National Incident Management Systems

1. National Incident Management Systems Session 9 Slide Deck

2. Session Objectives 1.1 Discuss various aspects of NIMS compliance and implementation including • Meaning • Roles • Timelines • Measurement 1.2 Obstacles to NIMS implementation 1.3 How obstacles may or may not be overcome

3. Importance • The system is supposed to structure • Wide range of governmental and nongovernmental organizations • Emergency managment activities in the four phases • Compliance is required • Careers in emergency management require familiarity

4. Defining Terms • Implementation • Compliance • Relationship between terms • Why compliance?

5. NIMS Timeline • Expectations set by federal fiscal year • NIMS is evolving system and will change in response to: • changing conditions • events • policy decisions • technological developments • Implications from evolving nature of NIMS?

6. Compliance Requirements • A review of requirements allows one to understand: • How the system has evolved • What the status of implementation should be across the nation

7. Fiscal Year 2005 • Letter to states and territories • Requirements for states, territories, tribal nations, and local governments • Use federal preparedness funding to support NIMS implementation • Incorporate NIMS into training, exercises, and EOPs • Recognize and formally adopt the NIMS

8. Fiscal Year 2005 Cont. • Ensure that the NIMS IS 700 course is completed • Institutionalize the use of the ICS in all incidents • Assess the degree to which NIMS requirements already met

9. Fiscal Year 2006 • Letter and implementation matrices to states and territories • Overlap with previous year • Similar compliance measures for states and territories and tribal nations and local governments

10. Fiscal Year 2006 Cont. • Common requirements: • Adopt the NIMS formally • Manage incidents with the Ics • Develop and use MACs • Institutionalize PISs • Establish NIMS baseline • Incorporate NIMS and NRP into SOPs • Promote intrastate and interagency MAAs

11. Fiscal Year 2006 Cont. • Complete IS 700, 800, 100, and 200 • Incorporate NIMS/ICS into training and exercises • Incorporate corrective actions into plans and procedures • Inventory response assets • Ensure equipment interoperability incorporated into acquisition programs • Apply standardized and consistent terminology

12. Fiscal Year 2006 Cont. • Exclusive state and territory requirements • Establish planning process for communication and implementation of the NIMS • Designate point of contact for the NIMS • Ensure funding is linked to compliance progress • Incorporate assessment of the NIMS into state audits • Develop resource management plans • Leverage training facilities to deliver NIMS training

13. Fiscal Year 2007 • Letter, matrices, and guides to states and territories • Overlap with previous years • Few new requirements: • Designate single point of contact for NIMS • Ensure PISs functional • Complete ICS 300 and 400 • Conform to H.S. resource typing standards

14. Fiscal Year 2007 Cont. • Utilize the sate/territory response asset inventory • Develop systems, tools, and processes to present consistent and accurate information to incident managers at all levels • State and territory exclusive requirement: • Monitor and assess outreach and implementation of the NIMS requirements

15. Fiscal Year 2007 Cont. • Introduction of NIMSCAST

16. Fiscal Year 2008 • Letter to states and territories • One new requirement: • Develop a jurisdiction-wide system to credential emergency management/response personnel • 26 requirements continued from previous years • 11 projected requirements for FY 2009

17. Fiscal Year 2009 • Letter to states and territories • Two requirements • Continue pursuing comprehensive implementation • Ensure appropriate personnel complete ICS 400 • Why so little required in FY 2009?

18. Compliance Going Forward • Where should NIMS implementation be nationwide? • What can jurisdictions expect in years to come?

19. Compliance Going Forward Cont. • Compliance requirements will continue • The NIC will monitor progress • The NIC will introduce new compliance expectations

20. Roles within the NIMS • Federal • State and territory • Tribal nation and local • Private sector • Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) • Important Consideration: • What might limit the ability of a jurisdiction, entity, or organization to implement the system?

21. Exercise • Groups of 2-4 • Brainstorm factors that might encourage or limit the implementation of the NIMS • 5-10 minutes to discuss • Write groups factors on blackboard/whiteboard.

