In response to attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5) in February 2003. HSPD-5 called for a National Incident Management System (NIMS). NIMS provides the doctrine, concepts, principles, terminology, and organizational processes needed for effective, efficient, and collaborative incident management at all levels. NIMS can be organized along functional lines or jurisdictional lines. When organized functionally, responses are directed by subject matter experts. When organized jurisdictionally, NIMS is organized along local (municipality and county), state, regional, and federal jurisdictions. NIMS assumes that incidents are handled at the lowest jurisdictional level possible. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the establishment of NIMS in March 2004.
The NIMS incident management structure has three components: the Incident Command System (ICS), interagency coordination systems, and public information system.
NIMS distinguishes between command authority and coordination authority. NIMS defines “command” as “the act of directing, ordering, or controlling by virtue of statutory, regulatory, or delegated authority.” NIMS defines “coordinate” as ” to advance systematically an analysis and exchange of information among principals who have a need to know certain information to carry out specific incident management responsibilities. Command authority is vested in the incident commander, whether a single incident commander or an area commander. Coordination authority is vested in coordinating officers, whether the state coordinating officer, the federal coordinating officer, or the defense coordinating officer. Each coordinating officer has the authority to make coordinating decisions within his or her jurisdiction whether federal, state, or local.
Furthermore, NIMS recognizes that each jurisdiction has authority within its boundaries and that each agency or functional expert, such as firefighters, law enforcement, medical personnel, or environmental protection personnel, has authority within its functional arena.
Section I: Executive Authorities
President. The President is the chief executive authority regarding incidents. Under the authority of the Stafford Act, he declares incidents to be disasters or emergencies. Under the authority of the National Response Plan (NRP), he declares incidents to be of national significance. Furthermore, he can delegate authority to others to act as executive agents in matters of incident response.
Secretary of Homeland Defense. The President directs the Secretary of Homeland Secretary to take direct responsibility for domestic emergencies.
Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) authorizes military support to civil authorities (MSCA), discussed in Chapter 3, for domestic incidents as directed by the President or when consistent with military readiness operations and appropriate under the circumstances and the law. In accordance with HSPD-5, the SECDEF retains command of military forces under MSCA. Only the SECDEF can authorize the deployment of forces for military assistance to civil authorities (MACA) missions. SECDEF will decide whether or not units will be armed when performing military support to civilian law enforcement agencies (MSCLEA) missions. In addition, SECDEF is the approval authority for any requests from lead federal agencies (LFAs) for potentially lethal support (i.e., lethal to the public, a member of law enforcement, or a service member).
Principal Federal Officer (PFO). The PFO is the federal official designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security to act as his/her representative locally to oversee, coordinate, and execute the Secretary’s incident management responsibilities under HSPD-5 for incidents of national significance. The PFO is usually, but not always, the federal coordinating officer, discussed below.
LFA. LFA is a term used by DOD, not DHS. The LFA is the federal agency that leads and coordinates the overall federal response to an emergency. Designation and responsibilities of an LFA vary according to the type of emergency and the agency’s statutory authority.
- DHS. For non-terrorist acts, the DHS is the LFA. DHS has authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be its executive agent for domestic incident management. FEMA is discussed below.
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). If the incident is deemed a terrorist act, then the FBI is the LFA.
- Incident specific LFA. When an incident-specific incident occurs, another deferral agency might be the LFA. For example, for an oil spill, the Environmental Protection Agency would be the LFA, or for a maritime security incident, the U.S. Coast Guard would be the LFA.
Governor. The state governor has the final commitment authority over state capabilities in any disaster response effort short of a federal response. Governors have the unique authority to issue a state emergency declaration, mobilize the state National Guard, and redirect state resources to emergency response.
A governor can request federal assistance from the President of the United States (POTUS) when state capabilities prove insufficient. This request brings the resources of the federal government to bear on the disaster and can involve DOD. Ultimately, all DOD support to disaster response is temporary with the end state being transfer of all emergency functions back to civilian authorities.
Lead State Agency. Just as a lead agency is designated at the federal level, so too a lead agency is designated at the state level. Lead state agencies might include:
- State emergency management agency. Typically, states have established state emergency management agencies as executive agents to manage incident response.
- State law enforcement agencies. These agencies can include investigative bureau personnel and state patrol officers (which in some states are distinctly different from state police officers.)
- The National Guard. The National Guard could be the first military unit called when first responders exhaust organic capabilities, and the incident response is elevated to the state level. In this capacity the National Guard begins in a state active duty (SAD) status under the governor’s command. The National Guard provides support to the local incident commander but does not take charge of the response operation. Additionally, under provisions of regional Emergency Management Assistance a key element of National Guard involvement in disaster response is the acknowledgment that a National Guard Soldier operating in either a SAD or Title 32 status can exercise the same law enforcement authority as a State Police officer. The law enforcement environment can be complicated by the existence of multiple versions of rules for the use of force (RUF) (the more widely recognized term “rules of engagement” is not used during disaster response missions). Appendix 9 provides a more detailed discussion of disaster response law enforcement considerations, legal considerations, and a sample RUF card.
Emergency Management Assistance Compacts (EMACs) are legal agreements between two or more states designed to expedite interstate utilization of emergency response assets. EMACS enable National Guard personnel from other states to be deployed across state lines in a SAD status to assist in regional disaster response efforts.
Section II: The Incident Command System (ICS)
The ICS defines the operating characteristics, interactive management components, and structure of incident management and emergency response organizations engaged throughout an incident’s the life cycle. Direct tactical and operational responsibility for conducting incident management activities rests with the incident commander.
