overlap and are mutually supporting. Mitigation objectives for specific projects can differ among individuals, but if the same project supports multiple desired outcomes, success and achievement are increased. Opportunities where a mitigation action actually produces more important non-disaster related benefits should also be sought (e.g., mitigation-related land use decisions that promote economic opportunities or environmental benefits can serve both ecological and human-protection benefits). eek Out and Encourage Activities Where the Benefits Are S Intuitive – Some approaches to mitigation value process over product. In some cases, a proposed mitigation project or program has clear and obvious benefits. However, the clarity of the outcome of these “no brainers” can be lost and inadequately communicated due to a desire for excessive and unnecessary quantitative requirements. A new government and partner culture needs to be created to allow intuitively beneficial projects to be discovered, supported, and implemented without an overwhelming burden of bureaucratic process. mbed Mitigation in Policy Development as Broadly as E Possible – Guiding risk reduction policies and specific hazard mitigation measures enhance individual and agency resilience through redundancy, protection, and preparedness. These are not the sole domain of any single agency, discipline, or profession. Executives and policy makers in many domains could advance their reduction of risk in ways outside their traditional scope of responsibility. If the discussion of mitigation of future loss were embedded in a wider variety or policy and public choice discussions, then decisions that inadvertently increase risk would be avoided or at least acknowledged in an open and transparent dialogue. (For example, one opportunity would have been a requirement to include hazard mitigation measures, or at least their consideration, in the project guidance for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.) emand Open Dialogue – Both mitigation advocates and D those who oppose certain mitigation measures should
debate the costs and benefits in forums as openly as possible. All who are affected by a mitigation decision should have a voice in its adoption, rejection, or modification. Technology provides us with many creative and different ways to reach people around the country and audiences outside the governmental perspective. Stakeholder input is needed to develop strong mitigation programs and to provide feedback on existing programs. Educate and Embrace Federal, State, and Local Officials – Elected and appointed officials must make tough decisions and weigh costs versus benefits every day. To make wise policy decisions where mitigation investments are concerned, they deserve to be educated about the threats, risks, benefits, costs, and advantages as fully as possible. Recognition must be made that each local government possesses a different level of capability to mitigate, as well as different problems to mitigate. Therefore, flexibility is needed to realize that one size does not fit all. reate a Body of Knowledge of Mitigation Tools, ReC sources, Practices and Successes – Once a demand for mitigation is realized, communities, citizens, and other participants in the effort will be empowered to achieve success. A body of knowledge already exists in various places within the community of mitigation and in academic research communities. These collections are constantly growing as communities embark on mitigation efforts. But this knowledge base needs to be centralized, managed, grown, and accessible “for the masses” at all levels of government and it must address unique, localized problems so that experience can accelerate performance. This is one component necessary for the creation of a national mitigation capacity. Another critical element is advancement of education, research, analysis, and science in the mitigation realm. Policy makers at all levels of government need, and deserve, the hard evidence to support favorable mitigation policies. The mitigation community must find a way to effectively deliver this requirement. mphasize Incentive, Not Punitive Mitigation Policies – E Hazard mitigation often is not a “naturally occurring” phenomenon. It can be encouraged and rewarded, or it can be mandated with punishment for noncompliance. There may be rare cases where the latter is necessary, but the former suits the culture of our nation and citizens. Policy makers should consider funding programs designed to reward effective land use and building-design actions including building codes and ordinances. Don’t Get Stuck on Definitions – Describe “mitigation” as broadly as possible without losing the mitigation focus. While compliance with certain legislative and statutory limitations may be necessary, the concept of what mitigation is intended to achieve should not be limited by personal prejudices or governmental regulation. If an action helps safeguard an individual’s or family’s most important assets before a disaster strikes, then action should be taken. The pro and cons of different mitigation approaches and levels of protection should be discussed.
easure, Capture, and Celebrate Success – Along with M some enhanced ability to measure the effectiveness of mitigation, strategies to publicize and share those successes must also be developed. (California’s recent scenario-based public preparedness activities involved millions of citizens and resulted in many individual mitigation and preparedness efforts. This type of event should be memorialized and publicized for broader national audiences). Exploring and designing ways to measure the long-term benefits of mitigation on non-mitigation values (e.g. tourism, environment, economy) would also enhance the attractiveness and justification for mitigation efforts. Suggested Next Steps – While the above themes and elements are strategic in nature, specific actions could be taken to begin to institutionalize them. With each step, “enabling action” is suggested that could provide a more concrete initial activity to realize each objective. 1. F orm a National Mitigation Collaborative Alliance – This entity would be a starting point to expand and discuss the above ideas as well as form a collaborative environment for future direction and strategy. Federal, state, local, and tribal governments and private enterprise would be equal partners in such a collaborative body. While state, local, tribal, and federal governments might act as the conveners of such a body, their roles would be focused on facilitation and acting as catalysts for action. The representatives in this alliance should include the “traditional” mitigation community, but must also include membership and input from those who actually implement mitigation measures. Dissenting viewpoints should be encouraged for debate and consideration by the alliance. This body would also rely upon and provide a coordination point for the numerous councils, committees, and workgroups that have been relentlessly studying and advancing mitigation efforts for years. Enabling Action: A workshop should be convened to draft and establish the objectives, structure, and governance of this alliance. Ideally, this collaborative effort will be the foundation of specific policy and strategy recommendations to begin implementation of the goals, steps, and themes of this paper. 2. Invigorate “Grass Roots” Participation – More effective and more accepted mitigation activity is best achieved when it is demanded by the people and communities it is intended to serve. The mitigation community must not only better connect with individual citizens and local officials, but it must also empower them with knowledge and options that are present in a mitigation strategy for their communities. Total awareness of the hazards that face a community must be readily available, along with the options to mitigate those hazards. Leaders and influencers at the grassroots level of the nation should be involved and empowered for mitigation decision-making, not just informed and consulted about state or federal decisions. The leaders of national mitigation efforts must innovate and implement a more effective way of engaging citizens, tribal
governments, and communities. The desired outcome for this endeavor would be achieving “mitigation for the masses.” Enabling Action: In concert with the establishment of the alliance, an investigation of success and failure of mitigation actions needs to be conducted that focuses on the perspective of the implementing entities. The mitigation community needs to understand when and why mitigation is, and outreach strategies can be contemplated and implemented. 3. Build a National Mitigation Knowledge Repository While some libraries of tools, resources, and practices exist, there is no comprehensive collection of the full range of mitigation-related topics and knowledge. Mitigation success stories, lessons learned, tools, applied research, empirical data, templates, academic research, hazard analysis, etc. should be brought together in an open forum available to all. Expanding the reach of mitigation to not only to those interested but also those impacted by hazards is the goal of the knowledge repository. Enabling Action: A review and study of the existing resources related to mitigation activities needs to be conducted to first understand what currently exists and in what forms. From there, and in coordination with all partners, the desired end state of a mitigation knowledge base needs to be determined, designed, and developed. 4. Connect Mitigation to Other Programs – The mitigation community should work along with all other programs and initiatives that affect public safety and have similar missions. Mitigation knowledge can inform, and be informed by, communities of interest across the scope of the safety and security spectrum. Prevention, preparedness, protection, response, recovery, resilience, continuity, and mitigation are all interconnected activities that best serve the public in an enterprise, rather than individual, stove-piped approaches. Enabling Action: The mitigation community should discuss and determine the identities of other programs and activities in which there is a desired interaction. The breadth and scope of each interaction may be unique and specific to each entity. 5. Policy Emphasis Review – Current and proposed policies and funding guidelines for mitigation efforts should be reviewed in respect to the “incentive vs. dictate” balance. Mitigation will be more successful in the future if it becomes embraced as wise and beneficial public policy as opposed to a directive or punitive imposition of government. Enabling Action: A comprehensive review of federal, state, and local mitigation policies, guidance, and directives should be conducted to determine the “best practices” that incentivize mitigation actions.
[state emergency management director handbook] 65
Conclusion – Mitigation is not an isolated or unique activity for any single level of government, private sector, or funding source. Mitigation is a pervasive activity that needs to include the broadest range of participants, making widely available the most current and accurate hazard identification information. Mitigation should be demand-driven from the communities where it makes the most difference. It is in the interest of decision makers at the higher levels of government to use their dollars to promote and incentivize a comprehensive and systematic approach for mitigation to be implemented at the local community level.iv
i Natural Disaster Reduction: A Plan for the Nation, National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction, February 1996. ii White Paper: Recommendations for an Effective National Mitigation Effort: Building Stronger Partnerships, Increased Resilience, and Disaster Resistance for a Safer Nation, National Mitigation Collaborative Alliance, 2009.
White Paper: Recommendations for an Effective National Mitigation Effort: Building Stronger Partnerships, Increased Resilience, and Disaster Resistance for a Safer Nation, National Mitigation Collaborative Alliance, 2009.
White Paper: Recommendations for an Effective National Mitigation Effort: Building Stronger Partnerships, Increased Resilience, and Disaster Resistance for a Safer Nation, National Mitigation Collaborative Alliance, 2009.
[E] Response E-1. Managing Emergency Operations: Points to Remember The following points (A-E) were made by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Craig Fugate in an address to newly appointed state emergency management directors at the Emergency Management Institute (EMI) in July 2010. A. The Rules 1. Meet the needs of the disaster survivors 2. Take care of your responders 3. See Rule One B. S tanding Orders 1. Establish communications with areas impacted 2. Search and rescue/security 3. Meet basic human needs • Medical • Water • Food • Shelter • Emergency fuel • Ice 4. Restore critical infrastructure 5. Open schools/local businesses 6. Begin the recovery C. Y our Governor • Does your governor know your first name? • H as your governor been to the state emergency management operations center? •D oes your governor participate in exercises that you attend? •D oes your governor see you as the Go To person for disasters? D. K eys to Building an Effective State Response to Disasters
Leadership •D oes the governor set the example for all of state government by participating in training and exercises? Is emergency management a priority of the executive branch?
Legal Authorities •D o state statutes provide the legal basis for the executive branch to act, order evacuations, declare emergencies, and expend state funds?
Reserve Funds •D oes the state budgeting process provide sufficient reserve funds to allow the executive branch to begin the response to support local governments without a federal disaster declaration?
State Team •D o state agencies work as one team in a disaster, or as individual agencies? Are volunteer groups, state associations, and the private sector part of the team? Mutual Aid •C an the executive branch mobilize and deploy non-impacted local resources to the area of impact? Has the executive branch been briefed on how to utilize the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)? E.
Command Observations • Get into the field early and see the impacts for yourself. • Give direction and then get out of the way of your team. • Solve problems; don’t create them. • Surround yourself with problem solvers, not problem creators. • Don’t settle for why something cannot be done. • Failure is not an option.
Common Mistakes Most Emergency Managers Make and How to Avoid Them Through a combination of field experience and research, the following set of guidelines has been established as a reminder of the common mistakes in managing operations. 1. Lack of a viable disaster plan. Suggestion: Do the homework in planning. Planning provides the very foundation and blueprint for all emergency response. 2. No knowledge of disaster resources. Suggestion: Know the resources. Be aware of all the resources that are available with specialized capabilities and limitations noted. Improper use and designation of resources ranks high as a major complication in disaster operations. 3. Lack of visible leadership. Suggestion: Ensure that somebody runs the show. The larger and more complicated a disaster becomes, the fewer the individuals who want to step forward and assume the role. Establish the position ahead of time during the planning process and provide visible leadership. 4. Bad decisions make the situation worse. Suggestion: Don’t make it worse. While this is simple, logical, true and obvious, it is hard to grasp its full significance. Think about the decisions, get a good grip on the situation, don’t let people take foolish chances and DON’T MAKE IT WORSE! 5. Trying to obtain too much information, while not establishing a control on the information flow.
[state emergency management director handbook] 67
Suggestion: Capture control of the information flow. Reliable filters must be established to provide some isolation from all the information clamoring for attention. Establish a set pattern for information flow and monitor frequently. Checking for information reliability and follow-up is essential. Equally important is the formulation of an efficient plan to pass information to the outside world. People outside the affected area need an overview of what is going on. 6. Focusing on the insignificant. Suggestion: Prioritize the problems; don’t be drawn into trivia. Put some problems in “boxes” early and determine their categories. Keep the focus on important things and refuse to deal with anything else at the same time. 7. Unknown EOC staff. Suggestion: Know the emergency staff before the disaster occurs. Be prepared to deal with facts of human nature and don’t let them bog down the system. Test the people through a competent exercise program, and know their capabilities. 8. Physical fatigue and burnout. Suggestion: Insist that everyone get adequate rest and relief. At what point do staff people become counterproductive? Make sure everyone gets rest; otherwise, they won’t. The crisis will usually last longer than anyone estimates, so this rule is important to remember. Start almost immediately to assign enforced rest and relief periods with adequate shift changes. This also includes any executive level management. 9. Information void. Suggestion: Let everyone know what’s happening. Bring the key players and organizations together often to disseminate information and exchange views. Make sure everyone is briefed on a regular basis. 10. Be flexible. Suggestion: Maintain the ability to have options. In many cases there won’t be enough information for a comfortable decision. In the face of uncertainty, remember to select the option that leaves the greatest freedom for subsequent actions. 11. Litigation will follow. Suggestion: Document and maintain records. Conflicts of interest, differences of opinion and misunderstandings are inevitable. Keep a good audit trail of reports, conditions, and decisions to facilitate any defense, should it be necessary. From the outset, establish a systematic effort to gather and store data to assist you in the future. 12. Avoid “unknowns.” Suggestion: Know the territory. Learn about the resources and geographic locations specific to the territory. If there are gaps in the communications system, its best they are found before a major situation develops. Locations that are particularly hazardous or present operational difficulty should be identified and studied.
13. Negative dealings with the media. Suggestion: Deal with the media in a positive way. Establish a professional relationship with the media before the disaster hits. Establish fair and uniform rules - never get into an adversary position. Establish good access to the public information officer (PIO). Don’t let the media put words in your mouth; and be their conscience, if necessary. 14. Inability to keep “people statistics.” Suggestion: Assign someone to specifically keep track of missing and known dead. During the first 48 hours of the onset of a disaster, there will be an acute need for accurate lists of survivors, their location and condition. 15. Not remembering whom we are working for. Suggestion: Provide for survivor needs – they will have an overwhelming need for reassurance that they are alive. 16. Post-disaster let down. Suggestion: Provide for debriefing sessions. As the situation begins to subside, expect some delayed stress reaction from all of the people who have been deeply involved. Arrange for a debriefing or, in some cases, consultation with a counselor. 17. Doing a “mediocre” job. Suggestion: Have the courage and conviction to do what needs to be done.
Practical Approaches to Minimizing Liability •U se trained decision-makers during emergency or disaster situations. •Make informed decisions with objective assessment of risks and benefits, collect the relevant facts, and apply the appropriate standards. • T ake the time you have to make decisions. Even if the time is tight, take every minute of it. Make no snap judgments except in situations demanding immediate decisions. • T ap the experts for advice. •B uild a record. Keep a log (documentation). Make sure paperwork is preserved that documents decisions. •E ducate on legal matters. Read the statutes and regulations governing responsibilities in emergency management. •M ake sure there is access to an attorney. Ask the attorney if legal immunity applies, at least for the decisions and actions made in good faith within the scope of your expertise and official responsibilities. •W here the law does not provide immunity for decisions, find ways to minimize the risks of legal liability. •D o not let unreasonable fear of legal liability paralyze you and your staff. The law creates constraints in order to protect all of us from negligence and intentional wrongdoing, not to prevent doing what needs to be done.
• In general, emergency management officials should take some comfort in the fact that lawsuits over alleged flaws in disaster response have almost always been dismissed. In many jurisdictions, statutes provide comprehensive protection. Where statutes do not provide blanket immunity, a given aspect of response is still likely to be immune from suit, either as a “governmental function” or as a “discretionary act.” The courts have generally recognized that allowing lawsuits to challenge planning and executive level decision- making could paralyze emergency managers. Considerable protection is provided to reasonable and well-intentioned actions. Courts are reluctant to second-guess the judgment of individuals making life-and-death decisions under emergency conditions in the face of uncertainty, personal risk and lack of time. This reluctance generally translates into a finding that the act was discretionary or a governmental function, protected from liability. However, flagrant or obvious deviations from good practice or standard procedure can still result in liability.i
The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) has established a Legal Counsel Committee that is comprised of all state legal counsels who are interested in participating. These may be individuals who are assigned full time to a state emergency management agency or those in an attorney general’s office who have emergency management as one of several state agencies in their portfolio. The NEMA Legal Counsel Committee provides an invaluable resource for state legal counsels to network with their peers across the nation to share information on emergency management legal issues, seek advice when needed based on the experience of other states, and take advantage of training opportunities provided through the committee. The FEMA Office of General Counsel interacts regularly with the NEMA Legal Counsel Committee and utilizes the group as a resource and sounding board on issues impacting the states. The committee holds monthly conference calls to discuss current and emerging legal issues and meets in conjunction with NEMA national conferences.
E-2. Overview of Local, State, and Federal Response to Disasters The term “response” refers to those actions necessary to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic human needs after an incident has occurred. Response also includes the execution of emergency operations plans and actions to support short-term recovery.
The proper role for the state emergency management director is to take an overall strategic perspective. The actual implementing and directing of the overall strategy is a tactical concern and is the responsibility of the emergency operations center (EOC) staff. It is important not to get caught up in the tactical details of the event and lose strategic perspective and effective management. Citizens expect their government to protect them, assist them, and inform them when a disaster threats or occurs.
A. Local Government: Local government is the primary “first provider” of emergency response services. If the disaster requires significant actions for the protection of lives and property, local government activates its EOC and emergency operations plan and coordinates the response with public and private organizations and agencies to alleviate or eliminate problems that occur. The local office of emergency management will notify the state emergency management agency of the situation by submitting situation reports (SITREPS). If local government capabilities to meet the need for emergency response are likely to be exceeded:
[state emergency management director handbook]
Emergency/Disaster General Sequence Checklist • Disaster occurs or threatens. • Inform the governor. •A ctivate the emergency operations plan (complete or portions) and EOC. •A ssess the need for immediate life saving measures, i.e., evacuation, shelter in place, etc. • Initiate damage assessment, as necessary. • Establish liaison with affected jurisdictions. •R eceive briefing from local agencies on the situation and initial response activities. • Issue disaster/emergency proclamations by local officials and governor. • Request assistance from relief organizations. • Deploy state resources. • Issue assurances to the public.
• Determines if the situation is beyond the capability of the state and if federal assistance is needed to alleviate or eliminate the immediate threat to life and property. If warranted, the governor proclaims a state of emergency that activates the state emergency operations plan, provides for the use of state assistance or resources, and begins the process for possible provision of federal assistance or resources. In some states the lieutenant governor has the authority to declare a state of emergency, and in others it’s the state emergency management director. It’s important to know who has the authority in the state, what the criteria are for declaring an emergency, and that the information is noted in the state emergency operations plan. It is also important to know whether the governor has explicit authority codified in law to direct and compel emergency evacuations. After the immediate threat has passed, the comprehensive damage assessment process begins.
State Response Actions
• Activate mutual aid agreements as applicable.
Determine whether the situation warrants a partial or full activation of the EOC.
•E valuate the need for federal assistance and the consequences.
Activation, staffing of EOC. • Plan for shift changes.
• Identify specific needs and types of assistance that cannot be furnished by local and state resources.
Situation assessment. • Which jurisdictions are currently involved? Potential for others to be impacted? When? • Status of emergency responders and resources: What has or is being committed? Types and locations of backup resources, personnel, inventories. Availability? • What emergency conditions exist? Imminent danger situations? What life support responses are needed?
•P repare to make future commitments when requesting outside assistance. •R equest federal disaster assistance and declaration through the office of the governor.
• T he local government may call upon the assistance of any or all local governments and organizations that are signatory to mutual aid compacts. •A ny response agreements with state agencies may be executed. • L ocal elected official(s) may also make a local proclamation of emergency to authorize use of local resources, to authorize the expenditure of local funds, and to waive the usual bidding process for goods and services. • T he local elected official(s) may make a request to the state emergency management agency for state assistance.
B. State: On notification of disaster response from local government, the state emergency management agency: • Monitors the situation. •R eviews and evaluates the local situation reports, local response efforts and requests for assistance.
• If necessary, activates the state EOC to coordinate available state assistance.
Identify tasks and demands. • What is being done? • What needs to be done? Now? Within next 12, 24, 48, 72 hours, etc.? • Additional warning needed? • Evacuation? Implement damage assessment. Identify who needs to be notified and briefed. Which key official(s)? Activate emergency public information procedures. Initiate assessment, documentation, and legal procedures for declaring state of emergency. • Is federal assistance needed? What kind of assistance? • Does situation warrant requesting a presidential disaster declaration? Is an emergency declaration, expedited or major declaration needed? Important Issue: Timing of the governor’s emergency declaration. • A timely declaration acknowledges the severity of the situation and ensures that assistance will be prompt.
ctivate the Emergency Management Assistance A Compact (EMAC) if interstate mutual aid resources are needed. Remember to: • Keep a log. • Document everything. • Use standard operating procedures (SOPs). • Act quickly to address special population needs. • Monitor resources that are deployed. • Ensure proper demobilization and return of resources. • Keep the boss informed. • Keep the media informed. • Keep the general public informed.
The Role of the State Emergency Operations Center Most states maintain a state-level EOC configured to expand, as necessary, to manage events requiring state-level assistance. The state EOC is the central location from which off-scene activities supported by the state are coordinated. The key function of state EOC personnel is to ensure that those who are located at the scene have the resources (i.e., personnel, tools, and equipment) they need for the response. EOCs help form a common operating picture of the incident, relieve on-scene command of the burden of external coordination and secure additional resources. The core functions of an EOC include coordination, communication, resource allocation and tracking and information collection, analysis and dissemination. EOCs should be flexible and scalable. They will generally perform common functions during an incident; however, not all of the system’s functions will be performed during every incident, and functions may not occur in any particular order. Primary functions may include the following: • Situation assessment • Incident priority determination • Critical resource acquisition and allocation •P olicy direction for relevant incident management and interagency activities •C oordination with FEMA regional response coordination centers (RRCCs) •C oordination with the FEMA national response coordination center (NRCCs) • Coordination with elected and appointed officials • Coordination of summary information • Public information The physical size, staffing and equipping of an EOC will depend on the size of the jurisdiction, resources available and anticipated incident management workload. EOCs may be organized and staffed in a variety of ways. FEMA provides technical assistance services to aid state, regional, territorial, tribal, and local jurisdictions in activities related to planning, building, and equipping an EOC. Workshops and briefings are held to discuss hazard and vulnerability assessments, EOC capability assessments, site selection, building design, room design, communications, information management, developing standard operating procedures (SOPs), training,
and validation. When building a new EOC or planning a major retrofit, it is common for emergency management directors or staff to visit other state EOCs to gather ideas that may be implemented back home. State directors will go out of their way to accommodate requests from peers to visit their EOCs. EOCs commonly have a governor’s conference room where the governor may receive situational assessments from the state emergency management director, monitor the response, and make decisions requiring the governor’s authority. The governor may also choose to conduct press briefings from the state EOC. State directors should take every opportunity to familiarize the governor with the EOC and encourage him or her to visit during exercises and activations. During extended response operations, when stress and fatigue have set in, your EOC staff will appreciate a visit and a few words from the governor acknowledging their efforts. The private sector also has a critical role to play in disaster response and recovery operations. Many states now have a private sector liaison co-located in the state EOC to help coordinate information between the public sector and businesses to acquire comprehensive situational awareness. Some states have gone so far as to establish a “business EOC.” A business EOC provides a mechanism for the state to pre-identify critical private sector partners and vendors who can assist with the reestablishment of services that are necessary to sustain life and commerce following a critical incident and integrate them into disaster response and recovery plans and activities. In turn, businesses that are involved in the business EOC have access to information that can help get them back online sooner following a disaster. This allows employees to get back to work, commodities and supplies from the private sector to be available for disaster survivors so the state can focus limited resources elsewhere, and communities to recover more quickly when commerce is taking place.
Incident Command System The Incident Command System (ICS) is a standardized, on-scene, all-hazards incident management approach that: •A llows for the integration of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications operating within a common organizational structure. •E nables a coordinated response among various jurisdictions and functional agencies, both public and private. •E stablishes common processes for planning and managing resources. ICS is flexible and can be used for incidents of any type, scope, and complexity. ICS allows its users to adopt an integrated organizational structure to match the complexities and demands of single or multiple incidents. ICS is intended to be used by all levels of government – federal, state, tribal, and local, - as well as by many nongovernmental organizations and the private sector. ICS is also applicable across disciplines. It is typically structured to facilitate activities in five major functional areas: command,
[state emergency management director handbook]
saving/sustaining, property protection, and/or public health and safety requirements that are beyond the capability of the state (and affected local governments). The FEMA regional office will immediately evaluate and process the request along with an expedited recommendation to the FEMA Disaster Assistance Directorate. Direct federal assistance under public assistance category A and/or B will be provided at a 75 percent federal, 25 percent state cost share.
Some Lessons Learned from the 2009 Kentucky Ice Storm •E mergency lifesaving is absolutely the first priority. Not everyone will get this! •S helters aren’t obvious and aren’t simple! You might not have one if you haven’t tried it. •O ver-resource and then right-size. You get one first move. • T he key is situational awareness. What do you do when you can’t communicate? •D on’t bet on external response timelines no matter what. Good intentions won’t get the job done. •H ave a backup plan to the backup plan. If it can go wrong, it will. Then what? Brig. Gen. John Heltzel, Director, Kentucky Emergency Management
operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration. All of the functional areas may or may not be used based on the incident needs. Intelligence/investigations is an optional sixth functional area that is activated on a case-by-case basis. As a system, ICS is extremely useful. Not only does it provide an organizational structure for incident management, but it also guides the process for planning, building and adapting that structure. Using ICS for every incident or planned event helps hone and maintain skills needed for the large-scale incidents.
