[ State Emergency Management Director [
Handbook
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]
5
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
Executive
Director
Admin.
Assistant
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
nema_admin@csg.org 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 nema_admin@csg.org.
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
tsheets@csg.org
Washington, DC Office
Matt Cowles
NEMA Government Relations Director
444. N. Capitol St., NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-624-5459
mcowles@csg.org
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. <www.semp.us/publications> 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.
3
[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.
iii
iv
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
26
[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.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/laws/pl11053.pdf
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.nehrp.gov/about/PL108-360.htm
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
30
GOVERNOR
ADJUTANT
GENERAL/
MILITARY
AFFAIRS
COMBINED
HOMELAND
SECURITY/
EMERGENCY MGT.
PUBLIC SAFETY
STATE
P0LICE
OTHER
12
18
4
12
2
4
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.
http://law.onecle.com/florida/military-affairs-and-related-matters/252.371.html
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
32
[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]
33
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.
34
34
[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.
36
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.
vi
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
vii
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
vii
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
ix
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.
Evaluate/
Improve
Plan
Organize/
Equip
Exercise
Train
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.
www.fema.gov/pdf/about/divisions/npd/CPG_101_
V2.pdf
•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.
40
• Planning depicts the anticipated environment for action.
[c] preparedness
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.
42
[c] preparedness
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
Incident
Identify
Requirements
Inventory
Order &
Acquire
Reimburse
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.
Training
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
44
[c] preparedness
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
46
[c] preparedness
• 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
48
[c] preparedness
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.
www.fema.gov/citizencorps
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-
50
[c] preparedness
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.
1
ii
“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.
iii
iv
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).
v
52
[c] preparedness
[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
[D] mitigation
• 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.
56
[D] mitigation
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:
Federal
Agency
Program
Purpose
Assistance
Type
Cost Share
Eligible
Applicants
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
58
Federal
Agency
Program
Purpose
Assistance
Type
Cost Share
Eligible
Applicants
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.
Not applicable
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
Not applicable
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
[D] mitigation
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
Non-Structural Options
• Continuity of Government
• Property and Infrastructure
Technological Hazards
• Economic Stability
•R
adiological and Hazardous
Materials
• Environmental Resources
• Quality Of Community Life
Mitigation Plan
Implementation
•Codes & Regulations
Pre-Disaster
• 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
Structural Options
• Communications Outage
• Demolition & Removal
• Implement Redevelopment
Plans
Societal Hazards
• Retrofitting
• 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.
60
[D] mitigation
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
62
[D] mitigation
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
64
[D] mitigation
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.
iii
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.
iv
66
[D] mitigation
[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.
68
[e] response
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]
69
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.
70
• If necessary, activates the state EOC to coordinate
available state assistance.
[e] response
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]
71
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-
72
[e] response
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]
73
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-
74
[e] response
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]
75
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
76
[e] response
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]
77
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.
i
NEMA State Director Handbook, National Emergency Management Association, September 2001.
ii
78
National Response Framework, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, January 2008.
[e] response
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.
Mitigation
Recovery
Preparedness
Response
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
vs.
Mitigation
Recovery
Preparedness
Response
[STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR HANDBOOK]
79
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
Local 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-
80
[f] recovery
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
82
[f] recovery
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]
83
§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
84
[f] recovery
(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);
Failure to:
•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]
85
FEMA Disaster Declaration Process Flow Chartiv
Incident
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
86
[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.
1
Execution of the State’s emergency plan is a prerequisite to major disaster assistance.
[state emergency management director handbook]
87
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
2
88
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
90
[f] recovery
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
92
[f] recovery
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
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES
HOUSING
INFRASTRUCTURE
SYSTEMS
NATURAL AND
CULTURAL RESOURCES
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
LIAISONS AND OTHERS
CHIEF OF STAFF
DEFENSE COORDINATING
ELEMENT
SAFETY OFFICER
OPERATIONS
PLANNING
Recovery Support
Functions (RSFs)
LOGISTICS
FINANCE/ADMINISTRATION
JFO organizational structure for including the newly developed positions of FDRC and SDRC and the
six RSFs established within the NDRF
94
[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.
96
[f] recovery
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.
iii
44 CFR, Chapter 1, Section 206.48.
FEMA Disaster Declaration Process Flow Chart, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA/NEMA
Disaster Declaration workshop, October 2009.
iv
Governor’s Mock Request Major Disaster, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA/NEMA Disaster
Declaration Workshop, October 2009.
v
vi
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
vii
NEMA 2010 Biennial Report, National Emergency Management Association, 2010.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DisasterAssistance.gov, http://www.disasterassistance.gov,
(accessed April 25, 2011).
viii
ix
Senate File 2389, Iowa General Assembly, 2010.
Excerpts from National Disaster Recovery Framework Draft, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
February 5, 2010.
x
[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
100
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
acopple@csg.org
102
[g] mutual aid and the emergency management assistance compact (EMAC)
!
[state emergency management director handbook]
103
!
104
[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
106
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
Governor’s Office
8
Adjutant General/Military Affairs
8
• 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)
3
• Cybersecurity
Emergency Management
9
Combined EM/HS Office
7
How the State Homeland Security Function
is Organized for Day-to-Day Operations:
Public Safety
14
State Police
2
Other
1
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.
110
[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-
112
[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
114
[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.
116
[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.
118
[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
120
[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.
i
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
iii
iv
124
[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
126
[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:
128
• 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: nishmael@csg.org
Geni Jo Brawner
Logistics and Assessment Coordinator
Office: (859) 244-8222
Email: gbrawner@csg.org
Jarad Downing
Technology and Training Assistant
Office: (859) 244-8210
Email: jdowning@csg.org
Scott Gauvin
Project Specialist
Office: (859) 806-3627
Email: cgauvin@csg.org
Christine Jacobs
Projects Coordinator
Office: (859) 494-0917
Email: cjacobs@csg.org
Jessica Ruble
Administrative Coordinator
Office: (859) 244-8066
Email: jruble@csg.org
[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?
130
[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.
134
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
136
[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.
138
[j] emergency management and the media