Part of this new approach includes following the guidelines provided in 2003's Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8): National Preparedness -- which has become a go-to document, or road map, for states and local jurisdictions nationwide.
All locales receiving homeland security funding are expected to follow the guidelines outlined in the National Preparedness Goal, even if additional funds are used to support homeland security efforts on the state and local levels. When applying for federal funding, states and urban areas are required to demonstrate precisely how they will use those funds in accordance with federal guidelines for homeland security and emergency preparedness [see Risk-Based Rewards].
Road Map Explained
The National Preparedness Goal includes measurable readiness targets, standards for preparedness assessments and strategies, and priorities.
The seven priorities for national preparedness fall into two categories -- the overarching priorities and the priorities for specific capabilities.
The overarching priorities are to:
The priorities for specific capabilities are to strengthen:
Jurisdictions are expected to use the Goal as a roadmap for assessing their overall levels of preparedness. One way to do so is through the target capabilities list, which, as stated by the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), includes 36 essential capabilities (see Thirty-Six Essentials) that should be developed and maintained, in whole or in part, by various levels of government to prevent, protect against, respond to and recover from terrorist attacks and major disasters. The priority list was formed by identifying critical tasks that must be performed across 15 national planning scenarios.
The Goal aims to guide federal departments and agencies, state, territorial, local and tribal officials, the private sector, nongovernment organizations, and the public in determining how to efficiently and effectively strengthen preparedness for attacks, disasters and other emergencies, according to the ODP.
HSPD-8's accompanying State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy, issued in July 2005, helps state and local governments align their emergency management strategies with the National Preparedness Goal.
"I think the goal has been tremendously successful," said George Foresman, undersecretary for the DHS Preparedness Directorate. "At the end of the day, when we talk about what we're doing nationally -- that is the combined efforts of all levels and sectors -- the one thing missing in the post 9/11 environment is that everyone needs to have a shared vision of what that environment looks like. The Goal is the first step in an effort to do a better job of guiding the transition as a country."
Accommodating Diversity
Emergency planning across the United States traditionally has been piecemeal, and in this environment, the Goal's directives provide a more comprehensive package of guidelines to follow. The plan appears flexible enough to accommodate the diverse needs of jurisdictions. Although certain types of disasters are universal, each region also possesses unique resources and demographics, and therefore unique risks.
Nonetheless, for many neighboring jurisdictions, interoperability and resource pooling just make more sense. Regional cooperation and mutual aid agreements have been more frequent.
"The Goal accurately recognizes that the wave of the future is regional cooperation in emergency and disaster planning," said Stephen C. King, an attorney in Hunton and Williams' Emergency Response and Homeland Security Group in New York, and a former director in the Threat Countermeasures and Incident Management Directorate of the White House Homeland Security Council. "Critical infrastructures such as electrical grids, pipelines and transportation systems are interdependent, and cut across state and local borders. Regional cooperation in planning and up-to-date mutual aid agreements will allow first responders and other emergency services to assist neighboring jurisdictions while limiting possible command and control, liability and contracting issues."
Although states are continuing to recover from their budget shortfalls, money for emergency management is not always abundant. "By far the hardest issue right now is funding," said King. "Money-strapped states and localities have to be creative in how they develop and implement their emergency plans. Regional cooperation in some circumstances will allow neighboring governments to better combine and allocate resources and incorporate private-sector stakeholders."
Preparedness Template
Jurisdictions are at different stages of adherence to federal guidelines, and technology adoption for interoperability is fragmentary across the states. Wayne Sandford, deputy commissioner for the Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security, which formed in January 2005, said the guidelines set forth by federal homeland security have served as a template for his agency. "From the time it arrived, the goal has been very useful," he said. "We are brand-new, and it really provided us with the direction that the feds wanted us to take. Being new, we didn't have to retool anything."
Using the Goal, the state's new department divided Connecticut -- which is not organized by counties -- into five response regions. "Regional planning groups are working together to share information that has never been shared before," Sandford said.