The key feature of NIMS is the ICS. The ICS organization is unique but easy to understand. The ICS is the combination of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications operating with a common organization structure, designed to aid in the management of resources during incidents.
ICS organization has no correlation to the administrative structure of any single local, state, or federal agency or jurisdiction. This type of organization is deliberate to avoid the confusion over different position titles and organizational structures that has been a significant stumbling block to effective incident management. For example, someone who serves as a chief every day may not hold that title when deployed under an ICS structure.
Concepts of “command” and “unity of command” have distinct legal and cultural meanings for military forces and operations. For military forces, command runs from the President to the SECDEF to the commander of the combatant command to the commander of the forces. The “unified command” concept utilized by civil authorities is distinct from the military chain of command. NIMS acknowledges that incident command is exercised through chain of command, defined as an orderly line of authority within the ranks of the incident management organization. Incident command may be transferred from one commander to a succeeding one. Transfers of incident command must include a transfer of command briefing (which may be oral, written, or both). A transfer of command occurs when a more qualified person assumes command; the incident situation changes over time, resulting in a legal requirement to change command (e.g., multijurisdictional or interagency involvement; there is normal turnover of personnel on extended incidents; or the incident response is concluded and responsibility is transferred to the home agency.
Incident command is discussed below in terms of single incident command, area command, and unified command.
Single Incident Command
The incident commander has overall responsibility for managing the incident by objectives, planning strategies, and implementing tactics. The incident commander must be fully briefed and should have a written delegation of authority that authorizes him to make decisions. Initially, assigning tactical resources and overseeing operations will be under the direct supervision of the incident commander.
In addition to having overall responsibility for managing the entire incident, the incident commander is specifically responsible for ensuring incident safety, for providing information services to internal and external stakeholders, and for establishing and maintaining liaison with other agencies participating in the incident. The incident commander may appoint one or more deputies, if applicable, from the same agency or from other agencies or jurisdictions. Deputy incident commanders must be as qualified as the incident commander. Personnel assigned as deputies or section chiefs by the incident commander have the authority of their assigned positions, regardless of the rank they hold within their respective agencies.
As incidents expand or contract, change in jurisdiction or discipline, or become more or less complex, command may change to meet the needs of the incident.
Rank, grade, and seniority are not the factors used to select the incident commander. The incident commander is always a highly qualified individual trained to lead the incident response.
Formal transfer of command at an incident always requires a transfer of command briefing for the incoming incident commander and notification to all personnel that a change in command is taking place.
The incident command post
The incident command post (ICP) is a tactical-level, on-scene incident command and management organization established by the incident commander to direct all incident management operations and execute action plans. It quickly establishes working relationships with emergency management agency staffs at city and county levels to avoid redundant resource commitment and mitigate gaps in first response coverage. The ICP provides a standardized on-scene emergency management organization. The organization of the ICP is specifically designed to provide for the adoption of an integrated structure that reflects the complexity and demands of single or multiple incidents, without being hindered by jurisdictional boundaries. There is only one ICP per incident, regardless of how geographically large or multi jurisdictional it becomes.
Although the ICP might be initially established by local incident management personnel, its modular configuration allows it to integrate incident personnel, to incorporate additional agencies, or to adapt to multifunctional jurisdiction. Supporting agencies contribute to ICP operations through liaison officers (LNOs).
The ICP is action-oriented. The ICP’s flexible organization allows the incident commander and his subordinates a reasonable span of control, in addition to providing an integrated communication system, common terminology, and common naming conventions for incident personnel.
Basic staff functions
Every incident or event requires that, at a minimum, the following five management functions must be performed: incident command, operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration. Regardless of the size of the incident, these five management functions still will apply.
- Command: Has authority to make decisions; sets the incident objectives, strategies, and priorities; and has overall responsibility at the incident or event. Command is exercised by the incident commander.
- Operations: Conducts tactical operations to carry out the plan. Develops the tactical objectives and organization, and directs all tactical resources.
- Planning: Prepares and documents the incident action plan (IAP) to accomplish the objectives, collects and evaluates information, maintains resource status, and maintains documentation for incident records.
- Logistics: Provides support, resources, and all other services needed to meet the operational objectives.
- Finance/Administration: Monitors costs related to the incident. Provides accounting, procurement, time recording, and cost analyses.
For small incidents, the incident commander may perform all five management functions. In fact, the incident commander is the only position that is always staffed in ICS applications.
Basic staff organization
Large incidents or events may require that these functions be delegated to others who organize separate sections. As incidents grow, the incident commander may delegate authority for performance of certain activities to the command staff and the general staff. The incident commander will add positions only as needed.
- Command staff: Depending upon the size and type of incident or event, it may be necessary for the incident commander to designate personnel to provide information, safety, and liaison services for the entire organization. In fact, the command bears a close resemblance to an Army commander’s personal staff. In ICS, these personnel make up the command staff and consist of the public information officer, who serves as the conduit for information to internal and external stakeholders, including the media or other organizations seeking information directly from the incident or event; the safety officer, who monitors safety conditions and develops measures for assuring the safety of all assigned personnel; the LNO, who serves as the primary contact for supporting agencies assisting at an incident. The command staff reports directly to the incident commander
- General staff: As the magnitude of a domestic incident grows or as the response matures, the incident commander may expand his staff in order to delegate authority for the performance of the other management functions. Personnel who perform these additional management functions are designated as the general staff. The general staff is made up of four sections: operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration. The general staff reports directly to the incident commander.