Types of Federal Assistance Available during Response Operations Emergency Declaration: An emergency declaration can be declared for any occasion or instance when the president determines federal assistance is needed. Emergency declarations supplement state and local efforts in providing emergency services, such as the protection of lives, property, public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States. The total amount of assistance provided for a single emergency may not exceed $5 million. If this amount is exceeded, the president must notify Congress. Expedited Major Declaration: The governor may request an expedited major declaration for public assistance categories A and/or B, including direct federal assistance (e.g., emergency teams, equipment, commodities) to support life-
Major Declaration: The president can declare a major disaster declaration for any natural event, including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought or, regardless of cause, fire, flood, or explosion that the president believes has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond. A major disaster declaration provides a wide range of federal assistance programs for individuals and public infrastructure, including funds for both emergency and permanent work. Fire Management Assistance Grants (FMAG): The FMAG Program is available to states, local and tribal governments for the mitigation, management, and control of fires on publicly or privately owned forests or grasslands that threaten such destruction as would constitute a major disaster. The FMAG declaration process is initiated when a state submits a request for assistance to the FEMA regional director at the time a “threat of major disaster” exists. The entire process is accomplished on an expedited basis, and a FEMA decision is rendered in a matter of hours. There is a 75 percent federal cost share and the state pays the remaining 25 percent for actual costs. Before a grant can be awarded, a state must demonstrate that total eligible costs for the declared fire meet or exceed either the individual fire cost threshold which applies to single fires, or the cumulative fire cost threshold, which recognizes numerous smaller fires burning throughout a state. Eligible firefighting costs may include expenses for field camps; equipment use, repair and replacement; tools, materials and supplies; and mobilization and demobilization activities. Federal Assistance Available without a Presidential Declaration: In many cases, assistance may be obtained from the federal government without a presidential declaration. For example, FEMA places liaisons in state EOCs and moves commodities near incident sites that may require federal assistance prior to a presidential declaration. Federal departments and agencies may provide immediate lifesaving assistance to states under their own statutory authorities without a formal presidential declaration. Proactive Response to Catastrophic Incidents: Prior to and during catastrophic incidents, especially those that occur with little or no notice, the state and federal governments may take proactive measures to mobilize and deploy assets in anticipation of a formal request from the state for federal assistance. Such deployments of significant federal assets would likely occur for catastrophic events involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive weapons of mass destruction; large-magnitude earthquakes;
or other catastrophic incidents affecting heavily populated areas. The proactive responses are utilized to ensure that resources reach the scene in a timely manner to assist in restoring any disruption of normal function of state or local governments. Proactive notification and deployment of federal resources in anticipation of or in response to catastrophic events will be done in coordination and collaboration with state, tribal, and local governments and private sector entities when possible.
C. Federal Government National Response Framework The National Response Framework (NRF) presents the guiding principles that enable all response partners to prepare for and provide a unified national response to disasters and emergencies – from the smallest incident to the largest catastrophe. The Framework defines the key principles, roles, and structures that organize the way we respond as a nation. It describes how communities, tribes, states, the federal government, and private sector and nongovernmental partners apply these principles for a coordinated, effective national response. The National Response Framework is always in effect, and elements can be implemented at any level at any time.
•U nity of Effort through Unified Command: Effective unified command is indispensable to all response activities; requires clear understanding of roles and responsibilities; shared objectives. Each agency maintains its own authority, responsibility and accountability. •R eadiness to Act: Readiness to act balanced with an understanding of risk. Requires clear, focused communications. Disciplined processes, procedures, systems. From individuals, families, communities to local, state and federal agencies, national response depends on instinct and ability to act. The Framework also includes incident annexes that address specific categories of contingencies or hazard situations requiring specialized application of Framework mechanisms. Details relating to requesting and receiving assistance, as well as the authorities under which assistance is provided, are available on the NRF Resource Center website. Response partner guides, information on Stafford Act and non-Stafford Act assistance, all annexes, and a listing of legal authorities are available on this website.ii http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/index.htm
The NRF addresses the following topics: •K ey Players: Organizations and entities that may either need assistance or provide assistance •F ederal Assistance: Descriptions of the processes for requesting and obtaining federal assistance in support of states, tribes, local jurisdictions, and other federal partners •E mergency Support Function Annexes: Summaries of the 15 ESF annexes, which group federal resources and capabilities into functional areas to serve as the primary mechanisms for providing assistance at the operational level •S upport Annexes: Summaries of the eight support annexes, which describe essential supporting aspects that are common to all incidents The Framework describes five elements of the Response Doctrine: •E ngaged Partnerships: Avoid dominoes of sequential failure. Develop layered, mutually supporting capabilities; plan together; understand strengths/weaknesses; know where gaps are. Develop shared goals; align capabilities so no one allows another to be overwhelmed. •T iered Response: Incidents must be managed at the lowest possible jurisdictional level and supported by additional response capabilities when needed. •S calable, Flexible and Adaptable Operational Capabilities: As incidents change in size, scope and complexity, the number, type and source of responses must be able to expand to meet requirements.
[state emergency management director handbook]
E-3. Military Support to Civil Authorities by Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg, Adjutant General - Washington Excerpts from The Army and Air National Guard – A Primer
The role of the National Guard in national defense and homeland security is controlled by constitutional and statutory provisions governing the use of military force by the federal and state governments. National defense and homeland security strategies are built upon these constitutional foundations and affected by the constantly evolving unit structure, fund sources and operational capabilities of today’s National Guard.
Use of Military Force to Defend and Secure the United States Our militia heritage is deeply rooted in the legal, organizational and cultural fabric of our nation. For example, the Massachusetts National Guard has an unbroken lineage to the first regiments chartered by the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony on December 13, 1636 (140 years before nationhood). All other states, territories and the District of Columbia (hereafter referred to as “the states”) have equally rich military histories. Militia units patterned after the English militia system played a prominent role throughout the colonies and were pivotal in the fight for national independence. As the country expanded westward, territorial governments formed organized militias and preserved their primacy in the constitutions of the newly-formed states. Because of the militia’s role in the birth and security of our nation, the right of all states to raise, maintain and domestically employ their own military forces (known since 1824 as the “National Guard”) is guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the constitutions and statutes of the several states. Throughout history, the Guard has also been a leader in tactics, techniques and procedures essential to our national security. The New York National Guard created the nation’s first military Aero Company in 1915 and units there and in other states subsequently accelerated exploitation of the air domain for military operations. Army National Guard Air Corps advancements (including the first cross-country flight) led to Congress’ authorization of a separate Air National Guard in 1946. A year later (1947), with heavy support from Air National Guard leaders, Congress created the U.S. Air Force out of the Army Air Corps. Air National Guard citizenwarriors today are fully engaged in all Air Force missions and are at the leading edge of 21st Century cyber domain exploitation. As a unique state-based military force (albeit largely funded by the federal government and trained in accordance with federal standards), the National Guard is the only military force that is shared by the states and the federal govern-
ment. It is a ready, reliable and essential force accessible to the states for state-centric and combined state-federal purposes and to the federal government for federal purposes. State Active Duty States are free to utilize their Army and Air National Guard forces, under state control and at state expense, for any domestic purpose authorized by the state constitution and statutes. In so doing, governors, as Commander-in-Chief, can directly access and utilize Army and Air National Guard federally-assigned aircraft, vehicles, communication gear and other equipment provided the federal government is reimbursed for the state’s use of fungible equipment and supplies (e.g. fuel, food stocks, etc.) and for repair of any damage to the federal equipment, normal wear and tear excepted. This is the authority under which governors regularly activate and deploy National Guard forces in response to floods, earthquakes, wild fires and other natural disasters in their own state and in support of other states under congressionally-chartered state mutual assistance compacts. It is also the authority under which governors deploy National Guard forces in response to manmade emergencies throughout the United States, such as riots (e.g., World Trade Organization Conference; Seattle, 1999), civil unrest (e.g., World Bank meeting; District of Columbia, 2000) and terrorist attacks (e.g., World Trade Center attacks; New York City, Sept. 11, 2001). Unless or until the federal government recognizes a shared state-federal purpose and accepts use of the National Guard “in the service of the United States”, such operations are nearly always undertaken pursuant to state authority and at the direction of the governor and the adjutant general. Unlike active-duty and federal military reserve forces such as the Army and Air Force Reserves, National Guard personnel and equipment that have not been “federalized” are directly accessible to the governor for domestic emergencies and for other purposes as provided by state law. Such service is performed in accordance with state law; National Guard members performing duty at the call of the governor are therefore said to be in “State active-duty status” meaning, among other things, that command and control rests solely with the governor and the state or territorial government. Constitutionally speaking, state active-duty missions are carried out by the adjutant general pursuant to a delegation of authority from the governor as Commander-in-Chief.
Title 32 Duty Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution (commonly referred to as the “Militia Clause”) also authorizes use of the National Guard under continuing state control but at federal expense and in the service of the federal government to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” These provisions are unique to the National Guard and are the authority by which governors answered the President’s request to deploy National Guard forces to the nation’s airports in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. On that occasion, governors deployed state-controlled National Guard forces at federal expense and in compliance with federally prescribed operational standards to assure aerial port security and to help execute the laws of the Union; namely, federal interstate commerce and aviation laws. Unlike subsequent 2002 border-security missions (described below), National Guard forces mobilized within hours of the President’s request and immediately deployed to airports where they continued to operate under state control for the duration of what turned out to be a six-month airport security mission. These arrangements preserved state operational, tactical and administrative control of National Guard personnel and assured maximum flexibility for responding to other unforeseen or emerging state and federal mission requirements. These and similar domestic military missions have been performed by the National Guard many times since Sept. 11, 2001 under the authority of Title 32 United States Code (USC); National Guard members performing such duty are therefore commonly said to be serving in “Title 32 duty status” meaning, among other things, that command and control remains with the governor and the state or territorial government even though Guard forces are being used “in the service of the United States” and at the expense of the federal government for a shared state-federal purpose or a primary federal purpose. Notwithstanding clear Militia Clause authority for these operations (state control of National Guard operations having a primary federal purpose or a shared state/federal purpose), some in DoD questioned whether Title 32 provided statutory authority for National Guard domestic operations in the service of the United States. Other DoD officials accepted that National Guard training at federal expense is statutorily authorized, but argued that 32 USC 502(f), which authorizes use of the National Guard at federal expense but under continuing state control for “training or other duty”, was somehow intended to limit Guard activities to “training only” rather than [as the statute explicitly says] “training or other duty” (e.g., domestic operations). Notwithstanding Congress’ subsequent passage of 32 USC Chapter 900 explicitly authorizing the Secretary of Defense to “provide funds to a Governor to employ National Guard units or members to conduct homeland defense activities
that the secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate”, state initiatives to use the National Guard in Section 502(f) duty status are still closely scrutinized and frequently denied by DoD. 32 USC 901(1) defines “homeland defense activities” as those “undertaken for the military protection of the territory or domestic population of the United States, or of the infrastructure or other assets of the United States determined by the Secretary of Defense as being critical to national security, from a threat or aggression against the United States”. The request for National Guard Title 32 engagement may originate with the Secretary of Defense (e.g., National Guard Operation Jump Start missions at the U.S. – Mexico border; 15 May 2006 to 15 July 2008) or “[a] Governor of a state may [also] request funding assistance for the homeland defense activities of the National Guard of [their] State” (32 USC 906) (e.g., requests by the Governors of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California for National Guard border security support; 2009-2010). Title 10 Duty Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution (commonly referred to as the “War Powers Clause”) grants Congress the power to declare war. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution names the President as Commanderin-Chief of the armed forces thereby giving the President derivative power to direct the military after a congressional declaration of war. Tensions between express congressional war power authority and claims of implied Presidential authority have been reflected through the years in passage of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (33 USC 1541) and the more recent enactment of Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists (AUMF) (P.L.107-243 Oct. 16, 2002 – 116 Stat. 1498). This much is undisputed, however: whatever authority the President has with regard to mobilizing and deploying federal military Reserve components (e.g., the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard Title 10 Reserves) applies equally to the nation’s shared military component – the National Guard. Voluntary and involuntary federally-directed combat, combat support and combat service support missions are performed under the authority of Title 10 USC; National Guard members performing such duty are therefore commonly said to be in “Title 10 duty status” meaning, among other things, that command and control rests solely with the President and the federal government. Since the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Reserve components, like their active-duty counterparts, are federal military forces wholly controlled by the federal government, their duty is always performed in Title 10 status and neither they nor their equipment are therefore directly accessible by Governors. When performed within the United States, Title 10 duty (including Title 10 duty by “federalized” National Guard personnel) is subject to numerous legal restrictions, including the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) which prohibits federal military personnel from acting in a domestic law enforcement capacity unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or a separate Act of Congress1. When employed
1 The original Posse Comitatus Act applied only to the United States Army. The Air Force was added by congressional amendment in 1956 and the restrictions of the Act were extended to the Navy and Marines by DoD regulation. When serving in its normal Title 14 duty status, the Coast Guard is not subject to the Act or the DoD regulations but when the Coast Guard performs Title 10 duty as part of the U.S. Navy it loses its federal police power authority and becomes subject to the same regulatory restrictions as the Navy.
[state emergency management director handbook]
at home or abroad in Title 10 status, National Guard forces are no longer subject to state control and, for all legal purposes, therefore become indistinguishable elements of the federal military force. The federal government used Title 10 USC authority to involuntarily mobilize and deploy National Guard soldiers to augment federal law enforcement agencies at the U.S. - Canadian and Mexican borders in the late spring and summer of 2002. In contrast to the speed and efficiency with which governors deployed National Guard forces to more than 450 airports within hours of the President’s request in September 2001, however, it took more than six (6) months for the Department of Defense and the U.S. Border Patrol to work out a memorandum of understanding for Title 10 National Guard augmentation at our land borders. Time consuming intraagency and inter-agency negotiations and delays in approving Title 10 military responses are unfortunately the norm. Duty Statuses Summarized As explained above, federal and state constitutions and statutes control the use of military force by the federal and state governments. These provisions, insofar as they apply to the National Guard, reflect the constitutional and political sharing of power between the states and the central federal government. National Guard forces are unique among all other military components in that they may be used in any one of three legally distinct ways: (1) By the Governor for any state purpose authorized by state law (state active duty); or (2) By the Governor, with the concurrence of the President or the President’s designee (e.g., the Secretary of Defense), for a constitutionally permissible shared state/federal purpose or for a primary federal purpose (Title 32 duty); or (3) By the President for a federal purpose authorized by federal law (Title 10 duty). When in state active duty or Title 32 duty status, National Guard forces remain under the operational, tactical and administrative control of the Governor. Such authority is vested in the governor as the state Commander-in-Chief and executed on the governor’s behalf by the adjutant general as the state’s joint forces commander. When mobilized by the President in accordance with law for Title 10 duty, National Guard units and personnel become federal military forces and transfer to the operational, tactical and administrative control of the President. Mobilization authority is vested in the President as the federal Commander-in-Chief and executed on the President’s behalf by the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force (as force providers) in support of designated Combatant Commanders. Title 10 forces, including mobilized or “federalized” National Guard forces, can no longer be accessed by a Governor regardless of the nature of a domestic emergency. Only the National Guard has the flexibility to operate in any of the foregoing statuses. As the Supreme Court explained in Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), a Guard member can wear one of three figurative hats: a
civilian hat, a state militia member hat (e.g., Army or Air National Guard - ARNG/ANG – in state active duty or Title 32 status) or a Reserve of the Army or Air Force hat (e.g., Army or Air National Guard of the U.S. - ARNGUS/ANGUS – in Title 10 status), but “only one hat may be worn at any particular time”. Id at 348. Each operational status carries distinct operational, fiscal, force management and legal advantages or disadvantages that call for conscious decisions about how the National Guard can most effectively be employed in a domestic setting. Use of the National Guard under state control (e.g., Title 32) for domestic missions always protects vital state interests and nearly always simultaneously maximizes attainment of federal defense and homeland security objectives. Unfortunately, these considerations are not always understood or even considered by federal authorities. The National Governors’ Association (NGA) has therefore felt compelled to adopt the following policy position: “Governors believe when the National Guard members perform domestic missions they should do so in Title 32 USC status rather than Title 10 USC status, unless the President has called them in Title 10 for a federal mission requiring federal troops, such as to repel an invasion. In Title 32 status, National Guard members can continue to train with their regular units and in times of federal mobilization these Guard members are available to deploy with their units. The Governors further note that Title 32 status for domestic deployments avoids all posse comitatus issues.” (NGA HR-6, Army and Air National Guard Policy, initially adopted as a twoyear policy statement at the NGA Winter Meeting in 2003 and reaffirmed at the NGA Winter Meetings for 2005-2007, 2007-2009 and 2009-2011). State and Federal Executive Authority The U.S. Constitution does not expressly grant the President additional powers in the event of a national emergency. Because the Constitution is silent on the issue, the courts have recognized a right of the Executive Branch to use emergency powers only when Congress has granted such powers to the President (see, e.g., the Insurrection Act of 1907; 10 USC 331). The Insurrection statute, coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act (Supra.), generally prohibits members of the federal uniformed services from exercising state law enforcement, police or peace officer powers on non-federal property. These issues were at the heart of President Truman’s seizure of steel mills that were closed by labor strikes at the height of the Korean War. The President asserted that the war could not be successfully prosecuted if critical materials could not be provided to the armed forces. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, rejected the argument and ruled that neither Commander-in-Chief powers nor any other claimed emergency powers gave the President authority to take control of private property without express Congressional authorization. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). By contrast, governors are empowered to exercise extraordinary emergency powers. The governor of Oklahoma, for example, has express authority in civil emergencies to priori-
tize and allocate resources such as water, food and fuel; to provide for full or partial evacuation of the population; and to exercise “all functions, powers, and duties as are necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.” 63 OS 683.9. By way of further illustration, the governor of the state of Washington “may by proclamation declare the county or city in which troops are serving, or any specific portion thereof, to be under either complete or limited martial law (defined in the statute as “the subordination of all civil authority to the military”, including the “right to try all persons…by a military tribunal.”). RCW 38.08.030. Washington law further provides “Whenever any portion of the militia is ordered to duty by the governor, the decision of the governor shall be final, incontrovertible and unimpeachable.” RCW 38.08.060. Adjutant General Authority Adjutant general authority reflects and supports the extraordinary emergency powers and domestic security responsibilities of the governors. Regardless of service affiliation, the adjutant general (commonly referred to as “the TAG”) is the joint forces commander of all National Guard and State Defense forces (SDF) in his/her state. The TAG exercises command and control of all federally recognized Army and Air National Guard units and personnel (unlike federal Title 10 Reserve components, the Guard is a unit structured force designed to be mobilized and deployed as units; the Guard has no individual mobilization augmentees [IMAs]). TAGs in states with separate and distinct State Defense Forces also command all such forces (State Defense Forces are state military units authorized by 32 USC 109 and regulated by the National Guard Bureau through the Army National Guard of the United States). Although State Defense Forces cannot be mobilized by the federal government, they are frequently mobilized by governors as part of a combined National Guard state activation and contribute significantly to state emergency responses. Acting through Assistant Adjutants General for the Army and Air National Guard and through a Joint Force Headquarters in each state, the adjutant general is the joint forces commander and appointing authority for all Army and Air National Guard officers and enlisted soldiers/airmen and for all Military Department state and federal civilian employees. The adjutant general is empowered to appoint and remove officers from military assignments at will and to appoint and remove state and federal civilian employees from employment for cause. Total Force Policy and Transnational Terrorism Transnational terrorism makes the militia-nation construct and the core tenets of Total Force integration more relevant and essential today than ever before. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has made the American homeland part of a global battle space in which citizens are exposed to a wide array of potential chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and conventional high-yield explosive attacks.
In this new and increasingly lethal threat environment, national defense and homeland security have become a shared responsibility of the federal and state governments. Bright lines between “national defense” and “homeland security” and attempts to establish similar lines of demarcation between federal and state responsibilities generate unintended gaps and perpetuate unacceptable risks and vulnerabilities. State constitutions and statutes grant governors emergency powers that are far more extensive than Presidential emergency powers. Under the aegis of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) and other regional compacts, governors support one another with immediate state-to-state emergency responses. When states need supplemental federal assistance, federal resources are more often furnished by the Department of Homeland Security or some other federal agency (as called for in the National Homeland Security Strategy) than by DoD. The governors’ authority to directly task National Guard unitequipped (UE) aircraft and other Guard-assigned equipment is critical to the states’ ability to respond to local, regional and national emergencies. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) granting governors emergency access to aircraft in classic Associate units (arrangements in which federal aircraft are unit-assigned to an active duty military organization and shared with a National Guard associate unit) are also crucial to intra-state and interstate responses to disasters ranging from hurricanes to terrorist attacks. Just as National Guard personnel can be directly tasked by governors and the President alike in times of national peril, so too federal equipment used by National Guard units is accessible to governors and the President alike in times of crisis. If there are conflicting requirements, federal needs prevail under the War Powers clause of the U.S. Constitution. If there is no conflict, however, governors’ direct access to aircraft, communications equipment and other unit-equipped resources provides a quick-response capability for saving lives and maintaining our national security. National Defense and Homeland Security Strategies The National Strategy for Homeland Security calls for shared state and federal accountability for the security of the homeland. National Guard capabilities add immeasurably to the states’ emergency preparedness and reduce the need for assistance from federal authorities, including U.S. Northern Command. The Guard’s presence in thousands of communities throughout the homeland enables it to overcome the “tyranny of time and distance” that limits most federal responses. Governors expect the adjutant general to exercise control over military forces operating within their state. The requirement is met when forces are in state active duty or Title 32 status and when tactical control of Guard units from supporting states is transferred, as it routinely is, to the governor and adjutant general of a supported state. When federal forces also engage in support operations within a state (as opposed to simply being stationed in or transiting a state), unity of effort can also be assured by transferring tactical control (TACON) of the Title 10 forces to the adjutant
[state emergency management director handbook]
general in support of their governor just as tactical control of Title 10 forces is transferred to Canadian military officers in support of Provincial Premiers and other Canadian civil authorities (Canada-U.S. Civil Assistance Plan; February 14, 2008). Unity of effort among state and federal forces can also be achieved by establishing a dual-status command structure for no-notice as well as preplanned incidents. 32 USC 325 authorizes appointment of a National Guard officer familiar with the state and local area to command National Guard and federal military forces in both a state (Title 32) and federal (Title 10) status. Dual status command appointments are created via a “By-Name” authorization of the President and consent of the governor. Dual-status (sometimes called “dual-hat”) command has been used with great success for complex, pre-planned events such as the 2004 G-8 Summit, the 2004 and 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions and the 2009 Presidential Inauguration. With the creation of appropriate DoD doctrine and policy, dual status command can work as effectively for contingency / nonotice military missions in support to civil authorities (MSCA) in every state, territory and the District of Columbia. Conclusion The United States is entering a new and more dangerous era with national defense and homeland security policies still evolving to meet 21st century requirements. The security requirements of today’s global battle space are complicated by demographic changes such as the urbanization of our population, the advent of “just-in-time” delivery systems for food, fuel, medicine and other life-sustaining resources and growing dependence on space-based and cyber-domain infrastructure. These and other factors complicate and often magnify the impact of domestic emergencies. More than ever before, state and federal officials must work in harmony to defend, deter and recover from a growing spectrum of adaptive threats (nation states and individual actors) and non-adaptive hazards (natural disasters). Governors, as state Commanders-in-Chief, and adjutants general, as state Joint Forces Commanders, have significant authority and concomitant responsibility for safeguarding our homeland.
NEMA State Director Handbook, National Emergency Management Association, September 2001.
National Response Framework, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, January 2008.
Response Issues to Consider •D o you have a good understanding of the capabilities within the state to respond to large-scale disasters? Are you familiar with all the various resources that can be accessed through intra- or interstate mutual aid? •W hat is the role of the private sector in your state’s disaster response activities? Is there a private sector liaison assigned to your EOC? •D o you have a close working relationship with the state legal counsel who handles emergency management issues? •D o you have a clear understanding of the difference between National Guard state Active Duty Status, Title 32 and Title 10?
[F] Recovery F-1. Disaster Recovery Concepts by David Miller, former administrator, Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency The discussion of disaster recovery, especially as it relates to the roles and responsibilities of emergency management directors, has been focused primarily on those recovery efforts and programs administered and managed under state law and regulation and federal authorities primarily found in the Stafford Act (PL-93-288 as amended), and further delineated in 44 CFR - Code of Federal Regulations - Title 44: Emergency Management and Assistance. However, largely as a result of recovery efforts and continuing lessons learned in the aftermath of large-scale or catastrophic disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Midwest ﬂoods of 2008, recent efforts have focused on a broader perspective, culminating in the ongoing development of a National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF). In September 2009, President Barack Obama charged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to establish a long-term disaster recovery working group, composed of more than twenty federal departments, agencies, and ofﬁces, to provide operational guidance for recovery organizations as well as to make recommendations for improving the nation’s approach to disaster recovery. In the following months, DHS, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and HUD sponsored outreach sessions in each of the ten FEMA regions and stakeholder forums in ﬁve cities across the nation to provide an opportunity for a broad array of organizations to provide input to the working group on ways to strengthen disaster recovery efforts. In addition, the working group created a web portal at www.disasterrecoveryworkinggroup.gov that enabled an even larger and more diverse group of stakeholders to provide input.
FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate has often said that FEMA is not THE team but is a member of the team. Many have argued that FEMA needs to play a strong leadership role in disaster recovery, but FEMA has also recognized that other federal agencies play important roles as well. The question becomes: does FEMA always have the leadership role, or are there times when it is more appropriate to play its role as a member of the team led by another department or agency, or is leadership to be shared across a broad range of organizations? Directors must work within their own state’s organizational and leadership frameworks to determine when their agency plays the leadership role and when others may take the lead and state emergency management plays its role as an important member of the team. Previously, recovery was thought to be part of a continuum that began with mitigation and preparedness activities in anticipation of a disaster, followed by disaster response, and ultimately culminating in short and long-term recovery.
The result has been an evolving doctrine and framework that embraces “whole community” concepts and aligns itself with established policies and principles established in the National Homeland Security Strategy, National Response Framework (NRF), National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), and the National Incident Management System (NIMS). Further information regarding each of these areas can be found on FEMA’s website at www.fema.gov. While development of the NDRF has helped to further deﬁne the roles and responsibilities of individuals and families, private sector businesses and critical infrastructure owners and operators, the nonproﬁt sector, local and state governments, tribal nations, and the federal government, state directors must further deﬁne the role they and their organizations play in disaster recovery. That role may differ depending on the nature and scope of a disaster.
Emergency Management Continuum
[STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR HANDBOOK]
However, emergency management does not operate on a continuum. It is the result of an integration and symbiotic inter-relationship between these functions. Emergency managers have found they “prepare for recovery” and that the timeliness and speed of recovery are examined in relationship and context of the disaster response. Recovery is also an opportunity to examine what measures may be taken to mitigate or lessen the adverse effects of future disasters. Effective recovery programs are those that re-build and re-develop with an eye on the future - not simply to restore things to the past.
WHOLE COMMUNITY FOCUSED RECOVERY Federal & Tribal Authority State Authority
Private Sector PNPs/NGOs
Emergency managers have also found the most effective recovery is derived when the “whole community” is involved in the entire emergency management process. Research shows the most effective recovery over the broadest spectrum results when the process begins at the most local level and becomes interactive as each stakeholder joins the process. Individuals and families play a role in determining their own ability to recover, but they may also play an important role in their neighborhoods, communities, regions and state in ultimately determining the scope and effectiveness of disaster recovery efforts.