Connecticut's statewide radio system and portable radio towers allow all emergency responders and directors to communicate during a disaster and on a routine basis. "We have already used this system with a number of incidents," he said, "and it has worked very well."
The Preparedness Goal not only serves as a guiding document, but also as a reference point for what Washington, D.C., officials expect of state emergency managers. "We have a solid relationship with our homeland security partners," Sandford noted. "We talk to them on a regular basis, and they are very responsive to our needs. If we have a question, we get answers back that same day."
The workload, however, can be burdensome, Sandford said. "New things are constantly being unveiled, and as a smaller state with a smaller agency, it is extremely difficult to meet all their requests. We don't always have the ability and resources to hire contractors like the federal government," he said. "The relationship is good, but our staff ends up doing a lot of the work for the locals. If the feds keep giving us more to do, they need to give more administrative funding to help these local communities meet homeland security objectives."
Praised Preparedness
Unlike Connecticut, Chicago has had a terrorism task force since before 9/11, and has spent five years bringing agencies and responders together for emergency response planning. "The Goal itself is excellent and makes total sense for all-hazards preparation," said Jill E. Morgenthaler, Illinois deputy commissioner for public safety and homeland security adviser to the governor. "Whatever you do in one area is going to assist in helping other areas such as a tornado or catastrophic earthquake."
Illinois has employed an all-hazards approach for years. "We already had in place the framework for response, but the Goal helped us align our strategy with national priorities and flesh out our objectives. The process of submitting our strategies to the DHS was a worthwhile procedure. The Goal helps you further develop your response plans, align them, and identify training and operational needs."
For example, the Goal made evident a need for some "very robust exercises" to test the operations, Morgenthaler said. "We realized we had to include more agencies, and definitely wanted to make sure we had exercises to test the system."
In May 2006, Illinois will have a pandemic flu exercise involving as many as 30 state agencies, and a bio-terrorism exercise in August in conjunction with Chicago and state agencies. Such exercises are direct products of goals and objectives that stand in line with the federal plan. As a result of the state's long-term experience with collaboration on security objectives, other states regularly approach Morgenthaler's office asking for guidance and information.
Interim Goal
The Goal is a living document. The Interim National Preparedness Goal, released on March 31, 2005, reflects the DHS's progress to date to develop those elements in coordination with other entities. Its purpose was to act as a framework for assessing current preparedness, future needs and priorities, and the DHS continually re-evaluates the document and measures its effects. "The Interim Goal is a key step in establishing a national preparedness system," said Tracy Henke, assistant secretary for the Office of Grants and Training in the Preparedness Directorate.
The Interim Goal, according to the ODP, will guide the DHS's efforts as it sets measurable readiness benchmarks and targets to strengthen the nation's preparedness, and should be used with the national planning scenarios and target capabilities list. The Interim Goal document is a more general discussion of the importance of preparedness planning nationwide, and clarifies the function and relationship of other documents issued by the DHS.
The Interim Goal states: "The target capabilities list is not one size fits all. Both the risk and the resource base vary considerably among jurisdictions across the United States." Therefore, the target capabilities list is being revised to classify jurisdictions by tiers according to their risk needs. Areas such as the national capital region are designated for regional collaboration as a way to address existing risks.
In summer 2005, the DHS invited federal, state, local, tribal and association stakeholders to participate in a series of national workshops and discipline-specific work groups to "refine the target capabilities, establish target levels for the nation as a whole, and apportion responsibility to develop and maintain those levels" among jurisdictions.
"The Goal recognizes that preparing for large-scale natural disasters and terrorist attacks is a shared responsibility that involves every level of government and the private sector in defining capabilities that must be in place to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from such threats and hazards," said Henke.
Diagnostic as well as instructional, the Goal "provides a systematic approach for determining how prepared we are, how prepared we need to be, and how we should prioritize efforts to close the gap."
The final Goal, Henke said, is in a prerelease review. "However, capabilities-based planning, the process by which we prioritize and carry out preparedness activities, is already on the move through several initiatives and efforts, such as the Nationwide Plan Review, the FY06 Grants Guidance, program and capability reviews, and the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program."