Section chiefs and deputies
The person in charge of each staff section is designated as a chief. Section chiefs have the ability to expand their section to meet the needs of the situation. Each of the section chiefs may have a deputy or more than one, if necessary. The deputy may assume responsibility for a specific portion of the primary position, work as relief, or be assigned other tasks. The deputy should always be as proficient as the person for whom he works. In large incidents, especially where multiple disciplines or jurisdictions are involved, the use of deputies from other organizations can greatly increase interagency coordination.
Until operations is established as a separate section, the incident commander has direct control of tactical resources. The incident commander will determine the need for a separate operations section at an incident or event. When the incident commander activates an operations section, he assigns an individual as the operations section chief and delegates authority to him.
The operations section chief will develop and manage the operations section to accomplish the incident objectives set by the incident commander. The operations section chief is normally the person with the greatest technical and tactical expertise in dealing with the problem at hand.
The operations function does the tactical fieldwork; consequently, it receives the most incident resources. Often the most hazardous activities are carried out by operations personnel.
The operations section usually develops from the bottom up. The operations section will expand to include needed levels of supervision as more and more resources are deployed. To achieve this expansion and increased span of control, the operations section chief can divide the Operations Section into division, groups, branches, task forces, and strike teams. Figure 2-3 depicts how an operations section might be organized using a division and groups. Figure 2-4 depicts how an operations section might be organized using branches.
- Divisions: Divisions are used to divide an incident geographically. The person in charge of each division is designated as a supervisor. The most common way to identify divisions is by using alphabet characters (a, b, c, etc.); other identifiers may be used as long as division identifiers are known by assigned responders.
- Groups: Groups are used to describe functional areas of operation. The person in charge of each group is designated as a supervisor. The needs of an incident will determine the kind of group that is established. Groups are normally labeled according to the job that they are assigned (e.g., human services group, infrastructure support group, etc.). Groups will work wherever their assigned task is needed and are not limited geographically.
- Divisions and Groups: Divisions and groups can be used together on an incident. Divisions and groups are at an equal level in the organization. One does not supervise the other. When a group is working within a division on a special assignment, division and group supervisors must closely coordinate their activities.
- Branches: If the number of divisions or groups exceeds the span of control, it may be necessary to establish another level of organization within the operations section, called branches. The person in charge of each branch is designated as a director. Deputies directors may also be used at the branch level. Branches can be divided into groups or divisions or branches can be a combination of both. Very large incidents may be organized jurisdictionally (geographically) or functionally.
- Task forces, strike teams, and singe resources: Task forces are a combination of mixed resources with common communications operating under the direct supervision of a leader. Task forces can be versatile combinations of resources, and their use is encouraged. The combining of resources into task forces allows for several resource elements to be managed under one individual’s supervision, thus lessening the span of control of the supervisor. Strike teams are a set number of resources of the same kind and type with common communications operating under the direct supervision of a strike team leader. Strike teams are highly effective management units. Knowing that all elements have the same capability and how many will be applied allows for better planning, ordering, utilization, and management. Single resources may be individuals, a piece of equipment and its personnel complement, or a crew or team of individuals with an identified supervisor that can be used at an incident.
The incident commander will determine if there is a need for a planning section and designate a planning section chief. If no planning section is established, the incident commander will perform all planning functions. The planning section chief can activate additional staffing as needed.
The major activities of the planning section may include collecting, evaluating, and displaying incident intelligence and information; preparing and documenting IAPs; conducting long-range and/or contingency planning; developing plans for demobilization; maintaining incident documentation; and tracking resources assigned to the incident.
The planning section can be further divided into four units: resources, situation, documentation, demobilization. the Resources Unit conducts all check-in activities and maintains the status of all incident resources and plays a significant role in preparing the IAP. The Situation Unit collects and analyzes information on the current situation, prepares situation displays and situation summaries, and develops maps and projections. The documentation unit provides duplication services, including the IAP and maintains and archives all incident-related documentation. The demobilization unit assists in ensuring that resources are released from the incident in an orderly, safe, and cost-effective manner.
At some point, the operations section and the rest of the ICS organization will contract based on the achievement of tactical objectives. Demobilization planning begins upon activation of the first personnel and continues until the ICS organization ceases operation.
Technical specialists who provide special expertise useful in incident management and response may also be assigned to work in the planning section. Depending on the needs, technical specialists may also be assigned to other sections in the organization.
The incident commander will determine if there is a need for a logistics section at the incident, and designate an individual to fill the position of the logistics section chief. If no logistics section is established, the incident commander will perform all logistical functions. The size of the incident, complexity of support needs, and the incident length will determine whether a separate logistics section is established. Additional staffing is the responsibility of the logistics section chief.
The logistics section is responsible for all of the services and support needs, including ordering, obtaining, maintaining, and accounting for essential personnel, equipment, and supplies; providing communication planning and resources; setting up food services; setting up and maintaining incident facilities; providing support transportation; and providing medical services to incident personnel.
The logistics section can also be divided into unit. Not all units may be required and should be established based on need. There following six units are possible:
- Communication unit: Prepares and implements the incident communication plan (ICS-205), distributes and maintains communications equipment, supervises the incident communications center, and establishes adequate communications over the incident.
- Medical unit: Develops the medical plan (ICS-206), provides first aid and light medical treatment for personnel assigned to the incident, and prepares procedures for a major medical emergency.
- Food unit: Supplies the food and potable water for all incident facilities and personnel, and obtains the necessary equipment and supplies to operate food service facilities at bases and camps.
- Supply unit: Determines the type and amount of supplies needed to support the incident. The unit orders, receives, stores, and distributes supplies and services non expendable equipment. All resource orders are placed through the supply unit. The unit maintains inventory and accountability of supplies and equipment.