Individuals & Families
F-2. National Disaster Recovery Framework The February 5, 2010, draft of the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) outlines how community recovery is supported on a national level. The framework builds on scalable, flexible, and adaptable coordinating structures to align key roles and responsibilities, linking local, state, tribal and federal governments; the private sector; and voluntary, faith-based and community organizations that play vital roles in recovery. The NDRF reflects as core principles the significant themes and recommendations that emerged from the work of the long-term disaster recovery working group and stakeholder outreach efforts. These principles include: • Individual and Family Empowerment: Recovery is not only about restoration of structures, systems and services – although they are critical. A successful recovery is also about individuals and families being able to rebound from their losses and sustain their physical, social, and economic well-being. The shared recovery objective should always be to empower people to recover from disasters by assisting them with compassion and providing them the opportunities and tools to meaningfully participate and contribute to the recovery effort. • L eadership and Local Primacy: Local governments have primary responsibility for disaster recovery in their communities and play the lead role in planning for and managing all aspects of community recovery. This is a basic, underlying principle that should not be overlooked by federal and other disaster recovery managers in their eagerness to assist. However, the federal government is a partner and facilitator in recovery and must be prepared to manage when the disaster impacts areas of primary fed-
eral jurisdiction or national security and to assist should tribal, state, and local governments be overwhelmed by a large-scale or catastrophic event. The federal government must partner closely with tribal governments to support their plans for addressing disaster recovery and encourage tribes to forge partnerships with surrounding local and state governments as well. •P reparation for Recovery: Critical to recovery preparedness is pre-disaster planning, an ongoing responsibility for all levels of governments; individuals and families; the business community; and voluntary, faith-based and community organizations. •P artnerships and Inclusiveness: Partnerships and inclusiveness are vital to ensuring that all voices are heard from all parties involved in disaster recovery and that the most innovative and relevant solutions are considered. This is especially critical at the local level, where non-governmental partners in the private and nonprofit sectors (e.g. local businesses, owners and operators of critical infrastructure and key resources, and voluntary, faith-based, and community organizations) play a significant role in meeting the needs of individuals and families, children, individuals with disabilities, and others with access and functional needs. •C ommunications: All disaster recovery managers should promote clear, consistent, culturally sensitive, and frequent communication of critical recovery information through a process that is inclusive of and accessible to the general public and stakeholders. Stakeholders should understand their roles and responsibilities and have realistic expectations of the recovery process and goals.
•U nity of Effort: For successful recovery to occur, stakeholders coordinate and direct assistance resources to achieve recovery priorities developed by the affected community. Shared priorities are built upon community consensus and transparent and inclusive planning process. •T imeliness and Flexibility: For successful recovery to occur, timely recovery activities and assistance are delivered through a coordinated and sequenced process. Recovery programs and operations should be adaptable to meet unmet and evolving recovery needs. •R esilience and Sustainability: For successful recovery to occur, communities should implement mitigation and resilience strategies that minimize their risk to hazards and strengthen their ability to withstand and recovery from future disasters. Built as a document to forge a common understanding of roles, responsibilities, and resources available for effective recovery, the NDRF is designed for all who are or might be involved in disaster recovery. The key concepts in the document are the need for structure – provided by the proposed recovery support functions; leadership – provided locally and strengthened through support by the proposed state and tribal recovery coordinators, private sector, faith-based and private nonprofit leaders, and, when needed, the proposed federal recovery coordinator; and planning – important both pre-and post-disaster. These concepts are explained and developed in the NDRF. When combined with the full involvement of all stakeholders, along with realistic and well-communicated expectations of desired outcomes, they constitute the building blocks for a successful community recovery. Special note: The draft NDRF introduces four new concepts and terms: • Federal disaster recovery coordinator (FDRC) •S tate or tribal disaster recovery coordinator (SDRC or TDRC) • L ocal disaster recovery manager (LDRM) • Recovery support functions (RSFs) The RSFs are six groupings of federal agencies that provide a structure to facilitate problem solving, improve access to resources, and foster coordination among state and federal agencies and nongovernmental partners and stakeholders. Each RSF has coordinating and primary federal agencies that operate together with local, state, and tribal government officials and private nonprofit and private sector partners. It is important to note that there is no central funding source for implementing measures identified through the RSFs. The concepts of FDRCs, SDRCs, TDRCs and RSFs are fundamentally scalable to the nature and size of the disaster. The NDRF applies to all disasters, recovery partners, and recovery activities and is adaptable for different levels of recovery needs. It facilitates and leverages partnerships and collaboration among all stakeholders to ensure that recovery assistance is effectively delivered to the impacted residents and communities. Ideally, recovery begins before disaster strikes, with preparedness activities such as planning, capability building,
exercising, and establishing tools and metrics to evaluate progress and success; mitigation planning and actions; economic development planning; and vital partnership building, all of which contribute to the community’s and the nation’s resilience. Post-disaster recovery activities begin in the early stages of the response operations and may last for years. Actions that help recovery, resilience, and sustainability should be built to the steady-state operations of governments at all levels. The NDRF focuses on intermediate and long-term recovery activities and distinguishes these from response and stabilization activities. Even though response activities often set the stage for recovery, the NDRF does not speak to response operations and other emergent activities that immediately precede or follow a disaster such as life-saving, life-sustaining, property protection actions and other measures intended to neutralize the immediate threat to life and property. However, response activities can influence long-term recovery and be choice-limiting, and these longterm recovery impacts must be considered for their potential impact prior to implementation. As response actions wind down, stabilization activities are primary. Stabilization is the process in which the immediate impacts of an event on community systems are managed and contained, thereby creating an environment where recovery activities can begin. The various elements of a community system will stabilize on different time frames, leading to a situation in which response, stabilization, and restorations activities can occur concurrently. Stabilization includes such activities as: • Providing essential health and safety services • Providing congregate sheltering or other temporary sheltering solutions • Providing food, water, and other essential commodities for those displaced by the incident • Providing disability-related assistance/functional needs support services • Developing impact assessments on critical infrastructure, essential services, and key resources • Conducting initial damage assessments • Conducting community-wide debris removal, including clearing of primary transportation routes of debris and obstructions • Restarting major transportation systems and restoring interrupted utilities, communication systems, and other essential services such as education and medical care • Establishing temporary or interim infrastructure systems • Supporting family reunification • Supporting return of medical patients to appropriate facilities in the area • Providing basic psychological support and emergency crisis counseling
[state emergency management director handbook] 81
•P roviding initial individual case management assessments •P roviding security and reestablishing law enforcement functions •B uilding an awareness of the potential for fraud, waste, and abuse and ways to deter such activity, such as developing public service announcements and publicizing ways to report allegations • Beginning assessment of natural and cultural resources Intermediate recovery activities involve returning individuals and families, critical infrastructure and essential government or commercial services back to a functional, if not pre-disaster state. Such activities are often characterized by temporary actions that provide a bridge to permanent measures. Examples of these actions are: •C ontinuing to provide individual, family-centered, and culturally appropriate case management. Providing accessible interim housing (in or outside the affected area depending on suitability) and planning for long-term housing solutions •R eturning of displaced populations and businesses, if appropriate •R econnecting displaced persons with essential health and social services •P roviding supportive behavioral health education, intervention, crisis, grief, and group counseling and support •P roviding access and functional needs assistance to preserve independence and health •U pdating hazard and risk analyses to inform recovery activities •E stablishing a post-disaster recovery prioritization and planning process •D eveloping an initial hazard mitigation strategy responsive to needs created by the disaster •E nsuring that national and local critical infrastructure priorities are identified and incorporated into recovery planning •D eveloping culturally and linguistically appropriate public education campaigns to promote rebuilding to increase resilience and reduce disaster losses •S upporting capacity assessment of local, state, and tribal governments to plan and implement recovery •C ompleting assessments of natural and cultural resources and develop plans for long-term environmental and cultural resource recovery Long-term recovery is the phase of recovery that follows intermediate recovery and may continue for months to years. Examples include the complete redevelopment and revitalization of the damaged area. The underlying goal in long-term redevelopment is that the impacted community is moving toward self-sufficiency, sustainability, and resilience. Activities may continue for years depending on the severity
and extent of the disaster damages as well as the availability of resources. They include the following: • Identifying risks that affect long-term community sustainment and vitality • Developing and implementing disaster recovery processes and plans, such as a long-term recovery and mitigation measures in the community’s land use planning and management, comprehensive plans, master plans, and zoning regulations • Rebuilding to appropriate resilience standards in recognition of hazards and threats • Addressing recovery needs across all sectors of the economy and community, and addressing individual and family recovery activities and unmet needs • Rebuilding educational, social, and other human services and facilities according to standards for accessible design • Reestablishing medical, public health, behavioral health, and human services systems • Reconfiguring elements of the community in light of changed needs and opportunities for “smart planning” to increase energy efficiency, enhance business and job diversity, and promote the preservation of natural resources • Implementing mitigation strategies, plans, and projects • Implementing permanent housing strategies • Reconstructing and/or relocating, consolidating permanent facilities • Implementing economic and business revitalization strategies • Implementing recovery strategies that integrate holistic community needs • Implementing plans to address long-term environmental and cultural resource recovery • Ensuring that there is an ongoing and coordinated effort among local, state, tribal, and federal entities to deter and detect waste, fraud, and abuse • Identifying milestones for the conclusion of recovery for some or all non-local entitiesi All together, the stakeholder engagement effort and the publication of the February 5, 2010 NDRF draft in the Federal Register reached out to thousands of stakeholders with over 1,000 vide-teleconference participants, stakeholder forums and discussion roundtables. According to FEMA, nearly 650 web respondents submitted over 6,000 responses through a dedicated website. This feedback helped to inform the continued development and refinement of the draft NDRF. Significant progress has also taken place in the development of the recovery support function (RSF) annexes that will support the NDRF draft concepts and coordinating structure. FEMA anticipates publication of the NDRF in 2011.
F-3. Federal Disaster Declaration Process While effective disaster recovery begins with pre-disaster planning and preparedness activities and does not follow a linear process, there is a well-developed and established process for requesting recovery assistance.
Damage and disaster impact assessments normally drive this process. Local and state emergency managers must work within their communities to assess damages and impacts to individuals and families, businesses, public infrastructure and facilities, agriculture, private non-profit organizations, and all sectors of their communities to document and begin to understand the types and levels of damage. These assessments are used in determining the need for assistance provided through a broad array of programs as well as the unmet needs that may result when programs are insufficient to meet community demand. Depending on the results of the local and state assessment, the state may find that disaster recovery does not exceed the capabilities and capacities of local and state governments, or the governor may decide to seek recovery assistance directly from federal agencies exercising their own authority act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Small Business Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other federal agencies may have the ability to provide recovery assistance under their own authority and may act on a governor’s direct request. If the governor determines disaster recovery is beyond local and state capabilities, the state may request a joint preliminary damage assessment (PDA) in the affected area. Requests are made by the governor or governor’s authorized representative (GAR) to the appropriate FEMA regional
administrator. These assessments involve local and state officials working with representatives of the federal government. Depending on the nature and scope of the disaster, federal partners may include not only FEMA but also officials representing the Small Business Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and others. Depending on the results of the PDA, a governor may elect to submit a request for assistance to federal agencies that may act under their own authorities, or the governor may elect to make a request to the president to exercise his authority under the Robert T. Stafford Act, Public Law (PL) 93-288, as amended. The governor may request that the president exercise his or her authority to either grant an “emergency,” “expedited,” or “major disaster” declaration. A governor’s request for a presidential disaster declaration must be made through the appropriate FEMA regional administrator. Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations, sections 206.35, 206.35 and 206.37, set out the manner by which a governor may make a request for a presidential emergency or major disaster declaration and the manner by which these requests will be processed. see chart on next page
[state emergency management director handbook]
§206.35 Requests for Emergency Declarations
§206.36 Requests for Major Disaster Declarations
(a) When an incident occurs or threatens to occur in a State, which would not qualify under the definition of a major disaster, the governor of a state, or the acting governor in his/her absence, may request that the president declare an emergency. The governor should submit the request to the president through the appropriate regional administrator to ensure prompt, acknowledgement and processing. The request must be submitted within 5 days after the need for assistance under title V becomes apparent, but no longer than 30 days after the occurrence of the incident, in order to be considered. The period may be extended by the assistant administrator for the disaster assistance directorate provided that a written request for such extension is made by the governor or acting governor, during the 30-day period immediately following the incident. The extension request must stipulate the reason for the delay.
(a) When a catastrophe occurs in a state, the governor of a state, or the acting governor in his/her absence, may request a major disaster declaration. The governor should submit the request to the president through the appropriate regional administrator to ensure prompt acknowledgement and processing. The request must be submitted within 30 days of the occurrence of the incident in order to be considered. The 30-day period may be extended by the assistant administrator for the disaster assistance directorate, provided that a written request for an extension is submitted by the governor, or acting governor, during this 30-day period. The extension request will stipulate reasons for the delay.
(b) The basis for the governor’s request must be the finding that the situation: (1) Is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capability of the state and the affected local government(s); and (2) Requires supplementary Federal emergency assistance to save lives and to protect property, public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster. (c) In addition to the above findings, the complete request shall include: (1) Confirmation that the governor has taken appropriate action under state law and directed the execution of the state emergency plan; (2) Information describing the State and local efforts and resources which have been or will be used to alleviate the emergency; (3) Information describing other federal agency efforts and resources which have been or will be used in responding to this incident; and (4)Identification of the type and extent of additional federal required.
Directors should take special note: 44 CFR Section 206.36 goes on to state: (d) For those catastrophes of unusual severity and magnitude when field damage assessments are not necessary to determine the requirement for supplemental federal assistance, the governor or acting governor may send an abbreviated written request through the regional administrator for a declaration of a major disaster. This may be transmitted in the most expeditious manner available. In the event the FEMA regional office is severely impacted by the catastrophe, the request may be addressed to the administrator of FEMA. The request must indicate a
(b) The basis for the request shall be a finding that: (1) The situation is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the state and affected local governments; and (2) Federal assistance under the Act is necessary to supplement the efforts and available resources of the state, local governments, disaster relief organizations, and compensation by insurance for disaster related losses. (c) In addition to the above findings, the complete request shall include: (1) Confirmation that the governor has taken appropriate action under state law and directed the execution of the State emergency plan; (2) An estimate of the amount and severity of damages and losses stating the impact of the disaster on the public and private sector; (3) Information describing the nature and amount of State and local resources which have been or will be committed to alleviate the results of the disaster; (4) Preliminary estimates of the types and amount of supplementary Federal disaster assistance needed under the Stafford Act; and (5) Certification by the governor that state and local government obligations and expenditures for the current disaster will comply with all applicable cost sharing requirements of the Stafford Act.ii
finding in accordance with §206.36(b), and must include as a minimum the information requested by §206.36 (c) (1), (c)(3), and (c)(5). Upon receipt of the request, FEMA shall expedite the processing of reports and recommendations to the President.” This is often referred to as an “Expedited Request. Directors should consult with their agency disaster recovery staff and with their FEMA regional office in preparing a governor’s request for emergency, major or an expedited request for presidential declaration. A governor’s request should be viewed as a collaborative process between the state and FEMA, and the director and governor’s office should work
together to ensure a governor’s request is as complete and accurate as possible. In preparing a governor’s request, state directors should take note not only of the form, format, and data requirements of the request but also that a governor must be specific in the types and programs for assistance being requested. Once the request is received by the FEMA regional administrator, the region reviews the request and may request further information before making its recommendation to FEMA headquarters. FEMA headquarters reviews the state’s request and region’s recommendations and the declarations unit prepares a package containing FEMA’s recommendation to the president for the FEMA administrator’s signature. A draft White House package is e-mailed to the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for review and approval. FEMA then forwards the package to the president for consideration and decision. FEMA has established by rule, 44 CFR 206.48, the factors that may be considered in evaluating a governor’s request for a major disaster declaration. In considering requests, federal law provides that a finding must be made that an incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond state and local capabilities and that federal assistance is necessary. In addition, federal law restricts the use of arithmetic formulas or sliding scales based on income or population as the sole basis for determining the need for federal disaster supplemental aid. A number of factors are evaluated in reviewing a governor’s request. The primary factors considered include: •A mount and type of damage (number of homes destroyed or with major damage); • Impact on the infrastructure of affected areas or critical facilities; • Imminent threats to public health and safety; • Impacts to essential government services and functions; • Unique capability of federal government; • Dispersion or concentration of damage; • L evel of insurance coverage in place for homeowners and public facilities;
declaration requests. However, the above lists most primary considerations.iii The president has the ultimate discretion in granting or refusing a governor’s request for a major disaster or emergency disaster declaration. In addition, the president may choose to grant the governor’s request in whole or in part with regard to applicability to a geographic area or program, electing to grant or deny assistance to a county or location, or to authorize the implementation of certain assistance programs. In any case, the governor will be promptly notified by the FEMA administrator or his or her designee, of an emergency or major disaster declaration by the president. FEMA will also notify other federal agencies and interested parties, to include the appropriate congressional delegations. The notification will include both the designations of available assistance and areas eligible for such assistance. Incident Period: The “incident period” reflects the time during which the disaster or event occurs. Most often this is determined by information provided by the National Weather Service (NWS) and state and FEMA regional officials. The incident period is normally defined during the presidential declaration process; however, it must be noted that an incident period may be open-ended. If the incident period is established as open-ended at the time of declaration, FEMA will consult with the state to determine the end of the incident period. A memo is provided from the federal coordinating officer through the FEMA regional administrator indicating the date of closure. Although rare, a closed incident period may be reopened, but only at the specific request of the governor with sufficient justification. The federal coordinating officer (FCO) will base his or her recommendation on sufficient justification and determination that the incident period is an ongoing event. For example, official NWS information showing a continued pattern of storms and flooding over a period of days and weeks may be determined to be inclusive in one incident period.
Common Mistakes Made When Requesting a Presidential Declaration
•A ssistance available from other sources (federal, state, local, voluntary organizations);
•S tate and local resource commitments from previous, undeclared events; and
•C ertify that the severity and magnitude of the disaster exceed state and local capabilities
• Frequency of disaster events over recent time period.
• Certify cost-share provisions
•F or public assistance only - per-capita impacts are established each federal fiscal year for states and counties. Impacts are adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published annually by the U.S. Department of Labor.
• Confirm state emergency plan execution
The very nature of disasters, their unique circumstances, the unexpected timing, and varied impacts, precludes a complete listing of factors considered when evaluating disaster
• Route the request through the FEMA regional office
• Name specific programs or types of assistance needed •N ame specific areas that are being requested by the governor FEMA/NEMA Disaster Declaration Workshop, FEMA Review Process, October 2009
[state emergency management director handbook]
FEMA Disaster Declaration Process Flow Chartiv
State collects initial damage estimates.
Governor requests Joint Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs) from FEMA Regional Office.
Joint Federal/State/Local/Tribal PDAs are conducted in the areas requested by the State.
Governor submits a request to the President through FEMA’s Regional Administrator for a major disaster or emergency declaration. The request is based on PDA findings and specifies programs and counties for designation.
Region reviews request and sends its recommendation to FEMA HQ.
FEMA HQ reviews the State’s request and the Region’s recommendations. The Declarations Unit prepares a White House package containing FEMA’s recommendation to the President for the Administrator’s signature.
A draft White House package is emailed to the DHS Secretary for review and approval for transmission to the White House.
FEMA forwards the White House package to the President for decision. For Official Use Only
[D] mitigation [f] recovery
MOCK GOVERNOR’S REQUEST MAJOR DISASTER October 9, 2009 The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States The White House Washington, D. C. Through: Regional Administrator FEMA Region 100 Unites States of America Dear Mr. President: Under the provisions of Section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5207 (Stafford Act), and implemented by 44 CFR § 206.36, I request that you declare a major disaster for the State of Nema as a result of severe thunderstorms, extremely high winds, flooding, hail, landslides, mudslides, and tornadoes during the period of September 30, 2009, and continuing. The high winds associated with the series of severe storm systems downed numerous trees and power lines resulting in widespread power outages in numerous areas in the western and central portions of the State. In response to the situation, I have taken appropriate action under State law and directed the execution of the State Emergency Plan and declared a State of Emergency for the entire State on September 30, 2009, in accordance with Section 401 of the Stafford Act.1 The State of Nema has developed a Hazard Mitigation plan that was approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in November 2005. The plan has been updated and approved by FEMA in November 2008. This disaster provides an opportunity to implement Hazard Mitigation projects that will reduce the impact of future disasters of this nature. On October 8, 2009, I requested a joint Federal, State, and local survey of the damaged areas. Preliminary assessments indicated the most severe impacts were to private and public property including homes, access bridges across small streams, businesses, highways, schools, water systems, and waste water treatment plants. Road damage is extensive. U.S. Route 66, the main road through the impacted areas, is barely passable and has sustained extensive damage. Traffic flow has been severely impeded, or has been re-routed. A three mile detour has been set to reduce traffic congestion, which is creating lengthy delays for school buses and emergency response vehicles. The National Weather Service began issuing severe thunderstorm warnings in the early morning hours of September 30, 2009, and had confirmed that the severe storms spawned an EF-2 tornado in the City of Hope with wind speeds estimated at 120 miles per hour. The deadly tornado made its 20-mile track through the State, leaving a trail of damage and destruction in its wake. The NWS further reports that up to 12 inches of rain fell in a 24-hour period on September 20, 2009, with the greatest amounts of rain falling during the morning hours. Woody and vegetative debris has been strewn throughout the impacted areas across roadways, in ditches, and on private property. The East Fork River and Embarrass Rivers in Richland County and the Way High River in Allen County reached flood stage on October, 1, 2009. Numerous streams, creeks, and tributaries along the rivers are continuing to flood. The NWS forecast calls for more severe storms and heavy rainfall for the next two to three days. The torrential rainfall quickly led to serious flooding conditions, creating traffic accidents and damaging or completely washing out numerous roads and bridges, creating lengthy detours for motorists and emergency response vehicles. Numerous areas across the State have received heavy rainfall since the end of September, continuing up to the most recent storm system. The combination of the most recent heavy rainfall on previously saturated ground combined with the topography and geology of the terrain, quickly led to mudslides and landslides in the mountainous and rural areas of the State. Ten deaths and five injuries were directly related to the tornado in the City of Hope. I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary. I am specifically requesting Individual Assistance (including the Individuals and Households Program Disaster Unemployment Assistance, Crisis Counseling); and Small Business Administration Disaster Loans for Allen, Brown, Carr, Clark, Grant, and Richland Counties; Public Assistance for Allen, Brown, Decatur, Elgin, and Perkins Counties; and Hazard Mitigation statewide.
Execution of the State’s emergency plan is a prerequisite to major disaster assistance.
[state emergency management director handbook]
Preliminary estimates of the types and amount of assistance needed under the Stafford Act are tabulated in Enclosures A and B. Estimated requirements for assistance from certain Federal agencies under other statutory authorities are tabulated in Enclosure C. The following information is furnished on the nature and amount of State and local resources that have been or will be used to alleviate the conditions of this disaster: The State Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was activated on September 30, 2009, and remained opened throughout the event to coordinate the immediate response to the disaster. The Nema Emergency Management Agency immediately assigned disaster response staff to the impacted disaster area to assist local officials. The Nema Department of Transportation provided surveillance of transportation systems throughout the affected region, reporting closures and restrictions to the State EOC. The Nema State Police provided law enforcement assistance, traffic control, rescue assistance, and intelligence throughout the affected areas. The Nema Department of Natural Resources provided law enforcement assistance, traffic control, water rescue and monitoring of flooding throughout the State. The Department also provided dam safety engineering expertise at dam sites. The Nema Conservation Agency is clearing stream blockage in order to reduce additional flooding. The Nema National Guard has deployed its emergency response vehicles to evacuate stranded residents and to transport supplies, food, and water to isolated people. The American Red Cross (ARC) and the Salvation Army responded to provide immediate needs to individuals and families. Local governments and the ARC have opened 5 shelters in the affected areas, with 100 individuals staying in the shelters. While more than 1,500 people were evacuated, very few stayed in the shelters but rather chose to stay with family, friends, or neighbors. Richland County has a disability rate of 42.2 percent, in comparison to the national average of 12.3 percent. Families below poverty level constitute 17.6 percent of the population in Clark County, with 18 percent being elderly residents. I certify that for this major disaster, the State and local governments will assume all applicable non-Federal share of costs required by the Stafford Act. Total expenditures are expected to exceed $3,877,876, in accordance with the table in Enclosure D.2 I request direct Federal assistance for work and services to save lives and protect property, including the need for emergency generators for critical facilities, sheltering supplies, food, potable water, sand bags, plastic sheeting, medical teams, pumps and assistance in swift water rescue operations. In accordance with 44 CFR § 206.208, the State of Nema agrees that it will, with respect to direct Federal assistance: 1. Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements and rights-of-way necessary to accomplish the approved work; 2. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the requested work, and shall indemnify the Federal Government against any claims arising from such work; 3. Provide reimbursement to FEMA for the non-Federal share of the cost of such work in accordance with the provisions of the FEMA-State Agreement; and 4. Assist the performing Federal agency in all support and local jurisdictional matters. In addition, I anticipate the need for debris removal, which poses an immediate threat to lives, public health, and safety. Pursuant to Sections 403 and 407 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5170b and 5173, the State agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the United States of America for any claims arising from the removal of debris or wreckage for this disaster. The State agrees that debris removal from public and private property will not occur until the landowner signs an unconditional authorization for the removal of debris. I have designated Ms. Angela Smith as the State Coordinating Officer for this request. She will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in damage assessments and may provide further information or justification on my behalf. Sincerely,
Governor All Good Enclosuresv
The certification to cost share must be included; otherwise the processing of the request may be delayed until the Governor has provided the certification.
[D] recovery [f] mitigation
F-4. Federal Disaster Assistance Programs Note: Not all programs are activated for every disaster. The determination of which programs are activated is based on the needs found during damage assessment and any subsequent information that may be discovered. FEMA disaster assistance falls into three general categories: • Individual Assistance — aid to individuals and households; •P ublic Assistance — aid to public (and certain private nonprofit) entities for certain emergency services and the repair or replacement of disaster damaged public facilities; •H azard Mitigation Assistance — funding for measures designed to reduce future losses to public and private property. Some declarations will provide only individual assistance or only public assistance. Hazard mitigation opportunities are assessed in most situations. A summary overview of each of these programs follows.
