Reference no: EM131431769

Assignment

Explain how the concept of whole community is used at the local level of government to mitigate against risk.

Instructions: Fully utilize the materials that have been provided to you in order to support your response. Your initial post should be at least 350 words. APA format, use ctations.

Lesson

Week Two - The National Preparedness System

In March of 2011, the executive branch of the federal government issued Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 8. This directive described how the nation will prepare for those threats and hazards that constitute the greatest risk to national security. PPD 8 was followed in the fall of that same year with the publication of the National Preparedness Goal (which was updated in 2015), and then a month later with the National Preparedness System (NPS). Similar to the term "risk" that was focused upon in our first lesson, "prepare" or "preparedness" are key terms as well as it relates to the underlying principles of this entire course. In order to properly examine the National Preparedness System, these terms as used within the context of the NPS must be understood.

As previously noted, we directed attention upon the notion of risk last week. We should remain cognizant that risk refers to the overall consequences represented by various types of threats and hazards. The analysis of risk rests within an all-hazards system and approach, wherein all dangers to a community are examined. In addition, these dangers are prioritized, not on preconceived notions of importance, but upon the actual, detrimental impact they have on a community. Acts of terrorism and of other man-made incidents of violence must be considered alongside natural and technological hazards as well; prioritized in a manner where preparedness and mitigation efforts can be appropriately discussed, formulated, and implemented. In essence, through its various components, the National Preparedness System offers a very consistent and dependable methodology that can be applied to a host of activities; those that range from aiding the decision making process to identifying and allocating resources (DHS, 2011).

So just as the NPS requires us to take a broad view of those elements that determine risk, it similarly requires us to take a wide-ranging view of preparedness as well. In essence, preparedness refers to a community's ability to respond immediately to a disastrous event (remember, disaster events range from acts of terrorism to industrial accidents to natural disasters). Preparedness also refers to the community's ability to recover from the event; and preparedness refers to all of those actions taken by the community to either prevent the event, or to mitigate the consequences of that event.

Within the National Preparedness System, the National Preparedness Goal (2015) defines the system's measure of success as "A secure and resilient nation with capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk (p. 1)." This definition of success is then translated throughout the entire homeland security enterprise; all levels of government and the various departments and agencies found within, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and the public at large. So as it relates to this overall Goal and the inherent need for our nation to be more resilient; that capability to "bounce back" from the effects of a disaster can be equally applied to any state, county, municipality, or township. Likewise, this sense of resiliency is required of any privately-owned entity as well, where Attention would need to be directed towards the maintenance of its own designated business functions and practices, or at the very least, towards reducing the impact of the disaster upon its financial interests. Ideally, we could even look at individual families in light of the Goal's definition of success. The integration of all of these collective efforts is a key element to our nation's overall success in preparing for those events that could produce detrimental effects. This multi-layered, integrated approach to planning and cooperation is commonly referred to as the "whole community," a broad-based approach that seeks to fully engage all facets of our society. By doing so, a broader understanding of the threats and hazards that are being faced and the associated capabilities in addressing them will be realized. In addition, the relationships needed to carry out needed activities can be formulated and/or strengthened. Also, such an integration of resources can result in empowering the individual and collective capacities found across this community (FEMA, 2011).

Incorporating the expertise and resources found within the whole community is certainly a needed prerequisite if our nation is to achieve the level of preparedness it has set for itself. These resources must also maintain and carry out certain core capabilities that are needed to execute the five mission areas as identified by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The five mission areas and their definitions are

• Prevention: The avoidance or stopping of an act of terrorism. Prevention is the only mission area that is not all-hazards in nature. Prevention looks solely towards the avoidance of terrorist acts.

• Protection: The shielding of our citizens and property against threats and hazards.

• Mitigation: Measures taken to lessen the consequences of critical incidents upon our citizens and communities.

• Response: Immediate actions taken upon the occurrence of a disaster event to save lives, to protect property, to protect the environment, and to ensure basic human needs are provided for in the immediate aftermath of a disaster event.

• Recovery: The restoration (and, ideally, the strengthening and revitalization) of critical infrastructure; of normal everyday life for our citizens and of the economy. (DHS, 2011)

As you delve into this week's readings, you will see these various core capabilities that are needed to support the overall objectives related to these five mission areas. In some areas, you will see some repetition, and this repetition is purposeful, as there is a great deal of integration and overlapping of the mission areas and their core capabilities. However, only three core capabilities are common to all five mission areas: planning, public information and warning, and operational coordination. It is certainly prudent that planning efforts must be considered and carried out on a continual basis related to all aspects of preparedness. For example, we must plan for proper disaster response. We must also plan for ways in which we will mitigate against the impacts of disasters, and so on. It also makes sense that the public would need to be kept informed through all of the mission areas as well. Other core capabilities may be common to two or three mission areas, but not all five. As an example, the capability to perform screening, as well as search and detection activities are found in both the prevention and protection missions. Within the five mission areas, we can also note examples of overlap. Likewise, a focus upon infrastructure systems is an integral component of both response and recovery efforts. A table is provided below (Figure 1) that illustrates these core capabilities and the manner in which they support these broad initiatives. I would encourage you to review the National Preparedness Goal, as there is a chapter devoted to each mission, where details are provided for each of the supporting core capabilities as well.