- Facilities unit: Sets up and maintains required facilities to support the incident. Provides managers for the incident base and camps. Also responsible for facility security and facility maintenance services: sanitation, lighting, cleanup.
- Ground support unit: Prepares The Transportation Plan. Arranges for, activates, and documents the fueling, maintenance, and repair of ground resources. Arranges for the transportation of personnel, supplies, food, and equipment.
The incident commander will determine if there is a need for a finance/administration section at the incident and designate an individual to fill the position of the finance/administration section chief. If no Finance/administration section is established, the incident commander will perform all finance functions.
The finance/administration section is set up for any incident that requires incident-specific financial management. The finance/administration section is responsible for contract negotiation and monitoring, timekeeping, cost analysis, and compensation for injury or damage to property.
More and more, larger incidents are using a finance/administration section to monitor costs. smaller incidents may also require certain finance/administration support. For example, the incident commander may establish one or more units of the finance/administration section for such things as procuring special equipment, contracting with a vendor, or making cost estimates for alternative response strategies. The finance/administration section can also be divided into units. Not all units may be required and should be established based on need. There following four units are possible:
- Procurement unit: Responsible for administering all financial matters pertaining to vendor contracts, leases, and fiscal agreements.
- Time unit: Responsible for incident personnel time recording.
- Cost unit: Collects all cost data, performs cost effectiveness analyses, provides cost estimates, and makes cost savings recommendations.
- Compensation/Claims unit: Responsible for the overall management and direction of all administrative matters pertaining to compensation for injury and claims related activities kept for the incident.
Area command is an echelon of command management organization between the ICP and the governmental agency executives. Area command does not replace an individual incident commander’s authority and responsibility, but does provide an intermediate dedicated level of command between incident commanders and agency administrators.
The area command’s purpose is to oversee the management of multiple incidents that are each being handled by an ICS organization or to oversee the management of a very large incident that has multiple incident management teams assigned to it.
Area command is used when there are a number of incidents generally in the same area and often of the same kind. For example, an area command might be established when there are hazardous material (HAZMAT) spills at two or more locations in proximity to one another. It is usually these kinds of incidents that may be vying for the same resources. When incidents are of different kinds and/or do not have similar resource demands, they would usually be handled as separate incidents or would be coordinated through an emergency operations center (EOC). If the incidents under the authority of the area command are multi jurisdictional, a unified area command should be established. This allows each jurisdiction to have representation in the area command. Unified commands are discussed below.
Area command is established by the agency executive. When area command is activated, an area commander will be designated and given appropriate delegated authority. The authority given to the area commander should be written as a Delegation of Authority statement. This will eliminate confusion and provide the area commander with authority to oversee the management of the incidents.
The most common situations in which area command has been used are for wild land fires. Area command was also used in response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
If the incidents under the area command are in adjacent jurisdictions, then a unified area command should be established. The following could apply to either an area command or a unified area command.
- Provide agency or jurisdictional authority for assigned incidents.
- Ensure a clear understanding of agency expectations, intentions, and constraints related to the incident among incident commanders.
- Establish critical resource use priorities between various incidents based on incident needs and agency policy and direction.
- Ensure appropriate incident management team personnel assignments and organizations for the kind and complexity of the incidents involved.
- Maintain contact with officials in charge, assisting and cooperating agencies, and other interested groups.
- Coordinate the demobilization or reassignment of resources between assigned incidents.
A unified command is used for incidents involving multiple jurisdictions, a single jurisdiction with interagency involvement, or multiple jurisdictions with interagency involvement. Unified command allows agencies to work together effectively without affecting individual agency authority, responsibility, or accountability. Agencies work together through their designated incident commanders, called an agency incident commander, at a single ICP to establish a common set of objectives and strategies and a single IAP. In the final analysis, however, under a unified command, incident commanders representing agencies or jurisdictions share responsibility for the incident.
A unified command structure is an important element in multijurisdictional or interagency domestic incident management. In a unified command, there is a single incident commander; however, the incident commander is assisted by agency incident commanders. An agency incident commanders is an agency’s senior representative to the ICP. The agency represents a function, a subject matter expert. As such, each agency incident commander exercises authority over his agency personnel.
A unified command establishes a single command structure and provides guidelines to enable agencies with different legal, geographic, and functional responsibilities to coordinate, plan, and interact effectively. Such a command arrangement enables all responsible agencies to manage an incident together by establishing a common set of incident objectives and strategies. It allows incident commanders to make joint decisions by. It maintains unity of command and ensures each employee reports to only one supervisor.
Furthermore, the unified command overcomes much of the inefficiency and duplication of effort that can occur when agencies from different functional and geographic jurisdictions or agencies at different levels of government operate without a common system or organizational framework. It permits all agencies with jurisdictional authority or functional responsibility for any or all aspects of an incident and those able to provide specific resource support to contribute to the process of determining overall incident strategies, selecting objectives, and ensuring that joint tactical planning occurs.
Section III: Interagency Coordination Systems
Interagency coordination systems represent the second of the three NIMS components. As stated above, NIMS distinguishes between command authority and coordination authority. Command authority is vested in the incident commander, whether a single incident commander or an area commander, and is exercised through the ICS. Coordination authority is vested in coordinating officers, whether the federal coordinating officer (FCO), the state coordinating officer (SCO) or the defense coordinating officer (DCO). Each coordinating officer has the authority to make coordinating decisions within his or her jurisdiction, whether federal, state, or local. Sometimes coordinating officers are dual-hatted with command authority. For example, at the federal level, the federal coordinating officer might also be the principal federal officer empowered to act in behalf of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
When incidents cross functional or jurisdictional boundaries, a interagency coordinating entity may be used to facilitate incident management and policy coordination. Interagency coordinating entities are combinations of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications integrated into a common system with responsibility for coordinating and supporting domestic incident management. Interagency coordinating entities typically consist of principals or their designated representatives from organization and agencies with direct incident management responsibility or with significant incident management support or resource responsibilities.