Individual Assistance Individuals and Households Program (IHP). The Individuals and Households Program is a combined FEMA/EPR and state program. When a major disaster occurs this program provides money and services to people in the declared area whose property has been damaged or destroyed and whose losses are not covered by insurance. In every case the disaster victim must register for assistance and establish eligibility. The toll-free telephone registration number is 1-800-621-FEMA (or TTY 1-800-462-7585 for the hearing or speech impaired). FEMA (or the providing agency) will verify eligibility and need before assistance is offered. What Types of Assistance Are Provided? The IHP - Housing Assistance ensures that people whose homes are damaged by disaster have a safe place to live. Other Needs Assistance (ONA) - Provides financial assistance to individuals and households who have other disaster-related necessary expenses or serious needs and do not qualify for a low interest loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA). These programs are designed to provide funds for expenses that are not covered by insurance. They are available only to homeowners and renters who are United States citizens, non-citizen nationals, or qualified aliens affected by the disaster. The following is a list of the types of assistance available through this program and what each provides. T emporary Housing - homeowners and renters receive funds to rent a different place to live or a temporary housing unit when rental properties are not available. epair - homeowners receive grants to repair damage R from the disaster that is not covered by insurance. The goal is to make the damaged home safe and sanitary.
eplacement - under rare conditions homeowners R receive limited funds to replace their disaster-damaged home. Permanent Housing Construction - homeowners and renters receive direct assistance or a grant for the construction of a new home. This type of assistance occurs only in very unusual situations, in insular areas or remote locations specified by FEMA where no other type of housing is possible. ther Needs Assistance (ONA) - applicants receive O grants for necessary and serious needs caused by the disaster. This includes medical, dental, funeral, personal property, transportation, moving and storage, and other expenses that FEMA approves. The homeowner may need to apply for an SBA loan before receiving assistance. Small Business Administration (SBA) Disaster Loans The SBA can make federally subsidized loans to repair or replace homes, personal property or businesses that sustained damages not covered by insurance. The SBA can provide three types of disaster loans to qualified homeowners and businesses: 1. Home disaster loans to homeowners and renters to repair or replace disaster-related damages to home or personal property; 2. Business physical disaster loans to business owners to repair or replace disaster-damaged property, including inventory, and supplies; and 3. Economic injury disaster loans, which provide capital to small businesses and to small agricultural cooperatives to assist them through the disaster recovery period. For many individuals, the SBA disaster loan program is the primary form of disaster assistance. Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) - The Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) Program provides unemployment benefits and reemployment services to individuals who have become unemployed because of major disasters. Benefits begin with the date the individual was unemployed due to the disaster incident and can extend up to 26 weeks after the presidential declaration date. These benefits are made available to individuals not covered by other unemployment compensation programs, such as self-employed, farmers, migrant and seasonal workers, and those who have insufficient quarters to qualify for other unemployment compensation. All unemployed individuals must register with the state’s employment services office before they can receive DUA benefits. Although most states have a provision that an individual must be able and available to accept employment opportunities comparable to the employment the individual
[state emergency management director handbook] 89
held before the disaster, not all states require that an individual search for work. Legal Services - When the president declares a disaster, FEMA, through an agreement with the Young Lawyers Division of the American Bar Association, provides free legal assistance to disaster victims. Legal advice is limited to cases that will not produce a fee (i.e., these attorneys work pro bono). Cases that may generate a fee are turned over to the local lawyer referral service. The assistance that participating lawyers provide typically includes: 1. Assistance with insurance claims (life, medical, property, etc.) 2. Counseling on landlord/tenant problem 3. Assisting in consumer protection matters, remedies, and procedures 4. Replacement of wills and other important legal documents destroyed in a major disaster Disaster legal services are provided to low-income individuals who, prior to or because of the disaster, are unable to secure legal services adequate to meet their needs as a consequence of a major disaster. Special Tax Considerations - Taxpayers who have sustained a casualty loss from a declared disaster may deduct that loss on the federal income tax return for the year in which the casualty actually occurred or elect to deduct the loss on the tax return for the preceding tax year. In order to deduct a casualty loss, the amount of the loss must exceed 10 percent of the adjusted gross income for the tax year and by at least $100. If the loss was sustained from a federally declared disaster, the taxpayer may choose which of those two tax years provides the better tax advantage. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can expedite refunds due to taxpayers in a federally declared disaster area. An expedited refund can be a relatively quick source of cash, does not need to be repaid, and does not need an individual assistance declaration. It is available to any taxpayer in a federally declared disaster area. Crisis Counseling - The Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP), authorized by §416 of the Stafford Act, is designed to provide supplemental funding to states for short-term crisis counseling services to people affected in presidentially declared disasters. There are two separate portions of the CCP that can be funded: immediate services and regular services. A state may request either or both types of funding. The immediate services program is intended to enable the state or local agency to respond to the immediate mental health needs with screening, diagnostic, and counseling techniques as well as such outreach services as public information and community networking. The regular services program is designed to provide up to nine months of crisis counseling, community outreach, and consultation and education services to people affected by a presidentially declared disaster. Funding for this program is separate from the immediate services grant. To be eligible for crisis counseling services
funded by this program, the person must be a resident of the designated area or must have been located in the area at the time the disaster occurred. The person must also have a mental health problem that was caused by or aggravated by the disaster or its aftermath, or he or she must benefit from services provided by the program. Disaster Case Management – The Disaster Case Management Program (DCMP) is a federally funded program under Section 426 of the Stafford Act and administered by FEMA in partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families (ACF). In the event of a presidentially declared disaster that includes Individual Assistance, the governor of the impacted state may request the DCMP through direct federal services and/ or a federal grant. The program augments state and local capacity to deliver disaster case management services and provides disaster survivors with a single point of contact to facilitate access to a broad range of case management services and recovery resources.
Public Assistance Public assistance, oriented to public entities, can fund the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a public facility or infrastructure that is damaged or destroyed by a disaster. Eligible applicants include state governments, local governments and any other political subdivision of the state, Native American tribes and Alaska Native villages. Certain private nonprofit (PNP) organizations may also receive assistance. Eligible PNPs include educational, utility, irrigation, emergency, medical, rehabilitation, and temporary or permanent custodial care facilities (including those for the aged and disabled) and other PNP facilities that provide essential services of a governmental nature to the general public. PNPs that provide “critical services” (power; water-including water provided by an irrigation organization or facility; sewer; wastewater treatment; communications; and emergency medical care) may apply directly to FEMA for a disaster grant. All other PNPs must first apply to the SBA for a disaster loan. If the PNP is declined for a SBA loan or the loan does not cover all eligible damages, the applicant may reapply for FEMA assistance. As soon as practicable after the declaration, the state, assisted by FEMA, conducts the applicant briefings for state, local and PNP officials to inform them of the assistance available and how to apply for it. A request for public assistance must be filed with the state within 30 days after the area is designated eligible for assistance. Following the applicant’s briefing, a kickoff meeting is conducted where damages will be discussed, needs assessed, and a plan of action put in place. A combined federal/state/local team proceeds with project formulation, which is the process of documenting the eligible facility, eligible work, and eligible cost of fixing the damages to every public or PNP facility identified by state or local representatives. The team prepares a project worksheet (PW) for each project. Projects fall into the following categories:
• Category A: Debris removal • Category B: Emergency protective measures • Category C: Road systems and bridges • Category D: Water control facilities • Category E: Public buildings and contents • Category F: Public utilities • Category G: Parks, recreational, and other For insurable structures within special flood hazard areas (SFHAs), primarily buildings, assistance from FEMA is reduced by the amount of insurance settlement that could have been obtained under a standard NFIP policy. For structures located outside of an SFHA, FEMA will reduce the amount of eligible assistance by any available insurance proceeds. FEMA reviews and approves the project worksheets (PWs) and obligates the federal share of the costs (which cannot be less than 75 percent) to the state. The state then disburses funds to local applicants. Projects falling below a certain threshold are considered “small.” The threshold is adjusted annually for inflation. For small projects, payment of the federal share of the estimate is made upon approval of the project, and no further accounting to FEMA is required. For large projects, payment is made on the basis of actual costs determined after the project is completed, although interim payments may be made as necessary. Once FEMA obligates funds to the state, further management of the assistance, including disbursement to subgrantees, is the responsibility of the state. FEMA/ EPR will continue to monitor the recovery progress to ensure the timely delivery of eligible assistance and compliance with the law and regulations. According to the NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, eight states pay the entire 25 percent non-federal cost share. An additional eight states split the cost share equally with local governments. The remaining states have other cost share arrangements, such as splitting costs with both local governments and private non-profit organizations.vi
Hazard Mitigation Hazard mitigation refers to sustained measures enacted to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects. In the long term, mitigation measures reduce personal loss, save lives, and reduce the cost to the nation of responding to and recovering from disasters. Two sections of the Stafford Act, §404 and §406, can provide hazard mitigation funds when a federal disaster has been declared. In each case, the federal government can provide up to 75 percent of the cost, with some restrictions. Through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), authorized by §404 of the act, communities can apply for mitigation funds through the state. The state, as grantee, is responsible for notifying potential applicants of the availabil-
ity of funding, defining a project selection process, ranking and prioritizing projects, and forwarding projects to FEMA for funding. The applicant or subgrantee carries out approved projects. The state or local government must provide a 25 percent match, which can be fashioned from a combination of cash and in-kind sources. Seventeen states pay a portion of the 25 percent cost share, and seven states pay the entire portion. The rest of the states split the cost share with local governments and/or private nonprofit organizations.vii Federal funding from other sources cannot be used for the 25 percent non-federal share with one exception. Funding provided to states under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development can be used for the non-federal share. The amount of funding available for the HMGP under a disaster declaration is finite and is limited to 15 percent (for non-enhanced plan approved states) or 20 percent (for enhanced plan approved states) of FEMA/EPR’s estimated total disaster costs for all other categories of assistance (less administrative costs). Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 emphasizes the importance of planning in reducing disaster losses. States are required to develop a state mitigation plan that provides a summary of the hazards facing them, an assessment of the risks and vulnerabilities to those hazards, and a strategy for reducing those impacts. These plans are required as a condition of non-emergency assistance under the Stafford Act and must be reviewed and updated every three years. States may choose to develop an enhanced state mitigation plan in order to receive an increased amount of 20 percent for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding. Local jurisdictions also must develop mitigation plans in order to be eligible for project grant funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. States may use a set-aside of up to five percent of the total HMGP funds available for mitigation measures at their discretion. To be eligible, a set-aside project must be identified in a state’s hazard mitigation plan and fulfill the goal of the HMGP, that is, to reduce or prevent future damage to property or prevent loss of life or injury. Eligible mitigation measures under the HMGP include acquisition or relocation of property located in high-hazard areas, elevation of flood-prone structures, seismic rehabilitation of existing structures, strengthening of existing structures against wildfire, and dry flood-proofing activities that bring a structure into compliance with minimum NFIP requirements and state or local code. Up to seven percent of the HMGP funds may be used to develop state and/or local mitigation plans. All HMGP projects, including set-aside projects, must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and all relevant executive orders. HMGP grants cannot be given for acquisition, elevation, or construction purposes if the site is located in a designated SFHA and the community is not participating in the NFIP.
[state emergency management director handbook] 91
FEMA’s primary emphasis for HMGP funds, where appropriate, is the acquisition and demolition, relocation, elevation, or flood-proofing of flood-damaged or flood-prone properties (non-structural measures). •A cquisition and demolition: Under this approach, the community purchases the flood-damaged property and demolishes the structure. The property owner uses the proceeds of the sale to purchase replacement housing on the open market. The local government assumes title to the acquired property and maintains the land as open space in perpetuity. •R elocation: In some cases, it may be viable to physically move a structure to a new location. Relocated structures must be placed on a site located outside the 100-year floodplain, outside any regulatory erosion zones, and in conformance with any other applicable state or local land use regulations. •E levation/Flood-proofing: Depending upon the nature of the flood threat, elevating a structure or incorporating other flood-proofing techniques to meet NFIP criteria may be the most practical approach to flood damage reduction. Flood-proofing techniques may be applied to commercial properties only; residential structures must be elevated. Communities can apply for funding to provide grants to property owners to cover the increased construction costs incurred in elevating or flood-proofing the structure. Funding under §406 that is used for the repair or replacement of damaged public facilities or infrastructure may be used to upgrade the facilities to meet current codes and standards. It is possible for mitigation measures to be eligible for funding under both the HMGP and §406 programs; however, if the proposed measure is funded through §406, the project is not eligible for funds under the HMGP as well. The above information is not intended to be an exhaustive list of disaster recovery assistance programs. Directors would be well served to consult with all stakeholder agencies and organizations, public and private, to ascertain the types of assistance that may be made available. Often, the private sector and certain non-governmental organizations provide opportunities for recovery assistance in addition to those opportunities provided by local, state, tribal and federal governments. Every effort should be made to ensure these programs complement, rather than compete, in the type and manner by which they provide assistance. The FEMA Declaration Process Fact Sheet can be found at: www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/declaration_process. shtm.
Request to Adjust Federal Cost Share •F ederal funds for public assistance may be increased to 90 percent whenever a declared disaster is so extraordinary that actual federal obligations meet or exceed the established statewide per capita threshold. • If warranted by the needs of the disaster, FEMA may recommend up to 100 percent federal funding for emergency work for a limited time period in the initial days of the event, regardless of the per capita impact. • T he request must be made by the governor and addressed to the president through the regional administrator. Reference: 44 CFR § 206.47
DisasterAssistance.gov Disaster survivors can register for help online at DisasterAssistance.gov following all presidentially declared disasters that have been designated for individual assistance. Accordingly to FEMA, 17 federal agencies contribute to the portal, which offers applications for, or information about, almost 70 forms of assistance as well as information on local resources. The portal is a result of Executive Order 134511, which requires the federal government to simplify the process of identifying and applying for disaster assistance. DisasterAssistance.gov helps disaster survivors: •F ind help in Spanish and English during all stages of an emergency • L earn about help available from 17 federal agencies • Reduce the number of forms to complete • Shorten the time it takes to apply for aid • Update applications and check progress online • Apply online for help from FEMA • Be referred to the Small Business Administration for loans • Have Social Security benefits sent to a new address •F ind federal disaster recovery centers near a current address • Search a list of housing available for rent • Get information about existing federal student loans •G et help from the U.S. Department of State if affected by a disaster while living or traveling outside the United States.viii www.disasterassistance.gov
F-5. Organization for Recovery Upon a presidential declaration of major disaster or emergency, the FEMA administrator or deputy administrator shall appoint a federal coordinating officer (FCO). The FCO will initiate action immediately to ensure that federal assistance is provided in accordance with the declaration, applicable laws and regulations. The FEMA regional administrator or his/her designee will work in the coordination with the governor to execute a FEMA-state agreement. This agreement sets forth the understandings, commitments, terms and conditions by which assistance will be provided. In addition, the FEMA regional administrator shall also designate a disaster recovery manager (DRM) to exercise all the authority of the regional administrator in a major disaster or emergency. Also contained in the FEMA-state agreement are the governor’s designations of the authorized representative (GAR) and the state coordinating officer (SCO). The GAR provides executive oversight and direction of the disaster or emergency on behalf of the governor. The GAR executes all necessary documents on behalf of the state. While each state’s GAR will respond to the desires of the governor, normal activities may include interfacing with the FEMA DRM, activating the appropriate state agencies and departments, executing the governor’s emergency authorities, directing the activities of the SCO, and establishing strategic response and recovery strategies. The GAR is responsible for the state compliance with the FEMA-state agreement. It will be the responsibility of the SCO to interface with the FCO. The SCO provides operational oversight and direction of the disaster or emergency and acts on behalf of the GAR. The SCO implements the GAR’s strategic guidance, converting that guidance into tactical plans that are executed on behalf of the state. In addition to interfacing and working in coordination with the FCO, and under the strategic direction of the GAR, SCO activities may include providing specific tasking to state departments and agencies; integrating state, federal and volunteer agencies actions; and coordinating response and recovery operations for the benefit of the state.
•H azard mitigation officer - The state official responsible for coordinating the preparation and implementation of the state hazard mitigation plan and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). These officials are also designated and delineated in the federal-state agreement. FEMA and the state will also negotiate for the placement and location of disaster recovery facilities which may include a joint field office (JFO) and other such facilities as determined by the DRM, FCO, GAR and SCO. Although still in draft form, the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) sets out a joint field office (JFO) operational structure that is inclusive of the FCO and SCO functions but also incorporates and is inclusive of a designated state disaster recovery coordinator (SDRC) and federal disaster recovery coordinator (FDRC). This organization also reflects a structure that provides for the implementation of the recovery support functions (RSFs) designated as community planning and capacity building, health and social services, infrastructure systems, economic development, housing, and natural and cultural resources. These concepts were operationally tested during the Tennessee flooding of 2010 and resulted in increased federal and state capacity to conduct long-term recovery operations and contributed to the recoveries of Nashville and other Tennessee communities.
The SCO will work in conjunction with the GAR to appoint state disaster program officers, who, depending on the type and scope of the major disaster or emergency declaration, may include the following: • Individual assistance officer - The state official designated to manage Individual and Households Program (IHP) assistance, particularly the Other Needs Assistance program. •P ublic assistance officer - The state official designated to facilitate and manage assistance programs for the restoration of public and eligible public nonprofit facilities to pre-disaster function and capability.
[state emergency management director handbook] 93
RECOVERY FUNCTIONS (FDRC, SDRC, AND RSFs) WITHIN THE JOINT FIELD OFFICE CHAIN OF COMMAND
Joint Field Office (JFO)
Unified Coordination Group State Coordinating Officer (SCO)
Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO)
State Disaster Recovery Coordinator (SDRC)
Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC)
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND CAPACITY BUILDING
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, LIAISONS AND OTHERS
CHIEF OF STAFF
DEFENSE COORDINATING ELEMENT
Recovery Support Functions (RSFs)
JFO organizational structure for including the newly developed positions of FDRC and SDRC and the six RSFs established within the NDRF
[D] recovery mitigation [f]
F-6. Challenges for Long-Term Recovery Pre-Disaster Planning: Convincing stakeholders - including government, private sector, and other nongovernmental organizations - to engage in pre-disaster recovery planning can be a daunting task. However, pre-disaster plans can provide a common platform to guide the recovery and redevelopment efforts. Pre-disaster planning done in conjunction with comprehensive community planning that addresses a broad range of issues will help to identify options and changes that need to be considered or implemented after a disaster. These “smart planning” principles may include: 1. C ollaboration. Governmental, community and individual stakeholders, including those outside the jurisdiction of the entity, are encouraged to be involved and provide comment during deliberation of planning, zoning, development, and resource management decisions and during implementation of such decisions. The state agency, local government, or other public entity is encouraged to develop and implement a strategy to facilitate such participation. 2. E fficiency, transparency, and consistency. Planning, zoning, development, and resource management should be undertaken to provide efficient, transparent, and consistent outcomes. Individuals, communities, regions, and governmental entities should share in the responsibility to promote the equitable distribution of development benefits and costs. 3. C lean, renewable, and efficient energy. Planning, zoning, development, and resource management should be undertaken to promote clean and renewable energy use and increased energy efficiency. 4. O ccupational diversity. Planning, zoning, development, and resource management should promote increased diversity of employment and business opportunities, promote access to education and training, expand entrepreneurial opportunities, and promote the establishment of businesses in locations near existing housing, infrastructure, and transportation. 5. R evitalization. Planning, zoning, development, and resource management should facilitate the revitalization of established town centers and neighborhoods by promoting development that conserves land, protects historic resources, promotes pedestrian accessibility, and integrates different uses of property. Remediation and reuse of existing sites, structures, and infrastructure are preferred over new construction in undeveloped areas. 6. H ousing diversity. Planning, zoning, development, and resource management should encourage diversity in the types of available housing, support the rehabilitation of existing housing, and promote the location of housing near public transportation and employment centers.
7. C ommunity character. Planning, zoning, development, and resource management should promote activities and development that are consistent with the character and architectural style of the community and should respond to local values regarding the physical character of the community. 8. N atural resources and agricultural protection. Planning, zoning, development, and resource management should emphasize protection, preservation, and restoration of natural resources, agricultural land, and cultural and historic landscapes and should increase the availability of open spaces and recreational facilities. 9. S ustainable design. Planning, zoning, development, and resource management should promote developments, buildings, and infrastructure that utilize sustainable design and construction standards and conserve natural resources by reducing waste and pollution through efficient use of land, energy, water, air, and materials. 10. T ransportation diversity. Planning, zoning, development, and resource management should promote expanded transportation options for residents of the community. Consideration should be given to transportation options that maximize mobility, reduce congestion, conserve fuel, and improve air quality.x Post-Disaster Planning: Communities impacted by a disaster should develop a process for optimally managing their recovery effort and resources. Post-disaster community recovery planning serves to integrate the range of complex decisions in the context of the disaster and works as the foundation for allocating resources. The planning process provides the benchmark to measure progress toward a successful outcome by the affected community. All disaster-impacted communities can benefit by engaging in disaster recovery planning and creating plans that are meaningful to and engage multiple audiences and stakeholders, including potential funders, nearby tribal nations, state and federal level agencies, private sector entities and other nongovernmental organizations. Key elements of post-disaster recovery planning include: •O rganizing recovery priorities and tasks through the use of a planning process by: - Assessing risk - Evaluating the conditions and needs after a disaster - Setting goals and objectives - Identifying opportunities to build in future resilience through mitigation - Identifying specific projects in areas of critical importance to the community’s overall recovery
[state emergency management director handbook] 95
•U sing a process that is community driven and locally managed, designed to promote local decision-making and ownership of the recovery planning and implementation effort. •P romoting inclusive and accessible outreach, working collaboratively and through groups of people affiliated by geographic proximity, common interest, or similar situations to address issues affecting the well-being of those people. Public involvement is critical to the recovery plan and process. • Incorporating considerations that include the concept of “growing smarter” as long-term recovery unfolds. This includes compliance with standards for accessible design and construction. •B uilding partnerships among local agencies, jurisdictions, and state, tribal and federal governments. •P roviding well-defined activities and outcomes aimed at achieving recovery within a timeframe and schedule with milestones and measurable success. Planning for the complex needs of the full community and bringing all stakeholders to a common planning table with a commitment to physical, programmatic and communications accessibility helps create a successful post-disaster recovery process. The greatest challenge of post-disaster recovery planning is the inherent struggle in getting a plan developed quickly enough to meet the needs of residents and businesses. The post-disaster planning process must operate on a much faster timeline than traditional or pre-disaster planning processes. However, one of the basic goals of the process is to develop the relationships and interagency cooperation that will continue to serve the recovery process once the planning is complete.x Making Stone Soup: A FEMA FCO once described the comprehensive recovery process as being akin to “making stone soup,” a process in which every stakeholder brings something to the pot and contributes to the flavor of the soup. While each contributes, nobody is really certain what the outcome will be. The problem for the emergency manager is to continually discover ways to put the ingredients for recovery together in such a way as to make the end product and outcome desirable and palatable to the greater community. Examining and implementing ways that marry FEMA programs with HUD, EDA and USDA programs, to other federal agency programs with the added flavor of state and local initiatives, in a complementary manner, is often the challenge that emergency management directors face. A director’s ability to innovate and select the right ingredient or program in the right amount and in combination and collaboration with others may determine the success or failure of the recovery effort. Determining When Recovery Is Over: Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing an emergency manager is determining when recovery is over. On the surface this may seem relatively easy to determine but many have learned that recovery, and its success or failure, really is a relative term that lies in the eyes of the beholder.
Some have argued that recovery is completed when the programs end. Certainly many programs, particularly those administered by local, state, tribal and federal agencies, have a beginning and ending point. Dollars are obligated, deobligated and re-obligated against defined projects designed to get the community back on its feet. Programs are not designed to make individuals, households, businesses or government whole, and, many would argue, are not always sufficient to restore the community to pre-disaster condition, let alone provide a means for community improvement and increased resiliency. Others have argued that recovery is achieved when the community has re-established its tax base. Arguably, tax base is an accurate indicator of overall recovery. However, this measure does not address the very localized issues of specifically “who” or “what” has recovered. While new business may replace old business lost in a disaster, and new individuals and families may replace those displaced by a disaster event, clearly in many cases there are measurable winners and losers. In these cases it may be the individual, family, or business that provides the truest measure of recovery effectiveness. Emergency management directors may also find that stakeholders in the recovery process may not have complementary agendas or shared objectives for disaster recovery. For some, recovery is an opportunity to address social and economic issues that may have been present pre-disaster but may have been further exacerbated by the disaster event. The perspective on how the recovery efforts have successfully, or not successfully, addressed these issues make recovery effectiveness a relative term. The determination of “when recovery has ended” seems the easiest to determine when recovery objectives are determined as part of the processes of pre-disaster and post-disaster recovery planning. The more a community is able to define its recovery objectives as well as the metrics for measuring success, the easier it is to determine when recovery has ended. Defining Recovery as a Cyclical Rather Than Linear Process: If we begin to understand the cycle of recovery and define it as an ongoing process of pre-disaster, disaster, and post-disaster planning that is intertwined with comprehensive and smart planning principles, the question of when recovery begins and ends becomes a moot point. Recovery may then be defined as part of the process of ensuring and strengthening community resiliency and increased capacity to deal with any disaster, regardless of the cause or severity. In the continuing effort to improve and strengthen recovery capacity and capability, state emergency management directors should continually examine and learn from their peers and other stakeholders who have engaged the recovery processes. Information can be attained by request, and information is available through such organizations as the National Governors Association, American Planning Association, National League of Cities and National Association of Counties. Information is also available through the U.S. Conference of Mayors, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the DHS/ FEMA Lessons Learned Information Sharing (LLIS) system.
Recovery Issues to Consider •W hat is the role of emergency management in long-term disaster recovery? •W hat statutory authority does emergency management have to coordinate long-term recovery? •W hen does disaster recovery end and economic redevelopment begin? •W hat is the role of government in economic redevelopment following a catastrophic disaster?
i Excerpts from National Disaster Recovery Framework Draft, Federal Emergency Management Agency, February 5, 2010. ii
44 CFR Chapter 1, Sections 206.35 and 206.36.
44 CFR, Chapter 1, Section 206.48.
FEMA Disaster Declaration Process Flow Chart, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA/NEMA Disaster Declaration workshop, October 2009.
Governor’s Mock Request Major Disaster, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA/NEMA Disaster Declaration Workshop, October 2009.
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DisasterAssistance.gov, http://www.disasterassistance.gov, (accessed April 25, 2011). viii
Senate File 2389, Iowa General Assembly, 2010.
Excerpts from National Disaster Recovery Framework Draft, Federal Emergency Management Agency, February 5, 2010.
[state emergency management director handbook] 97
[G] Mutual Aid and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact® (EMAC)® G-1. The Emergency Management Assistance Compact by Angela Copple, EMAC Program Director, and Jennifer Perkins, EMAC Technology Analyst
EMAC’s Mission: To facilitate the efficient, effective sharing of resources between Member States during times of emergency or disaster. The Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) was ratified by the second session of the 104th Congress in October 1996 as Public Law 104-321. Currently, all 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia have ratified the compact. EMAC is a legal mechanism and national system to facilitate the sharing of resources across state lines during times of emergency or disaster. For the purposes of this agreement, the term “states” is taken to mean the several states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territorial possessions. EMAC can be used to share any resources among member states as long as there is a state of emergency or disaster declared by the governor of any affected state. How does EMAC help you? • Provides a responsive and straightforward mutual aid system for the sharing of resources • Maximizes the use of all available member state resources from all jurisdictions • Establishes a firm legal foundation for resource sharing • Deploys as part of a coordinated response through the state emergency management agency (resources do not self-deploy) • Works in harmony with the National Response Framework • Is the primary mutual aid resource provider when federal support is not warranted, available or appropriate • Resources may serve a support role in engaging and maintaining response and recovery operations within a state. However, such EMAC-deployed resources do not assume direction or control of the affected state’s emergency operations or resources • Leverages federal dollars invested in state and local resources by using them in all-hazards response across state lines EMAC is not intended to • Replace the need for federal support • Permit the use of National Guard resources for military purposes • Replace existing mutual aid agreements
• Hoard/stockpile/ prioritize/allocate resources • Rely solely upon federal disaster assistance program funds to reimburse Assisting States
EMAC Is Law in Your State The thirteen articles of EMAC law establish how EMAC works between member states. State directors should read EMAC law and understand the member responsibilities as defined within the compact. A copy of the legislation enacted by all EMAC members may be found at www.emacweb.org. Directors should take note that their governing bodies are not free to amend the compact due to the possibility of voiding the agreed-upon articles. It is important to be mindful that EMAC is a compact to which all members subscribe and shall not be amended without the approval of all member states and subsequent ratification by Congress.
State Implementation of EMAC Within every EMAC member state are the following positions. • EMAC Authorized Representative: The compact-named individual(s) within the state who can financially obligate the state to send or request EMAC assistance. By default, the state director is an EMAC Authorized Representative. The state director may designate additional Authorized Representatives in his/her state. • EMAC Designated Contact: Referred to as the EMAC Coordinator, the EMAC Designated Contact is responsible for outreach to stakeholders and maintaining EMAC in a constant state of readiness for response. • EMAC Advance Team (A-Team): The EMAC-trained personnel who are responsible for the request and offer phase of EMAC. These personnel should be selected from state emergency management, National Guard, and other disciplines within a member state. EMAC Designated Contacts should be trained as A-Team members.
[STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR HANDBOOk] 99
• L egal Contact: The individual(s) in a member state who provides legal counsel to the emergency management agency within that member state. •F inance and Administration: The personnel within a member state who are responsible for the finance and administration responsibilities and, therefore, responsible for EMAC reimbursements. • Any governmental entity or publicly owned resource provider within the jurisdiction of an EMAC member state who may need assistance or be able to provide assistance through the EMAC system.
MRPs that should be used to maintain compatibility with the EMAC Operations System. Pre-event preparation is an essential element of the EMAC process. To ensure a successful mission, every resource provider within a state has a responsibility to engage in preevent preparation with that state’s emergency management agency before an emergency or disaster occurs. Phase 2: Activation When a state is impacted by a disaster, the affected jurisdictions identify needs and route them through the appropriate chain of command. When a resource request reaches the state emergency management agency, the incident commander determines the most appropriate source to fill that resource need. The source may be federal, private sector, a volunteer organization, or through other states using EMAC. When a state faces an emergency—whether it arises from natural or manmade disaster, resource shortages, enemy attack, or other hazard—that state’s governor may declare an emergency or disaster, authorizing funds to be expended for response and recovery. A governor’s declaration* is the first step in the activation of EMAC. The second step is when the affected state’s EMAC Authorized Representative or EMAC Designated Contact opens an event in the online EMAC Operations System, alerting both the National Coordination Group and NEMA that a request for resources is likely. *Important Note: only an impacted state needs to declare an emergency. States that may assist do not need to make such a declaration, although those states’ EMAC Authorized Representatives should keep their governors apprised of the possibility of incoming assistance requests.
The EMAC Process The EMAC process comprises five distinctive phases. Phase 1: Pre-Event Preparation During the pre-event preparation phase of EMAC, all jurisdictions—whether state, county, local, or private sector—should conduct pre-event preparation activities. Pre-event preparation includes, but is not limited to, developing internal procedures for implementing EMAC, incorporating lessons learned into their planning, conducting EMAC training and exercises in cooperation with their state emergency management agencies, preparing “Go Kits,” updating contact information on the EMAC website, and developing mission ready packages (MRPs) to include resource typing and cost estimates. MRPs are specific response and recovery capabilities that are organized, developed, trained, and exercised prior to an emergency or disaster. They should be developed in coordination with the state emergency management agency that implements the EMAC process within the state. NEMA has created a Microsoft Excel® template for the development of
Phase 3: Request and Offer Agencies within states use their in-state resource request procedures to route all requests, including those under EMAC, to their home state emergency management agencies. Once a state emergency management agency identifies a need or receives a request for assistance and determines that those resources are best obtained through EMAC member states, the request and offer phase of the EMAC process begins. Once the Requesting State’s EMAC Authorized Representative has identified that EMAC will be the source of the request, the request is handed off to the in-state EMAC A-Team or an A-Team from an Assisting State. This A-Team facilitates the EMAC process under the operational control of the EMAC Authorized Representatives. The A-Team communicates the request for assistance to potential Assisting States, usually through the utilization of the EMAC Operations System. The potential Assisting States assess their own risk level and, if able, use their in-state EMAC activation protocols to contact the in-state resource providers to determine their ability to assist. An Assisting State may then indicate that state’s ability to offer assistance through the online Operations System, phone, or e-mail.
[g] mutual aid and the emergency management assistance compact (EMAC)
The Requesting and Assisting State emergency management agencies then complete the EMAC Request for Assistance Form (REQ-A). An example of the REQ-A Section I is available at the end of the EMAC section of the handbook. For any request to be valid through EMAC, the Requesting State and Assisting State must complete all three sections of the REQ-A. The Requesting State completes details and the EMAC Authorized Representative signs the request for assistance in REQ-A Section I. The Assisting State makes its offer through REQ-A Section II, which is signed by the Assisting State EMAC Authorized Representative. The Requesting State—should it accept the offer—completes REQ-A Section III, which is signed by the Requesting State EMAC Authorized Representative. Once completed, the REQ-A constitutes a legally binding agreement.
Once the mission is completed—that is, once the supplies are used, the services rendered are complete, or the personnel’s term of duty has expired—the resources are demobilized. Demobilized personnel should be ready upon returning home to participate in any post-deployment briefings and, just as important, prepare the documentation they need for reimbursement. Phase 5: Reimbursement Although reimbursement is the last phase of the EMAC process, attention to reimbursement details extends to all phases. Resource providers, as well as personnel who may deploy in support of an EMAC mission, should be well versed in advance of that mission on how the reimbursement process works and what documentation is required to obtain to support a reimbursement claim.
When the Requesting State approves an offer and signs off on Section III, the Requesting State commits itself to be responsible for the expenses associated with that mission, which are detailed in the REQ-A estimate.
First, any deployed personnel should organize, package, and submit all receipts necessary to obtain reimbursement for travel and other mission-related expenses from the resource provider.
Phase 4: Response Once all three sections of a REQ-A have been executed by the state emergency management EMAC Authorized Representative, a contractual agreement has been formalized and resources are ready to be mobilized from an Assisting State to a Requesting State.
The resource provider then collects, prepares, reviews, approves and submits reimbursement documentation to the resource provider’s state emergency management agency. That state’s emergency management agency, in turn, reviews the submitted documentation and may then reimburse the resource provider for the costs incurred to perform the EMAC mission. (Note: Some states’ laws prohibit payment to resource providers until payment is received by the Assisting State or the state may not be able to pay immediately if it does not have available funds.)
If the resources are materials, the resource providers should immediately arrange for deployment. If the resources are personnel, those personnel should take care of all personal business; arrange travel, transportation, and lodging, if necessary; pack adequately; and initiate the process of documenting and tracking expenses for reimbursement. Mobilizing personnel should receive a pre-deployment briefing by their respective state emergency management agency, and once they arrive at their location, they should notify their home state emergency management agency. Due to the nature of the situation, deployed personnel will likely have to deal with difficult living and working circumstances, limited communications, traumatized residents and coworkers, long working hours, primitive field conditions, and other difficult situations. Deployed personnel should also realize that the last phase of the EMAC process—reimbursement—will flow most effectively if they maintain receipts and any other necessary documentation to submit to their resource providers after they return home. Thus, during the response effort, personnel must remember to collect and store all evidence of costs that will be covered under the REQ-A contract. Deployed personnel should communicate any changes to the mission that arise during the deployment to the home state emergency management agency immediately so the state may determine if an amendment of the REQ-A is necessary. This may include a change in lodging provisions, the need for the rotation of a team, a change in the mission, damage of equipment, or the need to decontaminate equipment.
The Assisting State’s emergency management agency prepares and forwards the complete reimbursement package to the Requesting State. The Requesting State reviews the reimbursement package and, if all costs are properly documented, repays the Assisting State in a timely manner. Important to remember is that the EMAC REQ-A is a legal contract, and, as such, any costs that are agreed to and signed off on by both Requesting and Assisting States are binding. The reimbursement of agreed-upon costs shall not be contingent upon FEMA determination or approval as an eligible FEMA reimbursable cost.
EMAC Operations Manual EMAC member states have agreed to use standard implementation procedures of the EMAC process within the EMAC member states. These are identified within the EMAC Operations Manual, a protected document for state emergency management personnel and key EMAC personnel. In general, the standard implementation, as outlined in the EMAC Operations Manual, includes: •U tilization of the EMAC operations system to track requests, offers, mission details, and reimbursement •U se of the EMAC REQ-A document to serve as a legally binding contract between states for the request and offer of resources
[state emergency management director handbook] 101
•A greement to follow all of the EMAC procedures as outlined in the EMAC Operations Manual
Resources Available to You The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) administers EMAC on behalf of the EMAC member states. If you have a question about EMAC implementation or policy, contact NEMA or visit the EMAC website. A username and password are required to access the protected information on the EMAC website and can be obtained by contacting the NEMA staff. To request EMAC A-Team training, an EMAC workshop, or any other EMAC educational opportunity in your state, please contact NEMA. NEMA EMAC Staff Support Angela Copple NEMA EMAC Program Director PO Box 11910 Lexington, KY 40578 859-244-8217 [email protected]
[g] mutual aid and the emergency management assistance compact (EMAC)
[state emergency management director handbook]
[g] aid and the emergency management assistance compact (EMAC) [D] mutual mitigation
G-2. Intrastate Mutual Aid Neighbor Helping Neighbor Hundreds of emergencies and small-scale disasters occur every year that may necessitate the sharing of personnel, resources and other assistance between cities and counties within a given state. This is called intrastate mutual aid. According to a 2009 NEMA survey, more than 30 states have formal intrastate mutual aid agreements or legislation in place. These are written agreements that generally define the entities that are covered under the agreement, the responsibilities of signatories, and the provisions under which intrastate mutual aid may be requested or provided and the process to be used. The agreements may also include provisions related to tort liability, licensure, workers compensation and reimbursement. Many states give local government the option to join statewide mutual aid agreements but strongly encourage it by providing additional training, equipment or other resources to jurisdictions that become signatories to the agreement. In a growing number of states, local governments are legally a party to the agreement unless they specifically “opt out” or choose not to participate. Intrastate mutual aid agreements are highly recommended. They allow communities to share resources that may otherwise not be available in their area. Jurisdictions will never have enough money available to adequately purchase, position and maintain specialized emergency response personnel or equipment. Not every jurisdiction faces the same risk or threat or requires the same level of emergency response capability. Therefore, it makes sense that every jurisdiction has the ability to access resources from around the state when needed. Intrastate mutual aid agreements make this possible.
The model legislation contains the following provisions: • Article I – Preamble • Article II – Emergency Responders Defined •A rticle III – Participating Political Subdivisions’ Responsibilities • Article IV – Implementation • Article V – Limitations • Article VI – License, Certificate and Permit Portability •A rticle VII – Reimbursement, Disputes Regarding Reimbursement • Article VIII – Development of Guidelines and Procedures • Article IX – Workers’ Compensation • Article X – Immunity • Article XI – Severability The model intrastate mutual aid legislation was developed by an interdisciplinary work group comprised of representatives from NEMA, American Public Works Association, Federal Emergency Management Agency, International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Association of Emergency Managers, International Association of Fire Chiefs, National Association of County & City Health Officials, National Association of State EMS Officials, National Association of State & Territorial Health Officials, and National Sheriffs’ Association. The fact that these stakeholder groups were able to come together to develop an agreed-upon model represents one of the fundamental tenets of mutual aid: a diverse group coming together to achieve a common goal. The NEMA National Model Intrastate Mutual Aid Legislation can be found on the EMAC website: www.emacweb.org. Also available on the website are copies of intrastate mutual aid agreements.
Intrastate agreements can also be a legal mechanism for deploying local resources through EMAC. In some states, these agreements may include volunteers and/or private sector entities as signatories.
National Model Intrastate Mutual Aid Legislation In 2004 NEMA, in partnership with key stakeholder groups, developed national model intrastate mutual aid legislation. The model serves as a template for those states that don’t have an agreement in place and wish to implement one as well as for those who have a need to institute an agreement that is based on EMAC, thereby making the deployment of local resources easier for the purposes of interstate mutual aid.
[state emergency management director handbook] 105
G-3. International Mutual Aid History NEMA Resolution on Cross Border International Mutual Aid – March 2008 At the March 2008 Mid-Year Conference the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) adopted a resolution on Cross Border International Mutual Aid Memorandums of Understanding, which formally endorsed state efforts to establish international mutual aid agreements between individual states and their international partner countries. International Emergency Management Assistance Compact (IEMAC) • In 1998 the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers passed Resolution 23-5, A Resolution Concerning the International Emergency Management Assistance Compact (IEMAC). • In 2000 the IEMAC was accepted by the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. • In 2007 Senate Joint Resolution 13 was passed by the U.S. Congress, providing consent to the International Emergency Management Group (IEMG) MOU and signed into law by President George W. Bush. •M embers include Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Pacific Northwest Emergency Management Arrangement (PNEMA) • In the late 1980s the Western States Seismic Policy Council developed the concept of a mutual aid compact for earthquakes. FEMA Region X supported the concept for the states in the region and facilitated cross-border discussions. The concept for the arrangement then expanded to include all hazards. •C ongress consented to and ratified PNEMA in July 1998. Public Law 105-381 went into effect on November 12, 1998. • In 2006-2007, Annex B was signed by member governors and premiers in order to provide a basis for PNEMA operations. Annex B is simply the language of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact in an international form. •M embers include British Columbia, Yukon Territory, Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington State. NEMA-FEMA International Mutual Aid Meeting – December 2008 Representatives from NEMA and FEMA met on December 8, 2008, in Dallas, Texas, to discuss the advancement of international mutual aid between the Canadian provinces/territories and U.S. and Mexican states. The group developed the following international mutual aid concepts and action items. The U.S. states seek: •A uthority to cross Canadian and Mexican borders with
public and private resources to provide and receive emergency management mutual aid to Canadian provinces and territories and Mexican states. • Authority to provide U.S. state emergency management resources to Canadian provincial/territorial and Mexican state partners. • Authority to receive Canadian provincial/territorial and Mexican state partners’ emergency management resources. • Authority to receive and provide emergency management mutual aid from and to Canadian provinces and territories and Mexican states with no state or federal emergency/ disaster declaration. • Mechanism(s) to facilitate crossing the Canadian and Mexican borders with public and private emergency management personnel. • Liability protection for emergency management mutual aid personnel. • Recognition of emergency management mutual aid personnel licenses, certifications, and permits. • Indemnification of emergency management mutual aid personnel. • Workers compensation for emergency management mutual aid personnel. • Mechanism(s) for providing and receiving emergency management mutual aid reimbursement. The group agreed that NEMA should develop a new overarching international mutual aid agreement for congressional approval that is open to all interested states. NEMA was requested to develop an international mutual aid concept paper to be presented for discussion and possible approval during the Mid-Year Conference in March 2009. During the NEMA 2009 Mid-Year Conference a concept paper was presented regarding international mutual aid, and the membership voted unanimously to develop a voluntary, international mutual aid compact between all U.S. states, Canadian provinces and Mexican states. Canada-U.S. Agreement on Emergency Management Cooperation – December 2008 The agreement builds upon the tradition of cooperation between Canada and the United States, and renews and updates the previous agreement signed in 1986. This agreement establishes the basis on which the two countries may assist each other during times of emergency or disaster by sending supplies and equipment, emergency personnel and expert support. It provides for the integration of response and relief efforts during cross-border incidents. The agreement further ensures a comprehensive and harmonized approach to emergency management and establishes a framework for both nations to respond jointly to emerging threats and work together to protect communities.
[g] mutual aid and the emergency management assistance compact (EMAC)
NEMA Establishes North American Mutual Aid Work Group – January 2010 In January 2010 NEMA established a work group to facilitate the development of a North American mutual aid agreement. The work group included state emergency management director representatives from EMAC, IEMAC and PNEMA. Representatives were also included from the Southwest border states, which are in the process of developing an agreement with the Mexican states. Stakeholder groups included FEMA, Governors’ Homeland Security Advisors Council, Adjutants’ General Association, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The agreement will be based on EMAC’s providing a standardized approach to mutual aid across the United States, Canada and Mexico. The agreement will include provisions addressing tort liability, workers compensation, licensure and reimbursement. The agreement will be voluntary and will not supersede or interfere with existing agreements. NEMA has conducted outreach to the Canadian Council of Emergency Measures Organization (CCEMO) and Public Safety Canada, both of which have expressed support for province to state or local jurisdiction mutual aid.
Mutual Aid Issues to Consider •D oes your state have a statewide mutual aid agreement in place? •H as your governor been briefed on how EMAC works? •H ave you integrated EMAC into your state exercises? •D o you have procedures in place for the mobilization and demobilization of mutual aid resources? •D oes the state emergency management agency provide EMAC training for other state agencies and/or first responders?
Emergency Management Assistance Compact and EMAC are registered trademarks of the National Emergency Management Association.
[state emergency management director handbook] 107
[H] Homeland Security H-1. State Homeland Security Organizational Structures After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks then-White House Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge sent a letter to the nation’s governors asking them to name a single point of contact within the state to serve as the homeland security advisor (HSA). Ten years later, only three states house the day-to-day operations of homeland security in a stand-alone agency or office. In 16 states, either emergency management or a combined emergency management/homeland security office oversees daily operations. Eight states manage homeland security out of the governor’s office while another eight utilize the adjutant general or military affairs department. Fourteen states keep the homeland security function in their public safety department.
separate staffs and instead find synergies by sharing personnel across program areas. In recent years states have come to better understand how they need to their address homeland security concerns, and at times this has led to government reorganizations. The recent trend in homeland security structures is for governors to merge the function with emergency management or under the auspices of a larger department, such as public safety. The governor maintains the prerogative to organize state government in ways he or she feels works most effectively and best meets the needs of citizens.
Every state has a designated homeland security point of contact. Who takes on this responsibility varies from state to state. Currently, 14 states assign the homeland security advisor role to their homeland security director. In another 19 states, either the emergency management director or a combined emergency management/homeland security director is the primary point of contact. Seven states have the adjutant general serving in this capacity. Six public safety secretaries/commissioners are in this role. The remaining states practice a variety of other options.i
Regardless of whether the HSA is a stand-alone appointment or serves a dual role as the state emergency management director, adjutant general or another position, all parties must work closely with one another. The safety and security of the state hangs in the balance.
In several states, though not the designated HSA, the emergency management director has responsibility for day-to-day implementation of homeland security grants and other programs to ensure a coordinated approach to all-hazards prevention, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery.
• Oversight of the state fusion center
Homeland Security Functional Areas Depending on the organization of a state’s homeland security function, the responsibilities may vary; however, typically, the following activities remain under the purview of the HSA: • Administration of the federal homeland security grant program
Adjutant General/Military Affairs
• Counterterrorism - Threat and vulnerability assessment - Suspicious activity and intelligence gathering and analysis - Critical infrastructure and key asset protection - Public-private partnerships and prevention programs
Homeland Security (stand-alone office)
Combined EM/HS Office
How the State Homeland Security Function is Organized for Day-to-Day Operations:
Determining staffing levels of state homeland security organizations remains a challenge. In some states the number of personnel may be fewer than five, and in some it may approach 100 positions. Commonly, personnel serve in a dual capacity, working in both emergency management and homeland security programs. Such dual-functioning is a result of few states possessing the ability to afford the maintenance of
• Coordination with the state emergency management agency For those states along or near border areas, the issues of border security and immigration may also be included in the homeland security portfolio. Even though enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government, border security and immigration issues can jeopardize the safety and security of citizens and immigrants, thus necessitating some level of involvement by state and local governments. For more information on state homeland security roles and responsibilities, refer to the National Governors Association publication A Governor’s Guide to Homeland Security. www.nga.org.
[state emergency management director handbook] 109
Top 10 Things a New State Emergency Management Director Needs to Know to Be Successful: A Homeland Security Perspective by Charley English, Director, Georgia Emergency Management Agency, and Joe Wainscott, Director, Indiana Department of Homeland Security 10. Know and understand your role. •S ome state directors are the emergency management and homeland security advisor, and some are not.
• If you are not, develop these important relationships and work closely together.
• T he added role of state administering agency (SAA) for the associated grant programs must also be understood and coordinated.
•W hich federal and state laws and regulation apply to you?
9. Four pillars of emergency management apply to homeland security activities too. • Preparedness • Response • Recovery • Mitigation/Prevention 8. Develop a credible and user-friendly situational awareness system. •P re-event (activities based on impending events and threats) • Event • Capabilities (planning and investments) • Follow-through Threat and risk assessments, capability and gap analyses, daily information gathering and sharing, good software and communications systems, and relationships are also key aspects of developing a credible and user-friendly situational awareness system. 7. Know Your Fusion Center. •D eveloping a strong relationship with your fusion center command staff is essential. Read U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidance on fusion center baseline capabilities and fusion center/state emergency operations center (EOC) interaction.
•D evelop and maintain a close relationship with your DHS Intelligence and Analysis embedded analyst and his or her chain of command.
6. Know your state’s threat picture. •E valuate your state’s most likely hazards, associated risks and potential impact to people, property and infrastructure. In the process, attempt to identify and understand the critical interdependencies between systems and across boundaries. It is possible for an event in another state to cause your state significant impact.
[h] [D] homeland mitigation security
5. It’s NOT all about response! • After the life-saving, it is all about who pays…
• Embrace and understand that the recovery and mitigation processes, in the long run, are more important than response for the survival of your state and communities.
4. But it IS all about the money (but shouldn’t be). • Learn all you can about the various grant programs and how they apply to your state.
• Consider establishing priority areas of focus for your state and guide your local partners in filling your most critical capability gaps rather than just using a shotgun approach.
• Do not buy unsustainable capabilities.
3. Take advantage of associations, networking, and educational opportunities. • National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) • Governors’ Homeland Security Advisors Council (GHSAC) • National Homeland Security Consortium (NHSC) • Emergency Management Institute (EMI) • Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS)
Find a mentor to help and guide you.
2. Keep your perspective…in perspective. • Homeland Security, Emergency Management, Homeland Defense, Anti-Terrorism, Public Safety…Which is it? Does anybody care other than you?
• Understand that your perspective as a practitioner may be completely different from your governor’s or his or her staff.
• While public safety should be above politics, learning to look at issues through the political lens may help you avoid the landmines.
1. Swallow deep, get alligator skin and smile… you will need them more than they need you!
H-2. Common Homeland Security Issues Homeland security encompasses a broad number of topics both at the state and federal level. In the ten years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, some homeland security issues have changed little, while others continue to evolve in the ever-changing climate of global security. President Decision Directive 8 One document often pointed to as the basis for preparedness activities across the country is Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8, or HSPD-8. The original HSPD-8 was signed by President George W. Bush in 2003, as a result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. On March 30, 2011, President Obama signed an updated version of the document and renamed it President Decision Directive (PPD) 8. www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1215444247124.shtm. The primary topic of concern in PPD-8 is national preparedness, including acts of terrorism, cyber attacks, pandemics, and catastrophic natural disasters. The directive is aimed particularly at DHS but requires other departments to participate in some aspects of national preparedness as well. Throughout the short document, the president lays out priorities for developing national preparedness goals, a national preparedness system, building and sustaining preparedness, and a national preparedness report. Finally, PPD-8 defines the roles and responsibilities of the secretary of Homeland Security and other agency department heads. Suspicious Activity Reporting Though they have become more prominent in recent years, suspicious activity reporting systems (SARS) were in place throughout numerous federal departments long before the creation of DHS. Even the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) utilizes SARS to advocate the reporting of money laundering activities. Translating “suspicious” into the context of homeland security, however, has remained a challenge. Even defining suspicious activity is often difficult, as there remains little agreement on what constitutes a reportable activity. Suspicious activity may even vary by region or state. In 2010, DHS began work on developing and rolling-out the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign, which is intended to act as a nationwide reporting campaign involving every citizen. As of April 2011, partnerships with this campaign have been launched by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the National Football League (NFL) as well as in Colorado, Minnesota and New Jersey; more than 9,000 federal buildings nationwide; Wal-mart; Mall of America; the American Hotel and Lodging Association; Amtrak; the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; the general aviation industry; and state and local fusion centers across the country. The challenge for HSAs, however, remains many constitutional issues combined with the need to “fuse” information through state fusion centers and create uniformity in the information so it can be useful to state officials. While these
challenges remain, the need for clear and actionable intelligence at the state level is more prominent than ever. National Threat Advisory System In January 2011, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano introduced a new National Threat Advisory System (NTAS) to replace the color-coded alerts of the Homeland Security Advisory System, which had been in place since 2002. The new NTAS system is meant to more effectively communicate information about terrorist threats by providing timely, detailed information to the public, government agencies, first responders, airports and other transportation hubs, and the private sector. Under the new system, DHS will coordinate with other federal entities to issue formal, detailed alerts when the federal government receives information about a specific or credible terrorist threat. These alerts will include a clear statement indicating that there may be an “imminent threat” or “elevated threat.” The alerts also will provide a concise summary of the potential threat, information about actions being taken to ensure public safety, and recommended steps that individuals and communities, businesses and governments can take. NTAS alerts will be based on the nature of the threat: in some cases, alerts will be sent directly to law enforcement or affected areas of the private sector, while in others, alerts will be issued more broadly to the American people through both official and media channels, including the DHS website (www. dhs.gov), Facebook, and Twitter. Mobile Education Teams The Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) sponsors an Executive Education Program aimed to assist state and local officials in addressing critical homeland security issues. The program provides an intensive half-day seminar on homeland security designed to help strengthen the United States’ capability to prevent, deter, and respond to domestic terrorist attacks and to build the intergovernmental, interagency, and civil-military cooperation that homeland security requires. The seminars are conducted by mobile education teams (MET) comprised of nationally recognized experts in various areas related to homeland security. The Executive Education Seminar is provided free of charge and focuses exclusively on enhancing the capacity of top government officials to successfully address new homeland security challenges. For states, the target audience is the governor and the homeland security team, which is expected to consist of the governor’s senior staff and the heads of each department and agency that has a role in homeland security. The Executive Education Seminar is also available for major urban area senior homeland security leaders.
[state emergency management director handbook] 111
The Executive Education Seminar concentrates on the problems that homeland security poses for state and local level strategic planning, policy development, and organizational design. Topics are discussed in an interactive roundtable format and include: • Federal/state/local responsibilities and coordination • Prevention • Intelligence collection, assessment, and dissemination and information sharing • Critical infrastructure protection • Public communications and fear management • Response operations • Information sharing The Executive Education Seminar program complements the diverse operational training and exercise programs that currently exist for lower level officials and staff. Some major topics of discussion have recently included: esponse Capabilities. Officials are usually quick R to want to obtain situational awareness and mount a response. Processes and procedures to assist in gaining such situational awareness help support the incident command structure and begin movement of mutual aid assets. Staff deployment and the development of a communications structure often remain the highest priorities. Some organizations are also establishing business operations centers (BOCs) to bring the business community into the response structure. While success has been realized in actual response capabilities, in some instances the level of coordination between state, local, and regional governing bodies remains a topic of conversation. Planning. While many state and local organizations remain untested in responding to a large-scale catastrophic event, the planning elements necessary to create an effective preparedness, response, and recovery structure appear in place. For the most part, planning is driven to lower levels within departments and agencies so as to provide a bottom-up planning system. Since the majority of broad-based preparedness and response planning is complete, some seminars highlight specific planning efforts currently underway on such issues as mass evacuation, sheltering, and communications strategies. Regional planning efforts are also becoming more of a traditional practice when practical. The level of success in continuity planning remains mixed across the country. Many have addressed continuity of operations (COOP), continuity of government (COG), and continuity of services (COS) on some level, but often more can be accomplished. rganization Structures. Over time it has become clear O that state, local and tribal governments have taken seriously the need to effectively organize a robust emergency management and homeland security network. A working knowledge of homeland security and emergency manage-
[h] homeland security
ment issues pervades most department and agencies. Also, despite budgetary constraints, many organizations have chosen to reorganize in order to maintain capacity. In one form or another, jurisdictions remain connected with their local Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) or state fusion center. While gaps continue to exist in this coordination, there remains acknowledgement of the importance and progress continues to be realized. Public Communications. The dynamic environment in which governments must communicate with the public remains a challenge for many public officials. Social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace offer a real-time information- sharing environment for victims, witnesses, and those responding to an event. The ability to harness this medium and develop a coordinated and comprehensive message from government officials remains challenging when information moves so rapidly. Many state and local governments develop pre-determined messages for a variety of situations to afford them the opportunity to disseminate information quickly to the public. Budgetary constraints in this challenging economic climate also present difficulties in government’s ability to manage expectations of the citizenry. Deficiencies in personal preparedness and high public expectations act in opposition to one another and place an unattainable responsibility on state and local governments. Information Sharing. As state and local governments continue to become more savvy with homeland security and emergency management issues, the desire for realtime and actionable intelligence and information increases. Some jurisdictions maintain strong relationships with local JTTFs and fusion centers, but the understanding of how to establish intelligence requirements from the local level remains a challenge. An additional issue stemming from budgetary constraints is the ability for governments to provide enough intelligence analysts in fusion centers. Many officials are beginning to utilize work groups to interact with intelligence officials so as to facilitate the more rapid dissemination of information. edical Surge. Often, hospitals are owned by private M business and medical surge capacity is dependent on the available resources of medical care corporations. This public-private partnership could pose particular challenges during a mass casualty event, given the immediate involvement of government responders and officials. While efforts have been made to fortify the relationship between private hospitals and public officials, the same line of communication continues to be a challenge for public hospitals. Despite some of the best efforts, the likelihood for emergency rooms in public institutions to become quickly overwhelmed remains a significant issue. Some jurisdictions simply lack the appropriate planning, equipment, and personnel to effectively meet medical surge requirements.