22. Factors that Might Encourage • Recent events • All have potential to need help or render aid • The NIMS is required • Implementation is measured • Implementation is incremental • Comprehensive approach • All jurisdictions, entities, and organizations can use the NIMS • There is support for implementation • NIMS has changed and will continue to change

23. Limiting Factors/Obstacles • Lack of clarity and supporting mechanisms • Assumptions underlying the NIMS • Authority to compel action • Different approaches to emergency management • Different resources available • Changing compliance requirements • Process of NIMS interpretation

24. Limiting Factors/Obstacles Cont. • Feigned compliance • Compliance inappropriate gauge • Same limitations and obstacles as discussed in Session 6

25. Discussion • Why were factors listed as encouraging, limiting, or obstacles? • Are any listed that do not belong? • Why or why not? • Given discussion, what do you think the status of implementation is nationwide?

26. Empirical Research • Review, compare and contrast research with class discussion • Very little research on NIMS (as opposed to ICS) • Neal and Webb (2006) • Jensen (2008) • Jensen (2009)

27. Neal and Webb (2006) • Quick response research • Hurricane Katrina • How was the NIMS used? • Data gathered through • Interviews • Participant observation • Content analysis

28. Findings • Variation in use of the NIMS • Issues related to training • Organizational issues • Disconnect between the design of the NIMS and the disaster research literature • How do Neal and Webb’s (2006) findings compare with class discussion?

29. Conclusion and Recommendations • Conclusion: • Barriers to the use of the NIMS and the ICS • Flaws in the system • Recommendations • Redesign the system

30. Jensen (2008) • Quick response research • Tornado in urban area • How was the NIMS used? And, how useful was the system? • Data gathered through: • Interviews • Participant observation • Content analysis

31. Fully Implemented? • Author anticipated NIMS being fully implemented because: • Area’s significant experience with disasters • High status of emergency management • Resources available to emergency management • Limited needs and emergence in response to the tornado

32. Findings: Use of the NIMS State Local ICS instead of the NIMS Disconnect between the EOC and ICP Role of outside assistance Response vs. short-term recovery • ICS instead of the NIMS • Problems between EOC and ICP • Role of outside assistance

33. Findings: Usefulness of the NIMS State Local Hindsight Type and scale Time between training and incident Lack of consistency and continuity of the NIMS use • Did not make a difference • Need for information • Scale • Capability of impacted jurisdiction

34. Conclusion and Recommendations • Conclusion: • Struggle with the NIMS • Successful response effort • Findings to “take away”: • Type, scale, and complexity are important • Benefits of leveraging outside assistance • Short-term recovery • Recommendation: • Need for future research

35. Jensen (2009) • 3 states • County emergency managers • How did emergency managers interpret the NIMS? How did interpretations influence implementation? • Data collected through: • Interviews

36. Findings • Majority supported the NIMS, but had reservations • Reservations included: • Emergence of the system • Temporary nature of the system • Assumptions underlying the NIMS • Lack of fit for rural areas • Constrained by their positions

37. Findings Cont. • Key Findings • Influence of local conditions on implementation • Local conditions included: • Lack of buy-in • Desire to preserve organizational autonomy • Complications due to reliance on volunteers • Role of elected officials • Role of the state • Minimal compliance mentality • Selective implementation

38. Conclusion and Recommendations • Conclusion: • Variation in emergency management programs • Variations in perceptions and implementation of the NIMS added to preexisting differences • Efforts to standardize may interfere with local emergency management • Recommendations: • Need for future research • Refine the NIMS • Incorporate understanding of the issues NIMS faces into training and practice materials

39. Wrap Up • Cannot draw conclusions • Important issues raised • Really appropriate all areas, jurisdictions, organizations, incidents? • If appropriate, actually implementing? • Research demonstrated not implementing fully • How pervasive? Extent can be overcome?

40. Wrap Up Cont. • Continuance of the NIMS? • Next Katrina-like incident? • Has to be a system • But difficult to design and implement • Role of context • NIMS not static

41. Assignment • 2-3 page paper • how the potential limitations and obstacles to the NIMS identified in this session may or may not be overcome • OR • how understanding the potential limitations and obstacles to the NIMS may help them in their future careers in emergency management