The primary functions of interagency coordination systems are to support incident management policies and priorities; facilitate logistics support and resource tracking; inform resource allocation decision using incident management priorities; coordinate incident related information; and coordinate interagency and intergovernmental issues regarding incident management policies, priorities, and strategies. As stated above, direct tactical and operational responsibility for conducting incident management activities rests with the incident commander. Command authority does not reside in coordinating officers or coordinating entities although coordinating officers may be designated with command authority.
Interagency coordination systems consist of coordinating officers, emergency operations center, and coordinating entities.
Typically, for any given incident, each political level of jurisdiction—state, federal, and defense—has a single coordinating officer. Each coordinating officer has a staff that assists him in his coordination responsibilities.
- FCO: FEMA established the National FCO Program in 1999. Its purpose is to train a cadre of senior incident management personnel to be permanent full-time FCOs for major disaster operations. FCOs are assigned to both FEMA headquarters and regional offices. The FCO Program Director is located in the FEMA Headquarters Response and Recovery Directorate.The FCO is the federal officer appointed to manage federal response support activities related to Stafford Act disaster and emergencies. The FCO is responsible for coordinating the timely delivery of federal disaster assistance resources and programs to the affected state and local governments, individual victims, and private sector. The FCO works directly with the SCO. During an incident, he is located at the joint field office.Sometimes coordinating officers are dual-hatted with command authority. For example, at the federal level, the FCO might also be the PFO empowered to act in behalf of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
- SCO: SCO is appointed by a governor to coordinate state response and recovery operations with the federal government. The SCO coordinates directly with the FCO and the DCO discussed below.
- DCO: DCOs are active component officers in the grade of O-6 (or their Civil Service equivalents) who represent DOD at the Joint Field Office (JFO). The DCO is the single DOD point of contact at the JFO. DCOs are assigned one per FEMA regional office and are assisted by a staff of five called the Defense Coordinating Element.
- LNO. The LNO is the point of contact for representatives of other governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and/or private entities. Representatives from assisting or cooperating agencies and organizations coordinate through the LNO. LNOs must have the authority to speak for their parent agencies or organizations on all matters.
Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs)
Normally, EOCs coordinate information and resources to support incident management activities. EOCs can be organized by function, such as fire, law enforcement, medical, or public works; by jurisdiction, such as municipal, state, regional, or national; or by a combination of both.
EOCs might be permanent organizations and facilities, or they might be established to meet temporary, short-term needs. When in a nonemergency configuration with minimal staffing, EOCs should still be able to perform the five emergency staff functions of command, operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration. When activated for an incident, EOCs should also be able to perform the functions of coordination; communications; resources dispatch and tracking; and information collection, analysis, and dissemination. When fully-activated, EOCs are typically in support of a specific ICP.
EOCs are coordinating entities, not ICPs even though ICPs might perform EOC-like functions in small incidents or during the initial phase of a response to large, complex incidents.
When incidents cross disciplinary or jurisdictional boundaries or involve complex incident management scenarios, a coordinating entity, such as an emergency management agency, may be used to facilitate incident management and policy coordination.
As stated above, coordinating entities typically consist of agency principals or their designees who have direct incident management responsibility or with significant incident management support or resource responsibilities. These entities are sometimes referred to as crisis action teams, policy committees, incident management groups, executive teams, or other similar terms. For example, the wild land fire community has such an entity, the Multiagency Coordination Group (MAC) Group. In some situations, EOCs may serve a dual function as a coordination entity.
Regardless of the term or organizational structure used, these entities typically provide strategic coordination during domestic incidents. Specifically, their principal functions and responsibilities include the following:
- Ensuring that each agency involved in incident management activities is providing appropriate situational awareness and resource status information.
- Establishing priorities between incidents and/or area commands in concert with the incident command or unified commands involved.
- Acquiring and allocating resources required by incident management personnel in concert with the priorities established by the incident command or unified command.
- Anticipating and identifying future resource requirements.
- Coordinating and resolving policy issues arising from the incident(s).
- Providing strategic coordination as required.
The most common coordinating entities are state emergency management agencies and FEMA.
- Office of emergency services (OES). All states have a specific agency that coordinates emergency preparedness planning, conducts emergency preparedness training and exercises, and serves as the governor’s coordinating agency in an emergency. The titles of these offices vary from state to state, for example, Division of Emergency Government, Emergency Management Agency, Department of Public Safety, or Office of Emergency Preparedness. This handbook refers to this office using the generic term office of emergency services.Generally, the OES is either organized as a stand-alone office under the governor or aligned under TAG or the state police. It operates the state emergency operations center during a disaster or emergency and coordinates with federal officials for support if required.
- FEMA. FEMA was formed in 1979 as an independent agency by executive order of the President. In March 2003, FEMA became part of DHS and is the DHS’s executive agent for emergency management. As such, FEMA is responsible for responding to, planning for, recovering from, and mitigating against disasters.
- FEMA is organized into ten regions. The region becomes the focal point for organizing and coordinating state and federal emergency management.