H-3. Fusion Centers State and major area fusion centers serve as focal points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information between the federal government and state, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector partners. Located in states and major urban areas throughout the country, fusion centers stand uniquely situated to empower front-line law enforcement, public safety, fire service, emergency response, public health, critical infrastructure and key resource protection, and private sector security personnel to understand local implications of national intelligence. This empowerment enables local officials to better protect their communities. Fusion centers also provide interdisciplinary expertise and situational awareness to inform decision-making at all levels of government. They conduct analysis and facilitate information sharing while assisting law enforcement and homeland security partners in preventing, protecting against, and responding to acts of crime and terrorism. Fusion centers are owned and operated by state and local entities, with support from federal partners in the form of deployed personnel, training, technical assistance, exercise support, security clearances, connectivity to federal systems, technology, and grant funding. What Fusion Centers Do Fusion centers contribute to the information sharing environment (ISE) through their role in receiving threat information from the federal government; analyzing that information in the context of their local environment; disseminating that information to local agencies; and gathering tips, leads, and suspicious activity reporting (SAR) from local agencies and the public. Fusion centers receive information from a variety of sources, including from stakeholders within their jurisdictions, as well as federal information and intelligence. They analyze the information and develop relevant products to disseminate to their customers. These products assist homeland security partners at all levels of government to identify and address immediate and emerging threats. Beyond serving as a focal point for information sharing, fusion centers add significant value by providing a state and local context to help enhance the national threat picture. Fusion centers provide the federal government with critical state and local information and subject matter expertise not previously received. Such information enables the effective communication of locally generated threat-related information to the federal government. Integrating and connecting these state and local resources creates a national capacity to gather, process, analyze, and share information in support of efforts to protect the country.ii State Fusion Center Organizational Structures The number of fusion centers has been growing since the attacks of September 11, 2001, although DHS and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially recognize only 72 centers around the nation. As the quantity has increased, so has
their area of focus, moving beyond pure anti-terrorism to an all-hazards concept. This is borne out in survey data collected by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), which shows that 36 states use the all- hazards/all-crimes approach in their fusion centers. Only 14 states concentrate solely on terrorism and two states do not maintain a fusion center. In 11 states, these facilities are co-located with either the state emergency operations center or the emergency management office. Fusion centers are usually co-located with public safety, state police, or another law enforcement entity. A few states are in the process of con¬structing new EOCs and have plans to either co-locate the fusion center and EOC or are at least considering the option. More than 1,250 personnel are assigned collectively to all state centers. Law enforcement represents the preponderance of personnel assigned to state fusion centers with 72 percent of the staff. Federal government employees are next, with about eight percent. The private sector and military affairs both follow, with about six percent. Responsibility for management and oversight of state fusion centers falls to the state police in 21 states. In another 10 states, either the homeland security office or a combined homeland security/emergency manage¬ment agency supervises the center. Eighteen states have other offices or a combination of other offices/agencies in charge. The variety of options indicates that states are still determining the best approach for managing the fusion centers.iii Coordinating with State EOCs Fusion centers and emergency operations centers (EOCs) should become familiar with each other’s roles and capabilities to facilitate successful interfacing and cooperation between them. In addition, it is imperative that the two develop a solid relationship in order to effectively work together to achieve their respective objectives. The relationships forged between these two entities will allow them to have continuous, meaningful contacts, which will enhance their ability to share information and intelligence, regardless of the activation status of the EOC. Mutual trust and respect must guide interagency collaboration policies and protocols, allowing for effective and consistent collaboration during the steady state or during an emergency. In addition to addressing the relationship in a concept of operations (CONOPS) and standard operating procedures (SOPs), memoranda of understanding (MOUs) should be created, reviewed and updated to define roles during both periods of activation and non-activation. SOPs and MOUs also define how information will be shared between the two
[state emergency management director handbook] 113
entities. FEMA’s Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 502 focuses on this critical partnership and the exchange of information between these entities. The CPG 502 guidance provides information on federal departments and initiatives, the role of fusion centers, the role of EOCs, EOC and fusion center coordination, and case studies and examples. The overall goal of the fusion process is to convert raw information and intelligence into actionable knowledge. Fusion centers are effective mechanisms for guiding this process. EOCs and watch/warning centers, as well as other public safety and first responder agencies and private-sector entities, are essential providers of raw information, operational emergency management information, all-hazards intelligence and other subject matter expertise. In addition, they are users of operational information and intelligence and, therefore, also “customers” of fusion centers, so this relationship is especially critical. DHS Support to Fusion Centers DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has stated on numerous occasions that fusion centers are a national priority. DHS has deployed more than 64 intelligence officers to fusion centers and has deployed Homeland Secure Data Network (HSDN) terminals to a total of 47 fusion centers. HSDN provides secret-level connectivity to enhance the ability of state and local partners to receive federally generated classified threat information. DHS also provides training and technical assistance for fusion center personnel. State and urban area homeland security grants through DHS/FEMA are a significant source of funding to support fusion centers. Consistent with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53) (9/11 Act), states are required to ensure that at least 25 percent of federal homeland security appropriated funds are dedicated towards law enforcement terrorism prevention-oriented planning, organization, training, exercise, and equipment activities, including those activities that support the development and operation of fusion centers. The same requirement pertains to Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grants. Federal Guidance Documents for Fusion Centers: •B aseline Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers, A Supplement to the Fusion Center Guidelines http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/2010/ fy10_hsgp_fusion.pdf • Considerations for Fusion Center and Emergency Operations Centers, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 502 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/divisions/npd/ cpg_502_eoc-fusion_final_7_20_2010.pdf
[h] homeland security
Fusion Center Resources Fusion Center Leaders Program - The Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security offers a Fusion Center Leaders Program (FCLP) built upon guidance from state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners, and federal interagency partners, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice (DOJ), and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). This graduate-level program examines key questions and issues facing fusion center leaders and their role in homeland security, public safety, and the information sharing environment (ISE). The program is designed to enhance critical thinking related to homeland security and public safety intelligence issues at the federal and SLTT levels of government and in the private sector. National Fusion Center Association (NFCA) - a nonprofit organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, that is an advocacy group for the 72 DHS-and DOJ-recognized fusion centers. Its stated mission is to represent the interests of fusion centers in states, tribal nations, and units of local government in order encourage effective, efficient, ethical, lawful, and professional intelligence and information sharing and reduce the harmful effects of crime and terrorism on victims, individuals, and communities. National Fusion Center Conference - provides an annual forum for fusion center representatives to receive training, technical assistance, and other support to achieve a baseline level of capability and meet the goals identified in the National Strategy for Information Sharing. The intended audience is fusion center directors, homeland security advisors, intelligence analysts, and law enforcement professionals. The conference is co-sponsored by DHS, DOJ, FBI and other law enforcement-centric federal agencies.
H-4. Critical Infrastructure Protection
Critical infrastructure surrounds us on a daily basis. We see it in the power grids throughout our communities, the transportation infrastructure supporting millions of tons of cargo, and the mechanisms bringing us clean water to our homes. Protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure is a key DHS mission established in 2002 by the National Strategy for Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. “Critical infrastructure” is defined by federal law as “systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.” DHS has identified 18 critical infrastructure sectors, as diverse as agriculture and food, emergency services, and cyber networks.iv Since 2004, DHS has maintained robust infrastructure protection field operations through the protective security advisor (PSA) program. PSAs are trained critical infrastructure protection and vulnerability mitigation subject matter experts. Regional directors are supervisory PSAs, responsible for the activities of eight or more PSAs and geospatial analysts, who ensure all DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection critical infrastructure protection programs and services are delivered to state, local, territorial, and tribal stakeholders and private sector owners and operators. Regional directors and PSAs also conduct specialized site visits and provide information and guidance on critical infrastructure issues. As of December 2010, 93 regional directors and PSAs were deployed in 74 districts within 50 states and Puerto Rico. The PSA program focuses on enhancing infrastructure protection, assisting with incident management, and facilitating information sharing. While this program is a critical aspect of DHS’s infrastructure protection portfolio, the effort is only as effective as the coordination between PSAs and the state HSA. Because regional directors and PSAs are strategically located across the country, they are often the first DHS personnel to respond and deploy to emergencies and disasters. During an incident, they frequently work within state and local emergency operations centers and at the FEMA joint field office. While on these deployments, they advise DHS and other government and private sector representatives on interdependencies, cascading effects, and damage assessments concerning impacted critical infrastructure and help owners and opera-
tors, law enforcement personnel, and state and local officials prioritize and coordinate re-entry and recovery activities.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7), signed by President Bush in 2003, established U.S. policy for enhancing critical infrastructure protection by establishing a framework for partners of DHS to identify, prioritize, and protect critical infrastructure in our communities from terrorist attacks. The directive identified 17 critical infrastructure sectors and, for each sector, designated a federal sector-specific agency (SSA) to lead protection and resiliencebuilding programs and activities. HSPD-7 allows for DHS to identify gaps in existing critical infrastructure sectors and establish new sectors to fill these gaps. Under this authority, the department established an eighteenth sector, the critical manufacturing sector, in March 2008. Each of the sectorspecific agencies developed a sector-specific plan that details the application of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) to the unique characteristics of their sector. www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1214597989952.shtm
Infrastructure Protection at DHS Critical infrastructure protection remains such a high priority of DHS that an entire office has been created within the National Protection and Programs Directorate. The Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) works to reduce risk to national critical infrastructure posed by acts of terrorism. This is meant to increase the nation’s level of preparedness and the ability to respond and quickly recover in the event of an attack, natural disaster, or other emergency. www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0827.shtm IP’s vision is a safe, secure, and resilient critical infrastructure based on and sustained through strong public and private partnerships. The IP mission is to lead the national effort to mitigate terrorism risk to, strengthen the protection of, and enhance the allhazard resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure. To fufill its mission, IP understands that critical infrastructure owners and operators, planners and responders need to know:
[state emergency management director handbook] 115
•w hat the specific risks are in their locations and to their industries; •h ow to coordinate with others within and across sectors and share vital information; and •h ow to prepare, protect, and respond IP addresses these needs through the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and a robust set of programs and activities to support critical infrastructure partners in the field. The NIPP establishes a partnership structure for coordination across 18 critical infrastructure sectors, and a risk management framework to identify assets, systems, networks, and functions whose loss or compromise pose the greatest risk. IP is building on this foundation through expanded mission collaboration with partners to strengthen not only the protection of critical infrastructure, but also resilience of communities.
Cybersecurity Also within the National Protection and Programs Directorate is the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications. In recent years, cybersecurity has developed into a cornerstone issue for the homeland security community. As communities and individuals rely more on computers and technology during every day activities, the risks posed by cybersecurity threats increase and the ability to safeguard information becomes more of a challenge. There are multiple resources to assist with cybersecurity issues. The Office of Cybersecurity and Communications The Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C) is responsible for enhancing the security, resiliency, and reliability of the nation’s cyber and communications infrastructure. CS&C actively engages the public and private sectors as well as international partners to prepare for, prevent, and respond to catastrophic incidents that could degrade or overwhelm these strategic assets.
[h] homeland security
CS&C works to prevent or minimize disruptions to our critical information infrastructure in order to protect the public, economy, government services, and the overall security of the United States. It does this by supporting a series of continuous efforts designed to further safeguard federal government systems by reducing potential vulnerabilities, protecting against cyber intrusions, and anticipating future threats. DHS also supports the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team (US-CERT), which maintains the National Cyber Alert System and provides tips and tricks to avoid cybersecurity threats. www.uscert.gov/cas/tips
Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center The Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC), a division of the Center for Internet Security, works with state and local governments on cyber threat prevention, protection, response, and recovery. The mission of the MS-ISAC is to improve the overall cybersecurity posture of state, local, territorial and tribal governments. Collaboration and information-sharing among members, private sector partners and the DHS are the keys to success. In coordinating with state and local governments, the MSISAC works to provide two-way sharing of information and early warnings on cybersecurity threats, provide a process for gathering and disseminating information on cybersecurity incidents, promote awareness of the interdependencies between cyber and physical critical infrastructure as well as between and among the different sectors, coordinate training and awareness, and ensure that all necessary parties are vested partners in this effort. www.msisac.org
H-5. National Homeland Security Consortium® The National Homeland Security Consortium (NHSC) is a forum for public and private sector disciplines to coalesce efforts and perspectives about how best to protect America in the 21st century. The consortium consists of 21 national organizations representing local, state, and private professionals that deliver the daily services vital to safety and security of the United States. The consortium represents the first and secondary responders as well as those who will provide the sustained effort necessary to respond to any major emergency, including leadership and direction by elected and appointed officials. Participating organizations began meeting together in 2002 at the invitation of NEMA. The consortium is an outgrowth of those initial discussions regarding the need for enhanced communication and coordination between disciplines and levels of government. The consortium is now a recognized entity by DHS/FEMA and works in partnership with other federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Defense and others. The consortium meets at least twice annually and regularly shares information on issues of common interest. Subject matter experts within the consortium are available as needed to provide input on national strategies, plans, and policies impacting state and local governments. The NHSC is an example of expanded local, state, and private sector coordination necessitated by growing national demands. The members recognize people across the United States live in large population centers with complex, overlapping, and interrelated governmental and political structures. At the same time, rural and less populated regions of the country also have citizens expecting and deserving safety and security from any hazard threatening their communities. Consequently, state and local government organizations have taken the initiative to significantly expand their collaboration in order to respond effectively in a crisis. No single organization or entity can be effective attempting to work in isolation. The consortium provides a neutral forum for organizations to exchange ideas, have candid discussions, and galvanize input to the federal government. NHSC Objectives: 1. Provide a broad-based resource and sounding board on homeland security issues for all national stakeholders. 2. Share information, knowledge, experiences, and practices. 3. Contribute to the homeland security debate and discussion. 4. Focus efforts to resolve issues. 5. Develop recommendations in identified areas of common interest.
All members of the NEMA Homeland Security Committee are invited to participate on the NHSC along with all state homeland security advisors. www.nemaweb.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie w=article&id=122&Itemid=215 NHSC White Paper Protecting Americans in the 21st Century: Imperatives for the Homeland In 2008, the National Homeland Security Consortium declared its priorities for the continued protection of the nation in order to inform the national presidential candidates and subsequent administration. This publication proposed 46 strategic actions that the member associations of the Consortium viewed as critical to safeguard the public health, safety and security of the United States. In 2010 the consortium released an update to the original white paper.
National Homeland Security Consortium 2010 Urgent and Emerging Issues A Supplement to the White Paper: Protecting Americans in the 21st Century: Imperatives for the Homeland We have made progress. But the homeland security challenges the nation faces today are just as complex as they were on September 11, 2001; during those tragic late summer weeks in 2005; and most recently, in the waters and on the beaches of the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The global financial crisis and recession have also degraded the ability to prevent, protect, mitigate, respond and recover due to the devastating impacts on non-federal government budgets and the homeland security capabilities of the private sector. And finally, but most ominous, is the steadily increasing attempts to once again bring terror and manmade destruction to the homeland of the United States. In 2008, the National Homeland Security Consortium declared their priorities for the continued protection of the nation in order to inform the national candidates and subsequent administration. This publication proposed 46 strategic actions that the member associations of the consortium viewed as critical to safeguard the public health, safety and security of the United States. A 2010 update to the original white paper follows this supplement. The consortium members have revisited and reviewed those calls for action and reaffirm their credence, relevance and importance today. The members also reiterate the four
[state emergency management director handbook] 117
overarching strategic principles that need to guide our unity of effort and purpose: •P reserve the historic principles that guide how our nation is governed. •R equire consistent and organized communication among stakeholders to build trust, resolve problems and prevent conflicts. •S ustain national efforts. •E nhance our national resiliency. This supplement is written on the eve of yet another significant leadership transition. In 2011, there will be a transition of over half of the state and territorial governors which will also drive the turnover of many state homeland security leaders. The loss of institutional knowledge to the homeland security enterprise can set back current efforts unless there is a robust and engaging transitional strategy.
It is with the above in mind that the member associations of the National Homeland Security Consortium rededicate themselves to their individual and collective missions to protect the health, safety and security of all Americans. The consortium reaffirms and reemphasizes the principles and strategic recommendations of their previous paper but also illuminate six critical issues that need to be highlighted for near term policy and strategic action.
Wisely Sustain Homeland Security Investments and Efforts The success of the homeland security enterprise in the past nine years can partially be attributed to the financial investment of all levels of government and the private sector towards programs and activities that enhanced our overall capacities and capabilities. But in the same period, terrorist threats have evolved and the scope of homeland security has expanded. The nation has funded countless new or enhanced programs, activities and resources in an attempt to try and cover all our risks and all our constituencies. Most of these efforts must be sustained and at the same time, incentives must continue to support innovations and creative solutions. The challenge is how to determine which activities are most important to overall success versus those that can be lessened or eliminated in priority and funding. The consortium calls for a shift in the way we discuss and decide homeland security funding. •F uture fiscal decisions should not create a “competition of grant writing,” where one entity can “prevail” at the expense of another. •G rant investment decisions must both recognize the need for risk based allocations in certain geographical areas while at the same time provide some funding to sustain basic response infrastructure for public safety and public health emergencies wherever they might occur.
[h] homeland security
• Funding must be allocated for multi-year periods to allow for the completion of projects and activities versus onetime injections of resources that will be re-assigned after each fiscal year. • Homeland security resources should enhance the ability of the enterprise to address most natural and manmade hazards. The “dual use” flexibility of these funds must be maintained but must not become so diffused that we lose focus on the very threats that homeland security was created for in the first place. • And most importantly, collectively, we must decide on our strategic homeland security goals. We must determine, together, what success should look like, who is best suited to bring it about, how we will know when we achieve it, and what resource methodology to use to support the conclusions of this rational sequence.
Allocate the 700 MHz D Block Radio Spectrum to Public Safety The broadband revolution presents America’s first responders with the opportunity to take advantage of new technology that could greatly enhance public safety communications. For example, wireless broadband access will enable the development and widespread adoption of devices to track firefighters inside burning buildings; allow law enforcement to access video surveillance networks capable of identifying known terrorists through the use of video analytics, criminal records, automated license plate recognition and biometric technologies; and allow paramedics to share a patient’s vitals remotely with medical staff at a hospital. In order for our nation’s first responders to access this new technology, the federal government must support the development of a nationwide, interoperable, public safety wireless broadband network as well as provide for a dedicated stream of funding to enable the creation and implementation of a nationwide public safety interoperable wireless broadband network. Currently, public safety has been licensed 10 MHz of spectrum by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop a nationwide public safety wireless broadband network; however, studies indicate that a truly resilient network would require 20 MHz. Public safety seeks another 10 MHz through the D Block to add to its already licensed spectrum in order to build out a mission critical public safety network. The consortium calls upon Congress, the administration and the FCC to act without delay in enacting legislation that allocates the D Block - a vital resource – to the public safety community.
Address Immigration Reform Intense and direct pressures created by the absence of comprehensive immigration reform at the national level are severely impacting the tribal, local and state public safety and governing entities. Federal agencies and non-federal governments struggle to balance the goals of public health and safety, economic development, and community cohesion amidst a debate that creates considerable conflict and political turmoil within communities, regions, and across the
nation. Lack of a comprehensive reform built with collaborative partners jeopardizes the safety and security of our citizens and immigrants alike, imposes significant burdens on the economic and social fabric of our nation and creates intergovernmental tensions that may impede effective working relations on other issues. The clearest nexus between immigration policy and homeland security occurs along the borders of the country. But addressing border issues alone is akin to treating the symptoms, not the root cause. The consortium is well aware of the divergence of views on the specific policies and strategies necessary. However, it calls upon leadership at all levels to make it a priority to move from debate and conversation to action.
Measuring Homeland Security Performance How successful have we been and how do we know it? What would we do with the answer if we knew it? The measurement of the performance of the homeland security enterprise has been frequently, and often vehemently, demanded. Few are satisfied with efforts to date. What on the surface appears to be a simple and objective endeavor is in reality, a complex and subjective under-taking. While the measurement of relatively small pieces of homeland security overall might be accomplished in straightforward methods, as soon as we attempt to aggregate or integrate relationships among the various parts of the enterprise, the conclusions become unreliable and suspect. The whole is not the same as the sum of its parts. Therefore, measurement philosophies, methodologies and processes must account for the evolving nature of homeland security. There are many players involved and the environment is constantly evolving and adapting; therefore it is unwise to over-simplify this task. The consortium stipulates that homeland security performance can and should be measured, but not in the conventional ways that other less complex government programs are measured. In other words, homeland security performance might look more like the results we expect to see from national security measurements, rather than, for example, measurements of emergency service response times to incidents. Additionally, the outcomes we select to measure homeland security must come from our national and our communities’ priorities, not solely those of the homeland security government sector.
Securing Cyberspace U.S. cyber systems have developed over time with an emphasis on capturing economic and social benefits, rather than emphasizing security. Digital devices and information systems have become so integral to our commercial activities and the operation of the nation’s critical infrastructure that they are ubiquitous. Still, public and private sector stakeholders believe that the widespread connectivity of IT and critical infrastructure needs to be increasingly balanced, if not required, with security in mind. While many of the issues and challenges facing homeland security are complex, securing the electronic enterprise may
be the least understood and most poorly defined of all. While the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) recently identified the safety and security of cyberspace as one of the five mission areas of the homeland security enterprise, the answer to precisely who, what, how and when remain unclear and is becoming increasingly unfocused. Even the most preliminary steps of awareness and education are haphazard and ineffective, let alone the understanding of roles, responsibilities and desired outcomes of all the interested and affected communities. While Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 may clarify some or all of the above, its classification nullifies its effectiveness as a national, collaborative strategy. It’s the consortium’s belief that 1) multiple federal agencies have lead responsibilities across the domains of federal cyber security; 2) many states have enacted and drafted their own plans; 3) the private sector is organizing activities to protect its assets; and 4) the international community is pursuing various paths to secure the global cyber infrastructure. The consortium strongly urges that the leaders of governments and the private sector set cyber security as a priority policy issue; perform some very basic steps of task organization delineating roles and responsibilities; commit to a unified, collaborative and integrated approach; and resource the requirements.
Strategizing Long-Term Disaster Recovery The homeland security community has become attuned to the need for a more comprehensive and coordinated approach in the rebuilding of communities struck by major disasters. At the same time, it recognizes that along the timeline from emergency response to community normalcy post event, a multitude of shifts occur in roles, responsibilities and the provision of resources. For example, the emergency management discipline has obvious authorities and capabilities in the immediate aftermath of an event, but gradually its influence, importance and even necessity wane as the needs and requirements of a full recovery are sometimes best led and coordinated by others. Another example is how the public works community has obvious primary responsibilities at one point in the recovery continuum while at another primacy may belong to a land-use authority. There is no national understanding and agreement on the responsibilities of government, the private sector and the general public for long term recovery. There are no criteria from which to determine that long term recovery is accomplished or when it transitions into something more akin to economic development. The consortium advocates that more discussion and planning are needed to address long term recovery.
Conclusion The consortium recognizes the progress made in a number of strategic areas highlighted by the 2008 white paper. Participating organizations commend the increased collaboration and coordination among the principle actors of the national homeland security enterprise. This was most clearly demonstrated in the construction and development of the QHSR.
[state emergency management director handbook] 119
More evidence of progress can be found elsewhere. The Department of Defense committed to and achieved the formation of the Council of Governors to bridge a communications gap. There is now a forum to discuss issues concerning the domestic use of the military. The nation’s fusion centers have begun to make significant progress in the sharing of information and intelligence while consistently emphasizing the need to avoid infringement of the personal rights and civil liberties of Americans. Executive and legislative branches continued to support and sustain the federal investments in efforts to protect and secure the homeland
while understanding that the challenge is national, and efforts are weakened when divided by levels of government, government agencies, professional disciplines or selfish propositions of “risk superiority.” The consortium takes to heart the realization that homeland security strategic objectives and critical issues can be resolved when addressed in a collaborative and coordinated policy environment. This brief narrative highlights these critical issues as the next focus for our community and our leaders.
