Respond to Discussion Question
The main goal of my preparedness system is to respond to any emergency incident in a timely, effective, and coordinator manner to mitigate the loss of life and or property in the community, and to restore any interrupted essential functions that directly impact the infrastructure of the community and its partnerships at the State and Federal level.
Two objectives of the preparedness system are:
1. Establish an Emergency Operations Center with a multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency, multi-level staff that combines the different needs of the community and infrastructure with coordinated command and control with established memorandums of understanding/agreement, and mutual aid agreements. This EOC shall be maintained at the local level, and require all staff and key personnel to be trained, at a minimum, to NIMS and ICS standards to increase communication, coordination, and control protocols in a clear, concise, and mutually understood platform (United States Department of Homeland Security, 2016). The EOC shall be maintained and tested on a scheduled basis using the Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program (HSEEP), NIMS, ICS, and any other required training to maintain operational effectiveness (Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program, 2013).
2. Re-establish any identified Mission Essential Functions critical to the infrastructure of the community, State and/or Federal Agencies. Understanding that while separate agencies will have plans that require them to restore MEF's and Essential Support Functions (ESFs) within a prescribed timeframe, it is often recognized, but not accounted for, that the persons who make up these agencies are members of the local communities and will have concerns about the immediate welfare of their families, homes, community, etc. With this in mind, using the coordinated command system, mutual aid agreements, and MOUs/MOAs, provide any and all necessary support at all levels to re-establish any MEFs or ESFs that directly impact the community, the State, and Federal Agencies (and their facilities) within the area (United States Department of Homeland Security, 2013).
For example: The Bureau of Reclamation has several dams, waterways and projects in the vicinity of Boise and greater Treasure Valley Area. An emergency at one of these facilities, while directly a BOR responsibility, will require response from coordinated local agencies as well, as the emergency directly impacts life and property downstream from the facility. An emergency at one of these facilities also has direct implications on the systems it serves, such as power relay stations, hydro-electric power, fisheries, agriculture, and more. The people that work and maintain these facilities, while being employed by a private, State, or Federal Agency, are local members of the communities and will have concerns for the welfare of other things in addition to the facility they work at. Conversely, if there is an emergency that impacts the entire region, such as a severe winter storm, the entire community is impacted and will require mutual support and assistance, regardless of level.
Benchmarks for these two objectives will be measured first in risk/hazard analysis, and second through networking, coordination, and planning. Attempting to ask for help once an emergency occurs is a huge failure, and can be costly. It is imperative that Emergency Management personnel network and coordinate at ALL times in their positions, constantly working to update, review and revise memorandums of understanding/agreement with other agencies, to include non-government organizations and private businesses. Benchmark success means that networking, training, and agreements are in place and are constantly reviewed and assessed.
Challenges to these objectives and goals are pretty direct. In the case of either objective, failure to coordinate, communicate, and provide mutual support will potentially cause a failure at any point in the response and recovery efforts. The failure could catastrophic in nature, or could just cause the specific agency or organization involved to be unable to meet time constraints for response and recovery, which increases the potential loss of life, property, and infrastructure. These failures could cause devolution to occur, whereby MEFs and ESFs are relocated to other areas outside of the community, which compounds command and control efforts.
To overcome these challenges, communication is key. Time and time again we see where emergencies occur, and the success or failure of the response starts with communication. Effective communication, combined with organized coordinated command efforts, results in an increased response effort. Breakdowns in communication and coordination cause agencies to potentially find themselves doing the same tasks that are assigned to others, and other tasks not being addressed. The EM personnel are very much advocates for communication, and in many ways, serve as ambassadors to the community and involved agencies. Using NIMS, ICS, and HSEEP as guides, communication failures can be overcome through planning, review, testing, and assessment.
References
Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program. (2013, April 1). Retrieved from FEMA: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/32326
United States Department of Homeland Security. (2008). National Response Framework (FEMA Publication P-682).Retrieved from FEMA.gov: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf
United States Department of Homeland Security. (2013, October). Continuity Guidance Circular 2 (CGC 2). Retrieved from FEMA: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1386609058826-b084a7230663249ab1d6da4b6472e691/Continuity-Guidance-Circular2.pdf
United States Department of Homeland Security. (2016, November 9). Incident Command System Resources.Retrieved from FEMA: https://www.fema.gov/incident-command-system-resources
United States Department of Homeland Security. (2016, November 9). National Incident Management System.Retrieved from FEMA: https://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system