Figure 2-5: Map of FEMA regions
- Joint field office (JFO). The JFO is a temporary interagency coordination center established locally in the field. It provides a central location for coordination of federal, state, local, tribal, nongovernmental, and private-sector organizations with primary responsibility for threat response and incident support. The JFO enables the effective and efficient coordination of federal incident-related prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery actions. The JFO combines the traditional functions of the joint operations center, the FEMA disaster field officer, and the joint information center within a single federal facility. The JFO fully replaces the former DHS/Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR)/FEMA Disaster Field Office (DFO).
The JFO uses an ICS structure as discussed in Chapter 3 to implement the five functions of command, operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration. The JFO may also incorporate a sixth element focused on intelligence and information. This element may be included as a position in the coordination staff, a unit within the planning section, a branch within the operations section, or as a separate general staff section. The JFO differs from the ICP in that the JFO does not manage on-scene operations. Instead, the JFO focuses on providing support to on-scene efforts and conducting broader support operations that may extend beyond the incident site. The following personnel staff the JFO:
- Emergency response team (ERT): Principal interagency group that staffs the JFO. Size and composition of the ERT is scalable depending on the scope and magnitude of the event.
- Emergency response team-advanced (ERT-A): Deploys during the early stages of an incident to work directly with the state to obtain information on the impact of the event and to identify specific state requests for federal incident management assistance. Composed of program and support staff and representatives from selected ESF primary agencies. Coordinates for location of the JFO.
- Emergency response team-national (ERT-N): Deploys for large-scale, high-impact events, or as required. Includes staff from DHS, EPR, FEMA, and other federal agencies as required. Three ERT-N teams available/on-call status on a one month rotating basis; a fourth standing team on call year-round exclusively to manage incidents in the National Capital region.
- Federal incident response support team (FIRST): A forward component of an ERT-A. Designed to be a quick and readily deployable resource to support the federal response to incidents of national significance. Provides on-scene support to the local incident command or area command. Deploys within two hours of notification; required to be on-scene within twelve hours of notification.
- Urban search and rescue teams: Specially-trained personnel equipped to conduct operational activities that include locating, extricating, and providing on-site medical treatment to victims trapped in collapsed structures.
- Initial response resources (IRR): Capable of immediately providing incident victims the most urgently needed life-saving and life-sustaining resources. Resourced to support up to 30,000 victims for 72 hours. Provides an immediate federal presence and supplements state capabilities with concurrence of state leadership.
Figure 2-6: A sample JFO organization for natural disaster
Figure 2-7: A sample JFO organization for terrorist incidents
Section IV: Public Information Systems
Public Information Systems
Systems and protocols for communicating timely and accurate information to the public are critical during crisis or emergency situations. This section describes the principles, system components, and procedures needed to support effective emergency public information operations.
Public information officer (PIO). Under the ICS, the PIO is a key staff member supporting the incident command structure. The PIO represents and advises the incident command on all public information matters relating to the management of the incident. The PIO handles media and public inquiries; emergency public information and warnings; rumor monitoring and response; media monitoring; and other functions required to coordinate, clear with appropriate authorities, and disseminate accurate and timely information related to the incident, particularly regarding information on public health and safety and protection. The PIO is also responsible for coordinating public information at or near the incident site and serving as the on-scene link to the Joint Information System (JIS). The JIS In a large-scale operation, the on-scene PIO serves as a field PIO with links to the Joint Information Center (JIC).
JIS. The JIS integrates incident information and public affairs into a cohesive organization designed to provide consistent, coordinated, timely information during crisis or incident operations. The mission of the JIS is to provide a structure and system for developing and delivering coordinated interagency messages’ developing, recommending, and executing public information plans and strategies on behalf of the Incident Commander; advising the incident Commander concerning public affairs issues that could affect a response effort; and controlling rumors and inaccurate information that could undermine public confidence in the emergency response effort. The JIS provides the mechanism for integrating public information activities among JICs discussed below, across jurisdictions, and with private-sector and nongovernmental organizations. It includes the plans, protocols, and structures used to provide information to the public during incident operations and encompasses all public information operations related to an incident, including all federal, state, local, tribal and private organization PIOs, staff, and JICs established to support an incident.
JIC. The JIC is a facility established to coordinate all incident related public information activities. It is typically collocated with the federal, regional, state, or local EOCs and is the central point where public affairs professionals from organizations involved in incident management activities can collocate to perform critical emergency information, crisis communications, and public affairs functions. A single JIC location is preferable, but the system should be flexible and adaptable enough to accommodate multiple JIC locations when the circumstances of an incident require. Multiple JICs may be needed for a complex incident spanning a wide geographic area or multiple jurisdictions.
The JIC provides a location for organizations participating in the management of an incident to work together to ensure that timely, accurate, easy-to-understand, and consistent information is disseminated to the public. The JIC comprises representatives from each organization involved in the management of an incident. In large or complex incidents, particularly those involving complex medical and public health information requirements, JICs may be established at various levels of government. All JICs must communicate and coordinate with each other on an ongoing basis. Public awareness functions must also be coordinated with the information- and operational-security matters that are the responsibility of the information and intelligence function of the ICS, particularly when public awareness activities may affect information or operations security.
Incident commanders and interagency coordinating entities are responsible for establishing and overseeing JICs including processes for coordinating and clearing public communications. In unified commands, the departments, agencies, organizations, or jurisdictions that contribute to joint public information management do not lose their individual identities or responsibility for their own programs or policies. Rather, each entity contributes to the overall unified message.
NIMS identifies the requirements for a standardized framework for communications, information management, and information-sharing support at all levels of incident management.
* Incident management organizations must ensure that effective, interoperable communications processes, procedures, and systems exist across all agencies and jurisdictions.
Information management systems help ensure that information flows efficiently through a commonly accepted architecture
Effective information management enhances incident management and response by helping to ensure that decision-making is better informed.