Protecting Americans in the 21st Century: Imperatives for the Homeland Updated Edition: October 2010 There has been significant effort in the past nine years to improve our national capability to prevent, protect, respond, recover and mitigate across the full range of threats and hazards confronting America. Success in these efforts requires constant assessment of our national strategic goals and the steps being taken to achieve them. No single entity, public or private, is the sole authority in defining these goals and none is solely responsible for their accomplishment. Securing America’s homeland is a shared national responsibility that federal, state, local, tribal, territorial and private sector organizations share with the American people. Our nation is at a crossroads in its efforts to secure the homeland. The federal government has the opportunity to transition from top-down direction to meaningful cooperative engagement with all non-federal stakeholders. Doing so will enhance unity and allow us to achieve more rapid progress across the many challenges we confront, among these: The wide range of factors that influence our safety and security are rapidly evolving. Our thinking and actions must therefore be agile and progressive. The impending change of federal, state, and territorial leaders in key positions can create instability. We must provide the next generation of leaders with the knowledge and capabilities to sustain stability and enhance America’s domestic security. Unresolved and uncoordinated national policy discussions weaken the foundations for making critical and timely decisions and inhibit the essential collaboration necessary for building the national trust, especially during times of crisis. Accordingly we must create a robust and consistent capability for engaging national stakeholders in both national discussions and the resulting decision-making process about the security of the homeland. The National Homeland Security Consortium (NHSC) remains committed to a more secure America. Four principles guide our overarching imperative for unity of purpose and effort. irst – Preserving the historic principles that guide F how our nation is governed is imperative. Local and state governments, the private sector and our citizens
[h] homeland security
The value of the National Homeland Security Consortium: The National Homeland Security Consortium is a forum for public and private sector disciplines committed to coalescing efforts and perspectives to best protect America in the 21st Century. The Consortium consists of 21 national organizations representing local, state and private professionals. It represents the array of professions that deliver services daily that are vital to safety and security of the United States. Our members are the front lines of protecting Americans and the homeland. We understand the scope and magnitude of ensuring safety and security locally or nationally cannot be performed solely by a single entity. We know that none of us can be fully effective attempting to work in isolation. The creation of the Consortium is an example of how a variety of independent organizations have embraced the concept of expanded national local, state and private coordination - one necessitated by growing national demands. It is the new model for the new Century.
have different roles but equal responsibility with the federal government for keeping our homeland secure; they must be equal partners in setting national goals and their supporting policies and procedures. econd – Consistent, organized communication among S stakeholders is required to build trust, resolve problems and prevent conflicts. The Federal government has responsibility for providing leadership in coalescing national efforts – but federal communications must be constant, occur at many levels and their coordination responsibilities must not be construed as unilateral decision authority. T hird – We must sustain national efforts. Each national crisis provides new lessons and threats to our nation constantly evolve. Meeting current and future goals requires continued investment of intellectual capital and financial
resources to maintain what exists and to create what is needed for a secure future. Protecting the homeland cannot be construed as a short-term effort – it must become our new steady state. ourth – We must enhance our national resiliency. F Recent steps have improved some aspects of our ability to protect America; but a more comprehensive and synchronized approach is needed to mitigate the potential cascading impacts of any one event on overall national and economic security and the subsequent stability of our homeland. The aggressive steps being taken to protect people, infrastructure, the economy and society continue to evolve. While results of specific initiatives vary, there are overarching areas of progress. These include the recognition of the inter-dependencies among all levels of government and the private sector for managing national risk, the necessity for commitment of resources to both establish and re-establish all-hazard national capabilities and the desire for consistent structure and strategy. These recognitions reflect both tangible and intellectual advancement. They help frame our understanding of the inextricable relationships between prevention, protection, response, recovery and mitigation. This progress underscores the National Homeland Security Consortium’s desire for better and truly comprehensive solutions for advancing national preparedness and protecting America in the 21st Century. The NHSC remains committed to continuing to work with the federal government to make progress in charting the path forward and ensuring united efforts that protect America. We offer a number of actions that have national implications and that can serve as a continued commitment to collaboration. Others may offer different perspectives about where to focus efforts first or more. Regardless, we welcome the opportunity to address any issue, especially if it leads to sustained meaningful collaboration and brings about improvements that help America attain a truly comprehensive approach to protecting the homeland. Communication and Collaboration: Establish a robust, sustained and consistent process for soliciting local, state, tribal, territorial and private sector engagement, including unfiltered input to key federal decision makers, on the full breadth of homeland security issues. • Ensure stakeholders are included in all aspects of national policy development as successful collaboration requires a partnership with state and local governments, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations. • Improve the capability for federal agencies and legislative committees to communicate and work together to ensure a coordinated and unified national approach to homeland security, and consistent messages to non-federal stakeholders.
the federal interagency in a manner that promotes a unified national effort. • Ensure that federal agency offices responsible for maintaining ongoing policy-level liaison with non-federal government officials and private sector executive leaders, report directly to the head of their respective federal agency. • Convene a broad ranging discussion with relevant stakeholder organizations to formally establish consistent processes and expectations about how collaboration will occur in the future. • Improve coordination of legislatively directed deadlines imposed on federal agencies that subsequently create corresponding requirements for state, local, tribal, territorial and/or private sector input, to minimize redundant and conflicting demands for information from nonfederal stakeholders. Intelligence and Information Sharing: Preserve progress to date and continue to implement and expand efforts to ensure timely and effective sharing of information. Recent national information sharing strategies affirm the importance of these principles, but implementation remains inconsistent. • Fully implement and monitor the effectiveness of the Presidential Executive Order on Classified National Security Information Programs for State, Local, Tribal and Private Sector Entities. • Streamline the granting of security clearances to local, tribal, state and private sector partners and address the continuing inconsistency of recognizing clearances granted by different federal agencies. • Promote through policy and resources additional inclusion of the private sector and nongovernmental organizations with local, state and federal information sharing. • Sustain federal funding for state and local information sharing and make it predictable and not limited to a single threat or hazard. • Actively engage non-federal stakeholders in the development of federal program guidance and related budget creation which are essential tools for implementing national information sharing policies. • Integrate national databases and ensure the capability for local, state, tribal, territorial and private access where needed. • Regularly assess the capability and progress for fusing and sharing information vertically and horizontally within government and between the public and private sectors to ensure that vital information is constantly provided to those responsible for protecting the homeland.
• Establish clear cross-cutting direction to federal agencies that requires their individual implementation of homeland security initiatives be fully coordinated within
[state emergency management director handbook] 121
Use of Military: Protect the Constitutional role of states regarding control of their National Guard forces and clarify the circumstances as well as the command, control and coordination procedures under which federal active duty forces are to be employed in operations within the homeland.
• Support the registration, credentialing, organization and deployment of volunteer health professionals through existing state and local systems such as ESAR-VHP, NIMS-EMS credentialing project, Medical Reserve Corps and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC).
• Create clear policy for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in consultation with Adjutants General to set National Guard operational requirements for interstate domestic disaster relief and homeland security missions, without requiring Combatant Commander approval.
• Develop, with input from nonfederal stakeholders, an overarching national policy for tribal, state and local jurisdictions regarding the use of Standards of Care under extreme conditions, (for example during a federal declaration of National Emergency).
• Adequately define and resource the National Guard for its domestic support/protection and war-fighting missions. • Develop an on-going monitoring process to ensure that during periods when the National Guard is called to federal service governors will retain sufficient manpower and resources in their states for homeland security, disaster and emergency response missions. • The National Guard should remain under the command and control of the nation’s governors for all homeland security operations purposes. • Continue to remove bureaucratic obstacles and streamline processes for deploying federal military resources in support of civil authorities in times of local, regional or national disasters or emergencies. • Establish clear joint force command protocols to assure federal active duty forces engaged in domestic operations within states can be placed under the supervision or the command and control of the governor and the state adjutant general. Health and Medical: Improve and enhance efforts to provide for a full range of public health and medical readiness to address injuries, illness and exposure related diseases. • Sustain funding that supports ongoing public health, medical and EMS preparedness to build and enhance medical surge capacity; promote training and workforce development; enhance technology for disease prevention, detection, and production of medical countermeasures and mass prophylaxis. • Review the nation’s health care system to assess the impact of hospital diversion, medical and public health surge capacity (including workforce issues) and alternate standards of care on our ability to provide adequate medical care during times of national crisis. • Focus more federal initiatives in preparedness and response activities on pre-hospital care and the role of public, private, career and volunteer EMS providers. • Integrate any new disease and biohazard (biological, chemical, radiological) surveillance systems into existing state, local and federal systems and properly equip mobile first responder assets in the field to respond effectively to any threat detection. 122
[h] homeland security
• Clarify the roles of federal agencies for leading national efforts to enhance health and medical readiness for disasters and acts of terrorism and specifically assure health and medical information sharing as part of broader information sharing initiatives. • Review the current Public Health Emergency Countermeasures Enterprise in conjunction with the Emergency Services Sector, in order to assure a comprehensive medical countermeasure system that will protect emergency response personnel into the 21st century. Interoperability: Continue to promote coordinated development of governance, technology and protocols necessary to enhance minimal capabilities for interoperable communications (voice, video and data) among all levels of government and the private sector. • Establish incentives for private sector organizations to work with government to develop and maintain public safety communications systems at the local, regional, statewide and national levels. • Continue to promote, through policy and resources, efforts that create local, regional, statewide and nationwide operability and interoperability, with particular emphasis on coordinating the broad range of emergency and law enforcement first responder resources deployed across the country. • Allocate the D Block spectrum to the public safety community in order to build out a mission critical public safety wireless broadband network. • Establish protocols under which state and local governments can use federal resources and infrastructure to build out a nationwide public safety broadband network. • Clarify the conditions and protocols under which private entities will be required to vacate radio spectrum under their control during federally declared National Emergencies. • Develop a clear shared definition, vision and implementation strategy for nationwide communications interoperability.
Critical Infrastructure: Strengthen efforts to protect and make more resilient our national critical infrastructure and subsequently our national economy, as well as accelerate steps to fully integrate the full range of federal efforts with the local, state and private sectors.
ment, and private sector organizations to enhance the ability for inter-state mutual aid, and where possible, to reduce reliance on direct federal personnel support in some areas.
• Assure that the actual protection of critical infrastructure systems remains a primary responsibility of the owners and operators in partnership with local and state governments and support these requirements with adequate federal resources and policy.
• Provide technical and financial support to identify, resource type and package local, state, non-profit and private sector assets for rapid and sustained deployment (e.g. nationally credentialed recovery teams that include expertise in fields such as public works, local government management, law enforcement, EMS, fire, health and information technology).
• Ensure that local, regional and state agencies are provided adequate federal support and funding to procure and operate the proper, safe and effective equipment required to support our collective homeland security mission.
• Develop region-based teams that are credentialed and trained and capable of a rapid and sustained response, so that a full range of services can be provided in a coordinated way for weeks at a time in catastrophic situations.
• Improve collaboration between state and local, private sector and federal agencies working across all the sectors to enhance the planning, protection, and recovery efforts needed to address the interdependent nature of critical infrastructure systems.
Sustained resources and capabilities: Implement and share with all stakeholders, multiyear federal homeland security strategic budget projections to support federal and nonfederal asset and budget planning and ensure consolidated annual expenditure reporting of state and local funds supporting homeland security activities.
• Begin transitioning from the current tactical approach to critical infrastructure protection that favors physical site protection, response and recovery to one of strategic continuum-based resilient critical infrastructure systems assurance against all threats, and natural and man-caused hazards. • Include all stakeholders as equal partners in all aspects of creating national critical infrastructure protection policy and guidance. • Strengthen information sharing initiatives to ensure timely sharing of critical infrastructure protection guidance and intelligence with those who need to have it. Surge Capacity and Unified National Capabilities Approach: Reassess our total national homeland security effort to ensure strategy and execution are targeted to provide for the highest return on investment and provides the broadest set of capabilities to address the full range of national risk – natural, human-caused and technological. • Review and update the Defense Production Act to improve its usefulness in supporting national efforts to address 21st Century asymmetric threats, including how it can transition to support non-military government organizations that provide critical direct services for defending and protecting the homeland. • Ensure an immediate collaborative baseline review of target capabilities to identify needed adjustments based on lessons from actual events, advancements in capabilities or changes to our understanding of threats and establish a firm timetable to provide the necessary resources to support advancement. • Rapidly implement a nationwide credentialing process involving all relevant federal, state and local govern-
• Provide predictable and sustained federal technical and financial assets that are imperative to supporting the work of nonfederal stakeholders in their efforts to build and sustain capabilities that protect the homeland. • Refine current homeland security funding approaches to ensure a national capacity to address the range and constantly changing nature of risk – from daily emergencies to natural disasters to acts of terrorism. • Examine the full range of missions where current direct federal assistance (personnel, equipment and programs) might be more efficiently delivered by local, state, private or nongovernmental organizations and transition responsibilities and resources to establish these capabilities. • Ensure program flexibility for including all relevant disciplines in all levels of development including training, education and funding. • Provide funding and other support required to upgrade and improve law enforcement and other emergency first responder resources as new technologies or state-ofthe-art product solutions become available. Immigration, Border Security and Global Supply Chain Security: Implement national reforms to address the challenges immigration, border security and global supply chain security issues create for local, state and private sector organizations. • Congress and the Administration must actively engage with the full spectrum of stakeholders to develop policy and implementation programs to address immigration and border impacts on public safety, public health and welfare, education and business.
[state emergency management director handbook] 123
• Ensure that state and local governments and the private sector are provided the resources needed to address immigration and border security related issues pending federal resolution of a broader national immigration and border security policy. • Balance federal enforcement of immigration laws with support for immigration integration in communities where law-abiding individuals are working and supporting their families while they await visas. • Congress and the Administration should engage the private sector to leverage their efforts to enhance security of the global supply chain. Efforts to expand trusted shipper programs through a global harmonization effort would further assist in facilitating legitimate trade and enhancing national security. These priorities reflect a widely shared agreement of priority issues that can be the starting point for renewed national commitment and forward progress for protecting the homeland. The National Homeland Security Consortium is committed to working with federal elected and appointed leaders to assure a truly national and also comprehensive approach for protecting America in the 21st Century.
NHSC Participating Organizations Adjutants General Association of the United States American Public Works Association Association of Public Safety Communications Officials Association of State & Territorial Health Officials Business Executives for National Security (BENS) Governors’ Homeland Security Advisors Council International Association of Chiefs of Police International Association of Emergency Managers International Association of Fire Chiefs International City/County Management Association Major City Police Chiefs Association National Association of Counties National Association of County & City Health Officials National Association of State Departments of Agriculture National Association of State Emergency Medical Services Officials National Conference of State Legislatures National Emergency Management Association National Governors Association National League of Cities National Sheriffs’ Association Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense & Security State Homeland Security Advisors The Council of State Governments U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The National Homeland Security Consortium and NHSC are registered trademarks of the National Emergency Management Association.
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers, http://www.dhs.gov/ files/programs/gc_1156877184684.shtm, (accessed April 13, 2011). ii
[h] homeland security
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
Patriot Act (107-56, Sec. 1016(e).
[I] Managing the Program I-1. Building Relationships Honest broker, facilitator, convener, glue, lynchpin, hub… these are all words that have been used in various contexts to describe the function of emergency management. The emergency management agency is not a first responder organization, but it coordinates the activities of the various response disciplines and ensures that they have the resources needed for an effective response. Emergency management also provides linkages between levels of government to create a seamless disaster response during presidentially declared disasters. Without this all-important coordination function, emergency and disaster response could be unorganized and even chaotic, possibly resulting in the unnecessary injury or loss of life to those impacted by the event and first responders themselves. It is imperative that the state emergency management director identify and reach out to all the entities that have a role to play in disaster prevention, preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery. Such entities may include, but are not limited to: • State and local elected and appointed officials • State agency counterparts • L ocal emergency management directors/county coordinators • State emergency management association •S takeholder associations e.g. fire chiefs association, police chiefs and sheriffs associations, public works association, league of cities, association of counties, etc. • Volunteer, faith-based, nongovernmental organizations • Key private sector entities/industry associations
Ways to Engage Stakeholders Keep key decision makers in the loop: Most elected officials will become involved once a disaster occurs. The director’s job is to involve them before disasters occur, thereby enlisting their support on all matters of importance, especially the budget. This can be done in many ways. • T he agency should generate a daily “situation report” (sitrep) that describes the activities of the previous day. - Include incidents reported into the state warning point, i.e. petroleum spills, extreme weather conditions, hazardous materials incidents, etc.
- Keep the state budget agency abreast of activities, and make them a part of the overall response and recovery team. Ensure transparency with local emergency management directors: The relationships between state and local emergency management directors are important and require attention. • The state director should get to know every local director on a personal basis, share his or her vision and philosophy with them and ask for their support. • Make sure local directors are informed on and clearly understand the process by which state and federal funds are allocated to them. Provide transparency. • Survey local directors on how the state emergency management agency is doing and share the unedited results with them. Note: the person who provides the most negative response can be an honest broker for the state director and tell him/her the truth when no one else will. • As appropriate, invite local emergency management directors to attend meetings with the congressional delegation – particularly when the discussion involves their jurisdictions. Conduct public officials conferences in every county or parish: This is one of the most important activities a state director should be involved in. • Every public official needs to be brought into a training session to describe their roles and responsibilities during a disaster. • Going to each county individually to explain how the state program works to key county officials, and how they can get the support they need during or after a disaster, will enlist their support and generate respect for the program. Conduct statewide conferences: Conducting a conference that focuses on the most prominent hazard in the state, or emergency management in general, is an excellent opportunity to educate, promote, and explore new opportunities within emergency management. • Invite a diverse audience to attend. • A successful conference is an excellent marketing tool, and should not be overlooked.
- Sitreps are especially useful if responding or recovering from a disaster. - Provide sitreps to key legislators, state officials, including the governor, and/or their chief of staff.
[state emergency management director handbook] 125
Involve affiliated associations in emergency management: Gain the support of other groups that provide a direct or indirect emergency management service. • Pay particular attention to associations devoted to promoting emergency management within the state, as they should be allied with all the directors’ efforts. • Provide a structure into which they can be used and made to feel they are a part of the team. • Be inclusive. This strengthens the foundation, and creates more opportunities to expand the prominence of the program. • Communicate regularly with state emergency management association leaders. This will prevent the state from being blindsided on issues at the local level. Create private sector/industry partnerships: Groups like utilities, retail associations, and other industry groups want to participate in emergency management, especially during a recovery period, but may not know how. Such organizations can also provide powerful support to the director’s efforts to build and enhance the emergency management program. All these activities will promote the readiness of the organization, and the director’s willingness to keep stakeholders informed. They also build rapport and elevate the agency’s stature within the state through consistent contact in which the state director is providing quality and pertinent information. Emergency management is all about relationships. State directors should recognize they are working in a somewhat unique field that the general public doesn’t necessarily understand. Sometimes, the state director’s job may be challenging to explain even to family and friends. That’s why it is important for state directors to come together to share common experiences, seek and give advice and counsel, and experience the support of others who understand the job and all that goes with it. The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) provides a network and support system among state emergency management directors and all are invited to be part of it.
“Through NEMA, you will establish relationships with emergency management professionals throughout the nation who understand and have experienced the same issues and challenges as you and are prepared to assist you in any way possible. Your fellow state directors will become not only your peers, but people you rely on.” David Maxwell, Director, Arkansas Department of Emergency Mgmt
Emergency Management and Public Health Recent experiences with natural and man-made disasters and public health emergencies have shown the ongoing need for emergency management and public health to enhance their joint preparedness efforts. From the anthrax attacks in 2001, to the H1N1 influenza outbreak in 2009, communication and coordination between the two disciplines has increased significantly but there is much work still to be done. The 2010 catastrophic earthquake in Japan and its cascading effects that severely damaged a nuclear power plant facility has heightened the U.S. focus on radiological emergency preparedness and also reiterates the need for emergency management and public health coordination. It is important that the state emergency management director is knowledgeable about statutes addressing public health emergencies, the authorities of the public health secretary, and the role of emergency management in a public health emergency – which may be in support instead of a lead role. Joint planning, training and exercise are strongly recommended in order to ensure a successful response to future emergencies. Some of the issues that emergency management and public health should plan for together include: •D efining the role of emergency management and public health based on state laws and authorities • L everaging federal funds to maximize all-hazards emergency planning, training and exercise •S heltering – both for in-state evacuees and those from other states; functional needs shelter requirements; mental health counseling; staffing of shelters; security •M utual aid through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC); mission ready packaging; mobilization and demobilization of resources; reimbursement • Information sharing NEMA, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention, and the Association of State & Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) have joined forces to identify specific issues that may stand in the way of enhanced coordination between emergency management and public health, and to recommend solutions to states and the federal government. A NEMA-ASTHO joint policy work group has been established with the following objectives: • Identify policy topics and relationship issues related to all hazards emergency planning, response and recovery of mutual interest between state health officials and emergency managers. • Identify opportunities for improvement or continued collaboration on existing efforts to prepare for and respond to public health emergencies at the state and federal level. •R ecognize how each sector plans and responds and identify ways to work in partnership in all phases of emergency preparedness and response, by identifying
[i] managing the program
strengths and weakness from the public health and emergency management perspective. ASTHO is also a member of the National Homeland Security Consortium (NHSC) and the EMAC Advisory Group, as is the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO). The hope is that by working together at the national level, NEMA, ASTHO, NACCHO and CDC may influence stronger working relationships at the state and local level.
It is important to note that public health is not the only state agency counterpart that is an important partner to emergency management. There are many others. The emergency management and public health relationship is specifically mentioned here due to recent events that call attention to the need for enhanced coordination.
I-2. Assessing Your Program: Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) by Nicole Ishmael, EMAP Executive Director, and Jarad Downing, EMAP Training and Technology Assistant
EMAP, as an independent non-profit organization, fosters excellence and accountability in emergency management and homeland security programs by establishing credible standards applied in a peer review accreditation process. EMAP Vision EMAP maintains a five year strategic plan that outlines the goals and objectives agreed upon by EMAP’s leadership. The current goals of the plan are: • Expand the utilization of EMAP resources, tools and standards. • Strengthen and expand collaboration with diverse partners and stakeholders. • Promote and strengthen standard development. • Build and strengthen the relevance of EMAP • Market the value of emergency management standards, assessment and accreditation.
stakeholder organizations was the Emergency Management Accreditation Program, or EMAP. EMAP builds on standards and assessment work by various organizations, adding requirements for documentation and verification that neither standards nor self-assessment alone can provide. EMAP’s backbone is agreed-upon national standards called, the Emergency Management Standard, developed with input from emergency managers and state and local government officials. These standards consist of:
State Directors and EMAP EMAP is an ANSI accredited standard writing organization which assesses emergency management programs against an established national ANSI standard. The EMAP accreditation process can provide valuable information regarding an emergency management program as a whole. EMAP accreditation highlights the positive aspects of an emergency management program while identifying strategic areas that need improvement. By looking at the program holistically, the EMAP standards facilitate a strengthened relationship between the various state agencies that fulfill the necessary roles of a strong emergency management program.
History of EMAP In 1997, the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) hosted a session, during the mid-year conference, on the need for standards and assessments within emergency management. The result from the combined efforts of national emergency management agencies and other
• Self-assessment and documentation; • On-site assessment by a team of trained, independent assessors; • Committee review and recommendation; and • Accreditation decision by an independent commission. Many organizations collaborated on and supported the development of EMAP, including: The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), U.S. Department of Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness & Response Directorate (EPR/FEMA), U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, Council of State Governments (CSG), National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, individual states, and others.
[STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR HANDBOOk] 127
EMAP Accreditation and the Benefits EMAP accreditation starts with the self-assessment process. The self-assessment forces an emergency management program to take an in-depth look at all aspects of the emergency management program and not just those contained within the agency. Through the accreditation process, an emergency management program conducts its self-assessment and requests evaluation by an independent team of assessors. The assessment provides an unbiased review of where the program stands in comparison to national standards and in what areas it needs to improve. An emergency management program, which achieves accredited status, demonstrates to the public and elected officials it is using its resources to provide the capabilities emergency managers nationwide agree are necessary for preparation and response to natural and human-caused disasters. For an emergency management program, EMAP:
• Administering an accreditation process that encourages applicant departments to bring their programs into compliance • Supervising on-site assessment of applicant compliance • Acknowledging compliance of programs by issuing certificate of accreditation • Developing and maintaining working relationships with local, tribal, regional, state, territorial, national and international levels, and private sector emergency management programs for mutual growth and benefit • Ensuring that the business affairs and the programs of the Commission and its affiliates are conducted in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner
•F ocuses on comprehensive emergency management;
• Educating legislative and executive branches of government and the public on the importance of fully capable emergency management programs at all levels of government based on high standards
•E ncourages collaboration of state- and community-wide programs rather than individual agencies;
• Promoting the concept of voluntary self-regulation inherent in the accreditation process
• Validates professional capabilities;
• Accepting fees, grants, bequests, and other contributions that support the purposes of EMAP
•P rovides benchmarks for program management and operations;
• Recognizes program quality and individual effort; •D emonstrates effective use of public resources and provides justification for resources; •E ncourages intra- and interagency communication and team-building through the assessment and accreditation process. For individual emergency managers, EMAP: •B roadens perspective on the profession of emergency management and emergency preparedness activities; •D eepens understanding of one’s own program organization and operations; •E xpands experience and knowledge through networking and sharing of best practices; and •C ontributes individual skills to improving the nation’s public safety and security by increasing emergency management program effectiveness.
How EMAP is Organized EMAP Commission The Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) Commission is the governing and decision-making body of EMAP. The EMAP Commission works to assure and improve the delivery of emergency management services to the public through assessment and accreditation of emergency management programs. Its purpose is to set minimum acceptable standards and encourage the achievement of accreditation. Other Commission responsibilities include:
• Establishing and maintaining standards for emergency management programs
[i] managing the program
• Cooperating with other public and private agencies in a manner that will lead to the improvement of the standards and the delivery of emergency management services. • Identifying and maintaining the means for voluntary selfassessment in preparing for accreditation, providing qualified and trained assessors to conduct on-site evaluations of programs, and using a fair and impartial procedure to determine accreditation. There are ten members on the EMAP Commission – five members appointed by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and five members appointed by the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM). Each member’s term is three years. International Committee The International Committee is responsible for identifying and, as directed by the EMAP Commission, initiating contact with potential international partners and exploring new opportunities to use EMAP standards and assessment process in other nations around the world. The International Committee partners with individuals and organizations to encourage international understanding of and involvement in EMAP. The EMAP International Committee exists to assist professional exchange and dialogue between international emergency management professionals, agencies and organizations, to develop and sustain close working relationships with international associations and agencies in the emergency management and related fields for mutual growth and benefit.
Technical Committee The Technical Committee is comprised of the Assessment Subcommittee and the Standards Subcommittee. The Assessment Subcommittee is responsible for on-site assessment materials, assessor training, self-assessment guidance and other training and education activities as needed. The subcommittee also solicits volunteers to serve as assessors and makes recommendations to the Commission for the assessor team pool. The Standards Subcommittee is responsible for developing new or revised language for the Standard and the processes, reviews, appeals, interpretations and compliance enforcement for the accreditation process. Program Review Committee The Program Review Committee is responsible for considering programs applying for accreditation, using assessment reports prepared by assessor teams, and making recommendations regarding accreditation status. Private Sector Committee The Private Sector Committee is responsible for identifying and, as directed by the EMAP Commission, initiating contact with potential partners in the private sector, exploring opportunities to use EMAP standards and assessment in the private sector, and learning about the requirements of private sector certifications. The Private Sector Committee works with companies, individuals and organizations to encourage private sector understanding of and involvement in EMAP.
EMAP Publications Accreditation Process Guide Document outlining the governance and policies of the Emergency Management Accreditation Program, including the steps to accreditation. Includes information about how members of the EMAP Commission and EMAP committees are appointed. Assessor Guide Guidance for emergency managers who serve as outside assessors for EMAP. Includes information on the role of assessors, determining compliance with standards, and conducting an on-site assessment. Assessor training, which is required to serve as an assessor, is offered by EMAP several times a year. Candidate’s Guide to Accreditation Handbook for jurisdictions using the standards to build their programs and/or working towards accreditation. The Candidate’s Guide provides information to help programs through the self-assessment process for either improvement planning or accreditation purposes. It outlines steps to accreditation, the method for assembling documentation of compliance with the standards, preparing for on-site assessment, and other topics. Additional copies are available to registered programs for a minimal fee. Emergency Management Standard Standards for emergency management programs which foster excellence and accountability in emergency management, created by working groups of emergency management
professionals pursuant to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Essential Requirements, compliance with which is required for accreditation. Additional copies are available to subscribed programs on the EMAP web site at www.emaponline.org. EMAP Program Assessment Tool EMAP offers a Program Assessment Tool to registered programs via its web site. Using the online tool, programs conduct their self-assessment against EMAP standards, listing proofs of compliance for each standard, and submit their self-assessment results to EMAP electronically. The tool includes report features and corrective action planning to assist programs address areas of possible non-compliance. EMAP Website The EMAP web site at www.emaponline.org provides updates about EMAP materials and activities, commission and committee membership, accredited program listing, access to the EMAP Program Assessment Tool and other vital assessment and accreditation related information.