(Figure 1: Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Goal, 2015)

The unique nature of the prevention mission area has already been noted in that it is the only mission area that is not all-hazards in nature, as it is intended to serve solely as an anti-terrorism initiative. Many might feel that because it is so focused upon terrorist-related activities that the "whole community" cannot be involved in it; that only government, first responders, etc. can carry out its related core capabilities. While there is some validity in the fact that only certain agencies and personnel possess the expertise and equipment to carry these out, all aspects of our society can aid in this effort as well. Whether it is being incorporated in the planning process, actively engaging in information sharing, or other supporting efforts, all can be engaged in some form or fashion. This same collaborative environment is needed in each of the five missions. And even though Federal agencies like DHS are ultimately responsible for carrying out the goals and objectives associated with these areas, the greatest roles and impact are actually found at the state and local levels. As former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stated, "All of our efforts are guided by a simple but powerful, idea - homeland security begins with hometown security. We are all safer when local law enforcement works together with the communities and citizens they serve, and their partners in the Federal government and the private sector, to protect against the threats we face" ("Homeland Security Starts," n.d., p. 1). Local governments, for example, perform their own threat and hazard identification analyses; the federal government does not do it for them. Local government is responsible for the repair of community infrastructure following a disaster event. The federal government may support with financial assistance in some cases, but will usually not otherwise become involved. So it is obvious that our nation's overall preparedness is a function and product of countless partnerships that have been formulated and the activities they carry out.

To adequately bring these resources together is a coordinated and complete manner; National Preparedness System is an integration of six components related to the mission areas and the core components. A common visual representation of these components is below as Figure 2, taken from the National Preparedness System (2011) document itself.

(Figure 2: Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness System, 2011)

The six components have overlap, but the process really begins with the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA), that we touched upon in last week's lesson. Once hazards are identified and prioritized according to risk, the capabilities that are found within our communities is estimated and compared with needed requirements in order to be as resilient as possible. The gap between our existing capabilities and those capabilities that are needed is what is focused upon in the "Building and Sustaining Capabilities" component. Whatever the level of capabilities a community needs is fully satisfied with its current resources or gaps have been identified; the capacity to meet identified challenges must be determined. This is particularly true in cases where jurisdictions assets might be dependent upon mutual aid agreements or similar contracts with fellow homeland security stakeholders. Throughout this process, it is imperative that planning is structured, measured, and fully documented. Much of this is accomplished as capabilities are validated, which is typically done through education, training, and associated exercises. Lastly, the "Reviewing and Updating" component is carried out at various times and related to certain situations. For instance, after any training exercise is completed or a jurisdiction experiences a "real world" event, plans and capabilities must be reviewed to determine if needed changes are in order. As a whole, plans must be continuously assessed for any revisions that might need to be made. Why might this be the case? One reason might be a change in the overall risk climate; those that directly impact these capabilities. Let's face it, threats and hazards are dynamic in nature and present themselves when least expected. Likewise, capabilities ebb and flow with fluctuations in budgets, or with circumstantial modifications in local and adjacent demographics. So it must be realized that there is no end date to these six components of the NPS; that they are perpetual in nature, and this cycle must be carried out on a continual basis.

As a whole, the National Preparedness System is a living, breathing one; as it is continually being updated and revised to meet the ever-evolving nature of homeland security and its associated challenges. A perfect example has been the formulation and implementation of frameworks that are associated with each of the five mission areas. As noted by DHS, "the Frameworks foster a shared understanding of our roles and responsibilities from the fire house to the White House" ("National Planning Frameworks," n.d., under "About the Frameworks"). These documents were actually a culmination of a concerted effort that solicited ideas from various stakeholders, partners, and practitioners throughout the homeland security enterprise; truly an example of the "whole community" in action. The NPS is also referred to as living because it can be adjusted for any level of government, and for nearly any organization. Since the NPS is reliant upon its ability to both identify and address needs related to both national and local level resiliency, this ability to adjust is essential in the examination of homeland security risks, threats and consequences.

In conclusion, remember that the NPS not only adopts an all-hazards approach, but assumes a broad view of preparedness as well. Also, the nation's ability to adequately deal with threats and hazards is dependent upon all levels of government, and both the public and private sectors. Granted, the federal government must lead by example as it relates to its role by determining risks and consequences at the national level; but those same functions and responsibilities carried out at the local level is where a large measure of our nation's homeland security functions reside. The NPS is based upon the premise and understanding that it takes the "whole community," beginning at the grassroots level to make the entire country as prepared and resilient as possible.

References

Department of Homeland Security (2011). National preparedness system. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Department of Homeland Security. (2015). National preparedness goal. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

FEMA. (2011). A whole community approach to emergency management: Principles, themes, and pathways for action. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Homeland Security Starts with Hometown Security. (n.d.). Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from https://photos.state.gov/libraries/bahamas/8325/pdf/dhssheet.pdf

National Planning Frameworks. (n.d.). Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved fromhttps://www.fema.gov/national-planning-frameworks