Ongoing Management and Maintenance
DHS established the NIMS Integration Center to provide strategic direction and oversight in support of routine review and continual refinement of both the system and its components over the long term.
Command and Management Under NIMS – Summary of Lesson Content
Analysis of past responses indicates that the most common cause of response failure is poor management. Confusion about who’s in charge of what and when, together with unclear lines of authority, have been the greatest contributors to poor response.
The Command and Management Under NIMS—Part 1 lesson introduces you to identify the benefits of using ICS as the model incident management system. Incident Command and Management
NIMS employs two levels of incident management structures, depending on the nature of the incident.
* The Incident Command System (ICS) is a standard, on-scene, all-hazard ncident management system. ICS allows users to adopt an integrated organizational structure to match the needs of single or multiple incidents.
* Multiagency Coordination Systems are a combination of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications integrated into a common framework for coordinating and supporting incident management.\NIMS requires that responses to all domestic incidents utilize a common management structure.
* The Incident Command System—or ICS—is a standard, on-scene, all-hazard incident management concept. ICS is a proven system that is used widely for incident management by firefighters, rescuers, emergency medical teams, and hazardous materials teams.
ICS represents organizational “best practices” and has become the standard for incident management across the country.
ICS is interdisciplinary and organizationally flexible to meet the needs of incidents of any kind, size, or level of complexity. Using ICS, personnel from a variety of agencies can meld rapidly into a common management structure.
ICS has been tested for more than 30 years and used for:
- Fires, hazardous materials spills, and multicasualty incidents.
- Multijurisdictional and multiagency disasters, such as earthquakes and winter storms.
- Search and Rescue missions.
- Biological outbreaks and disease containment.
- “Real world events”
Acts of terrorism.
ICS helps all responders communicate and get what they need when they need it. ICS provides a safe, efficient, and cost-effective recovery strategy.
NIMS Stakeholders, based on guidance provided by the NIC, determine who should be trained and seek qualification for emergency management and incident response positions, based on their own plans, qualification, and credentialing policy. With consideration of the national training guidance published by the NIC, stakeholders develop a training plan for their personnel. These plans often have significant programmatic, schedule, and budget implications for the stakeholder.
For example, States may decide to develop their own training courses to suit their specific needs while still meeting the national training guidance.18
• Stakeholders execute the training plans, resulting in trained, qualified, and credentialed personnel.
• Training and experience for personnel qualification are acquired through course-based knowledge development; risk-free practical application, such as tabletop exercises and planned exercises; and on the job training, such as job shadowing, planned events, and IC experience during small incidents.
• Once trained, personnel will test and practice their skills during specific exercises and demonstrate their skills by effective management of and response to actual incidents.
• Exercise and mission/incident after-action reports should include an evaluation of the effectiveness and performance of incident-management personnel. Recommendations for improvements should be incorporated throughout the national coordination process for NIMS training to tailor stakeholder training plans as well as training and qualification of specific personnel, provide feedback to the national curriculum for NIMS and training courses, and perhaps suggest modifications of the NIMS, National Response Framework, and stakeholder plans.
- NIMS Alert 01-08: NIMS Communications and Information Management Standards [1/08] (PDF 33KB, TXT 1KB)
- NG 0004: National Incident Management System (NIMS) Communications and Information Management Standards [1/08] (PDF 50KB, TXT 14KB)
- SAFECOM is a communications program of the Department of Homeland Security. SAFECOM provides research, development, testing and evaluation, guidance, tools and templates on interoperable communications-related issues to local, tribal, state and federal emergency response agencies.
Following the domestic terrorist attacks in 1993, 1995, and 2001 and the establishment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002, officials at all levels of government and in all types of communities have worked to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from a variety of threats to public safety. “Exercises play a crucial role in preparedness, providing opportunities for emergency responders and officials to practice and assess their collective capabilities.”
Since the initial versions of the HSEEP volumes were published, the homeland security community has experienced numerous changes, including the building of a new and cohesive Federal agency and the release and adoption of the National Response Plan (NRP), National Incident Management System (NIMS), National Preparedness Goal, Universal Task List (UTL), and Target Capabilities List (TCL) “Real World Events”exercises.
•Victim role players
I had the pleasure of spending several hours with one of the lead “film directors” for the REALISTIC URBAN TRAINING CENTER.
We discussed how these “real world events” are literally “played out.”
Trained Players and Actors Making It Real
The need for advanced leadership training simulation
By Nicholas V. Iuppa (Belmont, CA), Andrew S. Gordon (Marina Del Rey, CA)
Recent United States Army studies have indicated that the leadership requirements of the modern war fighting force involve several significant differences from historical experience. Some factors of particular importance to the new generation of military leaders include: (i) the broad variety of people-centered, crisis-based military missions, including counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, operations in urban terrain and the newly emphasized homeland defense, in addition to more conventional warfare; (ii) the command of and dependence on a number of complex weapon, communication and intelligence systems involving advanced technology and specialized tasks; (iii) increased robotic and automated elements present on the battlefield; (iv) distributed forces at all echelons, requiring matching forms of distributed command; and (v) increased emphasis on collaboration in planning and operations.
The demographics of the military leadership corps is changing in several ways. Among the positive features of this change is a high level of sophistication and experience in computer use, including computer communication gaming and data acquisition. This means that modern training simulations should be as motivating and as well-implemented as commercial gaming and information products in order to capture and hold the attention of new military trainees.