EMAP Contact information Mailing Address: EMAP P.O. Box 11910 Lexington, KY 40578-1910 Physical Address (UPS/FedEx): EMAP 2760 Research Park Drive Lexington, KY 40511 Staff: Nicole Ishmael Executive Director Office: (859) 244-8242 Email: [email protected]
Geni Jo Brawner Logistics and Assessment Coordinator Office: (859) 244-8222 Email: [email protected]
Jarad Downing Technology and Training Assistant Office: (859) 244-8210 Email: [email protected]
Scott Gauvin Project Specialist Office: (859) 806-3627 Email: [email protected]
Christine Jacobs Projects Coordinator Office: (859) 494-0917 Email: [email protected]
Jessica Ruble Administrative Coordinator Office: (859) 244-8066 Email: [email protected]
[state emergency management director handbook] 129
I-3. Managing Expectations by Glen Woodbury, former director, Washington Division of Emergency Management In the emergency management domain, there are several phrases or terms that appear to be self-explanatory and simple to address. “All-hazards approach,” “public private partnerships,” “resilience,” and “culture of preparedness” are among the many often used expressions that emergency managers and other public safety officials employ. The attempt to capture what are actually very complex issues and challenges into easily communicated packets of language unfortunately also has the effect of implying that the efforts to actually accomplish these activities are as simple as the terms we use to describe them. “Managing expectations,” or “managing public expectations,” is one of these language illusions in the effort of emergency management. This is not to say that all of these activities or objectives aren’t worthy of high priority efforts and the attention of state emergency management directors because most of the catch phrases are products of the evolutions of efforts to solve difficult problems. The challenge therefore isn’t one of questioning the validity of these activities, but what methodology or approach is best to resolve them. This section will offer one possible approach to the issue of managing expectations. Decide what you are trying to accomplish… … when presented with expectations. One first might expect that emergency managers are trying to dictate what expectations the public or others should have about emergency services before, during and after events. This is only true in those relatively rare cases that the public is actually awaiting government to tell them what their opinions should be or how they should feel about certain circumstances. The reality is that public expectations are 1) emotional and intuitive, 2) subject to a wide variety of situations and environments, and 3) formed by individual and group opinions. Additional expectations for emergency managers come from their bosses, the media, funding guidance, public safety partners, laws, contractual arrangements and historical experiences or precedents. It is unlikely there will be “one” expectation or any consensus on expectations for a given situation. There will be many, sometimes they will be in conflict, and they will change over time. So, some questions the emergency manager should ask his or herself: •A re we trying to respond to, alter, or meet the expectations presented to us? •C an we manage expectations if we don’t know what they are and what the causal factors are of any particular expectation? • Is an expectation a result of what we believe it is or what it actually is discovered to be through research, surveys, interviews, conversations, etc? • Is an explicit expression of an expectation always the same as the implied or hidden desire?
[i] managing the program
• Are we going to try to change our behavior or try to change the public’s behavior for any given expectation? The state emergency management director needs to first realize the complicated nature of expectations placed upon them and secondly, have some idea of what exactly they’d like to do with the expectations they discover. Find out what the expectations actually are… … not just what you or your team believe they are or should be. As stated above, expectations come from a variety of sources and will change over time. There are a variety of resources and methods to gather the expectations that are or could be presented. Interviews, surveys, town meetings, document reviews, media monitoring, and experience reviews are all ways to begin to collect and analyze the expectations of an emergency management agency. There is also a wealth of academic knowledge on the science of emergency management and the social affects and influences of the public. Conducting “research” on this topic does not have to be onerous or rigorous. There are some things to consider as this gathering phase is conducted. • Expectations change over time. • Expectations change over the life cycle of an event, (expectations before an event are not always the same as they are during an event, even from the same source). • Expectations can be “directly” expected of you, or “indirectly” expected because the source may not know who should handle the expectation. • Expectations are often conflicting. • Trust and confidence in government in general, and your agency specifically, will affect expectations of you. • The media is rarely a factual reflection of public expectations, though it significantly influences them. Results of your expectation research will vary and at times seem so varied that any one plan or approach will be impossible. This is an indicator or proof that the challenge is complicated or complex, but not that it is impossible. Aggregate, analyze, de-conflict, look for patterns, discover trends, etc. At this point, it is most important to get a sense of the expectations, as opposed to a definitive list. And due to the factors above, it is important to establish some type of continuous process to adjust and modify your sense of expectations. A one-time project will be somewhat helpful but will only give you a snapshot in time. Find out what you do well… …and not so well. This is the other end of the equation. Unless the state director has a good understanding of the capabilities and weaknesses of his or her agency, it is impossible to know if it is in a position to meet, adjust to, or alter the expectations discovered. What can the agency do now? What could it grow into? What resources might be needed?
What are the gaps? Answering these questions help the director begin to “map” the agency’s real capabilities against the expectations of it. It also gives the director a sense of when and where the agency can evolve or flex to meet an emerging expectation or one that instantly and unexpectedly presents itself. It is also important to capture or identify not just what a single agency does, but what the entire emergency management or “whole community” team can do to meet expectations. At this point, the state emergency management director has a lot of information to begin to strategize how to address or manage expectations. Some will be met easily and through existing resources and processes of the agency. Some will be unmet but can be addressed through minor actions and adjustments. Then there will be those that fall in the harder boxes of “just not enough” resources or the expectations are in conflict with one another. Form a strategy… … to manage (handle, alter, meet, explain) the expectations of the agency. Ideally, at this point in the process, the emergency manager has a good idea of the sense and maybe the specifics of expectations, some prioritization, an understanding of the capabilities of the agency and how they map against the expectations, and probably a good idea of which ones can be met or not and the consequent implications. There is enough information to strategize how individuals, the agency and the emergency management team will act to manage expectations in traditional ways. Such typical activities as requesting resources to meet unmet expectations, shifting organizations or responsibilities to cover gaps, and innovating processes to better handle the needs of the customers.
In closing… … it has probably become evident that nowhere in this section is there a list of what the expectations of emergency management leaders are proposed to be. These lists do exist in academic literature and best practice forums, and can be discovered through discussions with others in the public safety community. And that is an important point; there are “lists,” but not “a list.” Emergency management directors need to discover the expectations relative to them, their situation and environment, and their jurisdictions and agencies. Then formulate a strategy to manage the expectations presented to them. Hopefully, this short description of one method will help that endeavor. Resources Perry and Mankin. Preparing for the Unthinkable: Managers, Terrorism and the HRM Function, Public Personnel Management, Vol 34. No. 2, Summer 2005. Waugh and Streib. Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emergency Management, Public Administration Review, Dec. 2006. Sobel and Leeson. Government’s Response to Hurricane Katrina: A Public Choice Analysis. Public Choice (2006), Spring 2006. Kapcua and Van Wart, The Evolving Role of the Public Sector in Managing Catastrophic Disasters: Lessons Learned, Administration & Society, July 2006: 38, 3; ABI/INFORM Global.
A further step, however, is to strategize or plan how to shape expectations, not just respond to them. Many expectations are fluid in nature which means that they are influenced by the agency’s actions as much as the agency is influenced by them. This is the domain of opportunity and less traditional approaches to working with the public and other stakeholders. Communicate your ability to meet expectations… … or not, both internally and externally. This sounds easy but of course it is peppered with political considerations and influences. Claiming strengths and admitting weaknesses does have to be approached with policy and budget considerations in mind. It is hard to admit that someone’s expectation will not, or cannot, be met. But the alternative is the reality and frustration of the unfulfilled promise, even if that expectation was unrealistic in the first place. Internally, the entire team needs to have a common understanding of what expectations they will be able to meet, which ones they will have to adjust to meet, and which ones will be unsatisfied. While this communication won’t solve the challenges of managing all expectations, it will enable the agency and team to operate from the same foundation of knowledge and understanding. It may also provide an opportunity for innovation and group initiative to address expectations that were at first thought unsolvable.
[state emergency management director handbook] 131
[J] Emergency Management and the Media by The NEMA Public Information Officers Subcommittee
Developing and refining skills in working with the media is as necessary to a state director’s success as knowing how to quickly access the right resource when disaster strikes. Accomplishments in the administrative, legislative and political areas of your job can be compromised by a single miscommunication to a reporter. On the other hand, positive media relations can enhance not only the reputation and influence of you and your emergency management program, but also that of your governor and the entire administration. Understanding the Media As the emergency management director, you, as well as your agency, must form a good working relationship with media throughout the state, prior to a disaster. The media can be your strongest ally in preparing citizens for a disaster and conveying warning messages to the public before, during and after an event. As you come to know the media in your state, you will determine which media outlets have an agenda and who really wants to report fair and accurate stories. You will also realize that most reporters have only a basic understanding of emergency management. You and your staff can assist them in comprehending the real issues. Later in this document, you will learn how to prepare for interviews and how to clearly express your agency’s message and mission. Initially, however, it’s important to know what the media need: prompt answers to questions, access to the scene, fair treatment, respect for deadlines, and updates and corrections on evolving incidents. Always remember the media have a job to do, and they can either get information from a reliable source such as your agency or go elsewhere. You are the emergency management expert. Have confidence that your knowledge and professional enthusiasm will come across to the media, which will result in their appreciating the challenges you face and the contributions you make to public safety in your state.
Understanding the Role of the PIO The function of your public information officer (PIO) is to collect, verify and disseminate information to the public through effective communication with the media that will help citizens make decisions about their health, safety and welfare. Qualities of an effective PIO include knowledge of the organization and good working relationships within the organization. Your PIO should be one of your trusted advisors and strategists. The director needs to keep the PIO involved in decision-making and fully aware of the agency’s position. Often, the PIO will be called upon as the spokesperson, and if that person does not have ready access to complete and accurate information, it can delay a media response and harm communication efforts overall.
There are two main points to understanding the role of the PIO: 1. T he effectiveness of your agency’s media communications is determined in large part by your PIOs providing an accurate and timely response to media. This timeliness must not be delayed by information being channeled too slowly to your PIO. As such, there must be transparency and trust between you and your PIO. 2. The PIO should be kept in the loop so he/she can anticipate and strategize the agency’s response to the public and media in the event a response is warranted. Quicker response time from your agency leads to a better informed media and public.
Developing a Media Strategy Don’t wait for an emergency to happen before working with the media. A successful media strategy begins with a commitment to proactive initiatives that will bring your governor’s administration and your agency to the attention of your state’s key media outlets. • Establish a clear agency policy on interacting with the media. Ideally, all media contact should be funneled through your public information staff, who should tell you when a media contact has occurred. If you determine that other staff members are allowed to grant media interviews, develop very explicit guidelines on how this will be coordinated. You do not want staff members “freelancing” with the media. This can result in very serious problems for your agency. Ensure that your PIO has current media contacts lists for all media outlets throughout the state. Know what type of stories individual correspondents prefer, the editorial preferences of each outlet and the policies on accepting letters to the editor or op-ed pieces. • Assign your PIO or designee to monitor the media in your state on a daily basis - more frequently if a disaster is occurring. Be prepared to respond to editorials or op-ed pieces with your own perspectives. If you see a story you disagree with, consider a letter to the editor in which you “set the record” straight in a professional statement. Write op-ed pieces that highlight the work of your agency, an
[state emergency management director handbook] 133
important issue facing the state, or emergency management nationwide. • Be available for interviews if significant emergencies occur. Note – interview requests may come during non-business hours. • Consider one or more annual media campaigns that highlight a significant risk to your state – e.g., flooding, winter storms, hurricane season and earthquakes. Work with other state agencies and local emergency managers to organize a coordinated campaign that both strengthens the awareness of your agency and enhances the preparedness efforts of citizens. • Work with your public information staff to identify stories that might appeal to newspapers, television or radio, and be prepared to “pitch a story”, i.e., convince a reporter that a story is newsworthy and timely and that their readers or audience would be interested. • Identify staff throughout your organization who are proficient in working with the media so that you can call on subject matter experts to provide context and details to stories.
Interviews: How to Prepare
• Satellite: This type of interview is typically live, but can also be taped for later use, and it will involve you and a cameraperson only. You will be asked questions by an anchor through an ear piece called an IFB, or interrupted feedback. If possible, purchase a personal, form-fitted earpiece to bring with you. They are available through local hearing aid/medical offices. It’s acceptable to look into the camera for this type of interview. Radio: The key point to remember about a radio interview is that your voice must be strong and clear so that the audience can hear your message: • Always take time to clear your throat before the interview. • Keep water nearby. • If you are in a studio, make sure you sit up straight. Your voice will be stronger and your delivery will be better. • If not in a studio, ask to do the interview standing up, again because of the positive effect on your voice. • Take a moment to think about the answer before you respond.
Good preparation is the key to a successful news interview. It is important to remember that the reporters, cameras and microphones are simply the conduit to the audience you are trying to reach: the general public.
• Try to keep your responses under 30 seconds and be prepared for a follow-up.
No matter the type of medium, there are four simple rules to remember:
Print: Print interviews, which also include Internet sites, tend to last the longest and give you the opportunity to present the most background information. Print reporters generally have more time to spend on a story, so you can go into more depth on the topic.
• Keep your answers short. • Be easy to understand; don’t get too technical. • Don’t use acronyms. • Answer only the questions you’ve been asked.
• Unlike TV, radio interviews are generally longer in duration and offer you a chance to go a little more in depth.
When talking to print reporters, remember the following:
There are several types of interviews: television, print (including Internet), radio, and phone interview.
• Never go “off the record.” There is no such thing.
Television: TV interviews are typically the shortest in duration compared to other mediums. Before doing any television interview, take a quick look at yourself in the mirror or ask someone to check your appearance. There’s nothing worse than having a collar up, tie out of place or something in your teeth and not realizing it until you see it later on the news.
• Feel free to ask the reporter if they understood your answer. Use phrases like “Was that clear?” or “Does that make sense?”
There are three main types of TV interviews: • Taped: A cameraperson and/or reporter will record your interview to be edited at a later time. Remember – you can stop and start a taped interview if you are not pleased with your answer. Keep your answers to no more than 30 seconds, if possible. Look at the reporter and not into the camera. If there is no reporter, then look off to either side of the camera. • Live: This type of interview is done with your talking to a reporter “live” during a newscast. Your answers are delivered immediately to the audience, so choose your words carefully. Keep your answers to no more than 20 seconds if possible. Look at the reporter and not into the camera.
If there is no reporter, then look off to either side of the camera.
[j] emergency management and the media
• Be leery of getting too comfortable with reporters. They are hanging on every word you say.
• Offer supporting background documents such as reports, graphs or tables. • It is always acceptable to say, “Let me check on that and get back to you.” However, be mindful of the reporter’s deadline. Phone Interview: Also known as “phoners,” live phone interviews are done by television stations that need you on the air quickly but don’t have the ability to send a camera crew to your location. Stations like the Weather Channel, CNN, and FOX News utilize this type of interview most often during emergency and severe weather situations. Here are a few details to keep in mind about live phone interviews:
• Be prepared to provide a photograph of yourself via e-mail to the station. They will use your picture on the screen as people hear your voice. • If you have access to a television, have it turned to the station with the volume muted. You can then comment about the incident video they may be playing during your interview. • Take a deep breath before the interview starts and talk slowly to ensure the broadcasters and viewers at home will be able to understand you.
News Conference versus News Briefing Although sometimes used interchangeably, there are a number of differences between a news conference and a news briefing. As a rule, a news conference is a more formal event, led by a chief elected official, incident commander or senior staff member. It could include multiple topics and may be announced well in advance. A news briefing tends to be less formal. The spokesperson could be a subject matter expert you have designated or the PIO. A news briefing usually deals with a single topic, often breaking information or updates, and can take place at an on-scene event. Reasons for hosting a news conference or news briefing include the following: • The information is determined to be “newsworthy.” • Individual interviews are not practical. • The media hears the same information at the same time. • A large geographic area is impacted. • Numerous agencies and organizations are involved. • The situation is of interest to multiple levels/types of media. Do not have news conferences/briefings unless you have new information. If an update is scheduled but there are no new facts, the news conference needs to be rescheduled or postponed until new information is available. On the other hand, do not hold back significant life and safety information until the next scheduled briefing; release it as soon as possible. Your spokesperson should be chosen wisely. On most occasions, the primary spokesperson will be the chief elected official, incident commander or senior official of the lead organization. This person should be credible, consistent and recognizable. The primary spokesperson should be prepared with a brief (2-3 minute) opening statement. Other agencies may also make brief statements, but limit the number of speakers. Most importantly, be available to assist the primary spokesperson as subject matter experts during the media’s question-and-answer period. The planning, organization, and management of the news conference/briefing should be the responsibility of the PIO.
The PIO should serve as the news conference manager and will assist with the following: • Helping to prepare the spokesperson(s) • Setting expectations for the media • Introducing the spokesperson(s) • Directing questions from the media to the proper speaker (if there are multiple speakers) • Announcing the end of the news conference • Staying with the media at the conclusion of the news conference to clarify important points, and identify speakers, titles and spellings Preparation: • Be prepared with facts and figures and specific examples. Reporters love to identify “gaps” in the information provided them and will look for discrepancies in figures presented by different sources. Understand what may account for any differences in reported figures - e.g., injuries, fatalities, property losses. Be prepared to explain the process by which the statistics are gathered and the limitations of the data. • Don’t stonewall a reporter or say “no comment.” The reporter will assume you’re hiding something, and your lack of responsiveness will only spark further probing. If there’s a special circumstance in which you cannot comment on a subject, explain as clearly as possible the constraints you’re under. • Never let the reporter put words in your mouth by saying, “In other words…” or “Aren’t you really saying…” if the statement doesn’t correspond to your meaning. Quickly challenge the reporter’s misrepresentations in a direct, professional manner. Don’t shy away from saying, “No, that’s not true/correct/accurate.” • Avoid negative statements and don’t allow the reporter to corner you into responding to a negative assertion. Think through the question and find a positive approach. Remember, your goal is always to tell your story and make your points. Some version of “I think more importantly…” or “What is significant is…” can be used to move from a negative question to the issue you want to address. Don’t respond to a reporter’s negative comment with a negative statement of your own.
Editorial Board Meeting Editorial board meetings can be very useful in enhancing the media’s understanding of complex issues (especially disaster recovery programs and initiatives following a major event) or for building rapport with a newspaper staff. Despite what is usually an informal setting, everything said should be considered on the record. Editors will usually invite one or more reporters to attend and participate. While the outcome may not include an immediate story or a positive editorial, these sessions can enhance your overall media strategy and help promote a positive working relationship with key media
[state emergency management director handbook] 135
outlets in your state. Typically, meetings with editorial boards are most often at their invitation. However, depending on the situation, the PIO may make a request to meet on your behalf.
Crisis Communication: How to Prepare and What to Expect Crisis and risk communication is a scientific-based process to give information to the public at a time of high stress, such as during and after a natural or man-made disaster. Proper crisis communication is designed to build trust and credibility in order to enhance the public understanding of the situation and encourage cooperation. It is important to remember it is a PROCESS, not a specific message. According to research by the Center for Risk Communication, people lose the ability to process information during a crisis. In fact, up to 80 percent of what is communicated can be lost. This is true regardless of the audience’s education levels. Simple, declarative statements are the key. In addition, stick to a basic message of compassion, conviction and optimism. • Compassion – Demonstrate empathy to those affected. People want to know that you care before they care about what you know. • Conviction – Tell what you are doing and what you will do. • Optimism – Provide a realistic assessment of how to move forward and get beyond the current crisis. Research shows the following critical components in crisis communication: • People can process only about three messages at a time. • The public can handle only about 27 words at a time. • Effective messages should last no longer than 9-10 seconds at a time. • Any negative message must be countered by at least three positive messages. When you don’t know the answer to a question (and there will be many unanswerable questions in the immediate aftermath of any disaster), it is fine to say “I don’t know”. Explain 1) why you don’t know, 2) that you and your team are doing everything you can to find out, and 3) that when you do know, you will tell them. All leaders (director, secretary, mayor, governor, etc.) should be trained regularly on these principles. Practice them, and you will provide your constituents with an invaluable service during the time they need it the most.
Legislative Communications Getting to know you legislative delegation is just as important as getting to know your local media. Establish contact information for your state legislative delegation and your congressional delegation. Provide them with your contact information and/or your legislative affairs representative. Prior to the start of the state legislative session, meet with
[j] emergency management and the media
the elected officials and explain the role of your emergency management office, the purpose and functionality of the various grants and how the grants affect their constituents. You will also want to explain the role of your agency during a disaster and the best point of contact. Following a statewide election, those relationships are more crucial, as you may encounter new senators or representatives not familiar with your office. As part of the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) mid-year policy and leadership forum, which is always held in the Washington, D.C., area, one day is devoted to directors visiting their congressional delegations. These meetings allow you to meet with your individual members of Congress, congressional staff and the Washington Governor’s Liaison Office to discuss key emergency management issues. In recent years, these meetings have become very important in educating Congress. Prior to your meetings, NEMA provides some helpful hints as well as a list of key members of congressional committees with jurisdiction over emergency management and homeland security issues. In addition, NEMA develops talking points that directors can refer to and take with them to the meetings. Please be prepared for these meetings and take full advantage of the opportunity to educate your representatives.
Governor’s Office You must have a strong relationship with the governor’s press secretary and communications staff. Make sure you understand the administration’s media philosophy and strategy, and what role they want you to play every day as well as in the event of a disaster. Always defer to the governor’s office for major interviews. Be certain they know that your primary goal is to enhance the reputation of the governor and the administration, and insure public safety. Determine beforehand if you or the governor’s office will address the media regarding major disaster announcements. There are some governors who prefer to announce and release declaration requests as well when the declarations have been granted by the president. If this is the case, your governor must be knowledgeable about declaration thresholds that the state must meet in order to be eligible to request federal assistance. Annually, you and your key staff should meet with the governor’s executive staff to remind them of the basic functions of emergency management. This is a good way to keep the lines of communication open and meet new staff. Unless otherwise directed, it is always a good practice to share major announcements with the governor’s press secretary or director of communications prior to releasing it to the media. This will ensure the governor is not blind-sided by information coming from your agency.
Unique Considerations during an Election Climate Elections, particularly those that include the governor’s office, can pose special challenges to you and your agency. The following information may help you maintain focus on the agency’s responsibilities while managing the election environment:
• Prior to the full campaign season, revisit the entire disaster process with your PIO and other key staff. This will be especially helpful for new or less experienced staff. • Any disaster-related decisions leading up to or during an election are subject to additional and sometimes unwarranted scrutiny. Discuss decisions thoroughly to ensure that the communication is both clear and balanced. • Since disasters can strike at any time, it’s critical to remain in open communication with your PIO and other communication staff (legislative, congressional, gubernatorial) regarding any issues that may arise during the response or recovery phase. • During the transition of administrations, know who your office will work with if a disaster occurs. • Remember that how your office responds to a disaster - big or small - can set the tone for how the public, media, and, most importantly, the governor’s staff view your agency.
Open Records and Open Meeting Acts Every state has open meetings/open records laws. They speak to the degree of transparency in government that state’s citizens, including members of the press, must be afforded. Often they are referred to as “sunshine laws.” Open Records Act State open record laws govern what records are considered open to the public and guarantee access to those records. Most state laws identify what constitutes a record, provide a process for requesting that record and address whether an agency is allowed to recover the cost for research in locating and copying of the record. In today’s post-9-11 era, governments continue to wrestle with the proper balance between open records and security issues. This dilemma is further heightened if media serve a government agency with an open records request or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents. The request will be time sensitive, so a policy regarding who within the government agency handles these requests is essential. Open Meeting Act Open meeting laws mandate that the public be given access to government meetings. Most state laws identify what constitutes a public meeting and include requirements for posting/publishing a meeting notice and an agenda. The law also identifies when an executive session or a closed meeting is permitted. As custodians of taxpayer dollars, government officials, including the state emergency management director, must have knowledge of their state’s open record/open meeting laws. They should implement internal policies and procedures to ensure that their agency’s, as well as the public’s, rights are protected. All open records/open meetings act issues should be worked through the agency’s legal counsel as well as the public information officer. Involving the PIO will allow the agency to benefit from the PIO’s relationships with media
and knowledge of the media market. Additionally, all agency managers need to be aware of the internal policies and procedures related to open records/open meetings laws and how they affect their work. If in doubt as to when open records/open meetings laws apply, consult with your legal counsel or your state attorney general’s office.
Social Networking Social media applications (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) have revolutionized the discipline of public communication, signaling a shift from formal, one-directional information delivery to a “collective intelligence” paradigm that is communal, participatory and conversational. Emergency management communicators are using social media sites for risk and crisis messaging, education and outreach to a broader audience. These avenues allow for direct and often immediate feedback on messages, providing an opportunity for rumor control in emergency situations. New audiences can also be reached quickly, easily and directly without relying on the media to provide the message. The most frequently used site is Twitter (www.twitter.com). Twitter lets users send short text messages from their smart phones/computers to a group of “subscribers.” Twitter was designed for people to broadcast current activities and thoughts as a form of “microblogging.” Social Media in Emergency Management (SMEM). SMEM is an open community with participants from federal, state and local crisis management entities and those who support domestic incident response systems including private sector, non-government organizations, technology volunteer communities and individuals. In November 2010 a group of people coalesced around this idea and established the #SMEM hashtag and a theme “bridging social media and emergency management.” #SMEM seeks to build a common understanding and “experience exchange” to support the use and inclusion of social media, public data, and technology innovation to support mission objectives of emergency management to prepare for, respond to, recover from and mitigate against disasters. The SMEM Twitter community chats on Fridays at 12:30 pm eastern standard time. Facebook (www.facebook.com) provides a virtual community for people interested in a particular subject to “meet.” Members create online “profiles” with biographical data, pictures, likes, dislikes and any other information they choose to post. The service typically provides a way for members, campaigns and causes to communicate with subscribers and “friends.” It is important that you and your staff understand your government and agency regulations, policies and procedures before employing social media as part of your overall communications strategy.
[state emergency management director handbook] 137
NEMA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization and an affiliate of The Council of State Governments. Headquarters Office PO Box 11910 Lexington, KY 40578-1910 p: (859) 244-8000 f: (859) 244-8239 Washington, DC Office 444 North Capitol St., NW Suite 401, Hall of the States Bldg. Washington, DC 20001 p: (202) 624-5459 f: (202) 624-5875
www.nemaweb.org Copyright 2011 National Emergency Management Association ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
NEMA Social Networking Sites LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=24716 54&trk=anet_ug_grppro Twitter: @NEMA_web and @NEMA_DC EMAC on Facebook: www.facebook.com/emacweb
Points to Remember You need the media and they need you. Building relationships during non-disaster times is important. Your PIO has extensive training and education in communications and media relations. With this expertise and the overall knowledge of you and your staff, you can be successful in getting your message out to the public.
[j] emergency management and the media