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 ICS instead of the NIMS Problems between EOC and ICP Role of outside assistance Local ICS instead of the NIMS Disconnect between the EOC and ICP Role of outside assistance Response vs. short-term recovery

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

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