There are currently highly developed aircraft, tank and other ground vehicle virtual simulators that realistically present military terrain and the movement of the vehicles within the terrain. Such simulators are very effective at teaching basic operational skills. Networks of virtual simulators, including SIMNET, CCTT and the CATT family, are also available to teach leader coordination of combined arms weapons systems during conventional and MOUT (Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain) warfare in highly lifelike settings. Likewise, constructive simulations such as BBS, Janus, WARSIM, WARSIM 2000 and others are very effective in focusing on the tactical aspects of leadership, i.e., representing movement of material, weapons and personnel particularly for higher echelon maneuvers.
But the same level of developmental effort has not been directed toward equally effective virtual and/or constructive simulators for training leadership and related cognitive skills in scenarios involving substantial human factor challenges. For example, driving a tank does not require the background knowledge, the collaboration or the complex political, diplomatic and psychological judgments that must be made in a difficult, people-centered crisis leadership situation. These judgments depend largely on the actual and estimated behavior of human participants, both friend and foe, in the crisis situation. Unfortunately, the complete modeling of complex human behavior is still beyond current technical capabilities.
As a result, these kinds of leadership skills have routinely been taught in the classroom through lectures and exercises featuring handouts and videotapes. It is possible for a good instructor to build the tension needed to approximate a leadership crisis, but sustaining the tension is difficult to accomplish. Showing the heartbreak of the crisis and the gut-wrenching decisions that must be made is not the strong suit of paper-and-pencil materials or low budget, home-grown videos.
Large classroom exercises such as “Army After Next” and “The Crisis Decision Exercise” at the National Defense University have attempted to give some sense of the leaders’ experience through week-long exercises that involve months of planning. These exercises are effective, but they cannot be distributed widely or easily recreated without significant effort. Also, they are not easy to update and modify, and they require a large contingent of designers and developers, as well as on-site operators, to run them after months of planning time.
Story-based simulations, on the other hand, increase participant attention and retention because story-based experiences are more involving and easier to remember. Participants are also able to build judgmental, cognitive and decision-making leadership skills because the simulations provide realistic context in which to model outstanding leadership behavior. Story-based simulations can teach innovation because they are able to challenge participants by providing dramatic encounters with unexpected events and possibilities. Also, story-based simulations overcome the limitations of current constructive and virtual simulations in modeling complex human behavior, which is an increasing aspect of today’s leadership challenges.
Crisis-based leadership training requires an awareness of human factors that has been especially difficult to teach through printed materials or the classroom. Giving complexity to an adversary’s personality or turning a political confrontation into a battle of wits and will (things that, in fact, represent much of today’s military decision making) are easier to discuss than to practice or simulate.
From a computational perspective, the term simulation is commonly used to refer to computational systems that compute subsequent states of a modeled environment by applying some transformational rules to the current model state. For example, weather simulations are computed in this manner–by first describing the current meteorological conditions and then applying knowledge about atmospheric conditions to make a prediction about what will happen in the future. Likewise, the U.S. military uses simulations to make predictions about the outcomes of battles and to give soldiers experience in simulations of potential future battles. The phrase `constructive simulations` has been used to describe simulations that compute subsequent states by applying transformational rules to the current state. Constructive simulations easily accommodate run-time interaction on the part of human participants. That is, at any moment in the simulation, a trainee can make a decision that changes the state of the modeled world and causes a change that will be propagated by transformational rules, and which may ultimately cause drastic changes in the final outcome of a simulated warfare environment.
The important disadvantage of the use of constructive simulations in military training is the surrender of pedagogical and dramatic control. While it may be desirable to use a simulation to provide pedagogically valuable experiences to trainees, there is little that an instructional designer can do to ensure that certain experiences will occur within the environment. As the trainees have free will and control over the course of the outcome of the simulation, it is impossible to ensure that a specific situation or set of situations will arise once the simulation has begun. The only direct control that instructional designers are given over the simulation is its starting state. Accordingly, there has been an increasing amount of interest in the notion of scenario development, where this has come to mean the specification of initial states for constructive simulations that are likely to lead to pedagogically valuable experiences for trainees.
While well-crafted initial states have a certain utility, particularly when training tactical skills for force-on-force warfare, other types of skill training suffer greatly due to the lack of pedagogical control. This is particularly true of military leadership skill training, where the lessons to be learned by trainees have less to do with timing and positioning of troops, and more to do with complex interrelationships among superior and subordinate officers and enlisted soldiers. In short, it is much easier to ensure that a tactical problem will arise given an initial simulation state than a leadership problem.
Given the autonomy of the actors’ characters in a storyline, the story composer is additionally faced with numerous critical problems: how can the composer prevent the actor from taking actions in the imagined world that will move the story in a completely unforeseen direction, or from taking actions that will derail the storyline entirely? How can the composer allow the actors to make critical decisions, devise creative plans, and explore different options without giving up the narrative control that is necessary to deliver a compelling experience? Also, in the case of interactive tutoring systems, how can the composer understand enough about the beliefs and abilities of the actors to create an experience that has some real educational value, i.e., that improves the quality of the decisions that they would make when faced with similar situations in the real world?
Therefore, what is needed is a method and apparatus for advanced leadership training simulation that allows the participants to make real-time critical decisions, devise creative plans and explore different options without relinquishing the composer’s narrative control and while allowing the composer to create an experience that improves the quality of leadership decision-making and delivers a compelling experience, preferably using story-driven simulation.
Story-driven simulation is a technology that expands on previous research efforts to create interactive experiences in virtual worlds where the outcomes are known and specified in advance by instructional designers (e.g., Cleave, 1997). This approach allows instructional designers to work with storyline writers to create a training experience that is dramatically engaging and includes a specific set of training experiences, but to do so in a manner that allows for a high degree of interactivity.