Please follow instruction and use all attached file to answer  the questions in the file named the final week

A Whole Community Approach to
Emergency Management: Principles,
Themes, and

Pathways for Action

FDOC 104-008-1 / December 2011

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

i

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

Introduction

……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
National Dialogue on a Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management ………2
Whole Community Defined ………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Whole Community Principles and Strategic Themes …………………………………………………..4

Strategic Themes in Practice

…………………………………………………………………………… 6
Understand Community Complexity ………………………………………………………………………….6
Recognize Community Capabilities and Needs ……………………………………………………………8
Foster Relationships with Community Leaders …………………………………………………………10
Build and Maintain Partnerships ……………………………………………………………………………..11
Empower Local Action …………………………………………………………………………………………….14
Leverage and Strengthen Social Infrastructure, Networks, and Assets ………………………16

Pathways for Action ………………………………………………………………………………………. 19

Conclusion

……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

ii

This page intentionally left blank.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

1

I n t r o d u c t i o n
The effects of natural and manmade disasters have become more frequent, far-reaching, and
widespread. As a result, preserving the safety, security, and prosperity of all parts of our society
is becoming more challenging. Our Nation’s traditional approach to managing the risks
associated with these disasters relies heavily on the government. However, today’s changing
reality is affecting all levels of government in their efforts to improve our Nation’s resilience
while grappling with the limitations of their capabilities.1 Even in small- and medium-sized
disasters, which the government is generally effective at managing, significant access and service
gaps still exist. In large-scale disasters or catastrophes, government resources and capabilities
can be overwhelmed.

The scale and severity of disasters are
growing and will likely pose systemic
threats.2 Accelerating changes in
demographic trends and technology are
making the effects of disasters more
complex to manage. One future trend
affecting emergency needs is continued
population shifts into vulnerable areas
(e.g., hurricane-prone coastlines). The
economic development that accompanies
these shifts also intensifies the pressure
on coastal floodplains, barrier islands,
and the ecosystems that support food
production, the tourism industry, and
suburban housing growth. Other
demographic changes will affect disaster
management activities, such as a growing population of people with disabilities living in
communities instead of institutions, as well as people living with chronic conditions (e.g.,
obesity and asthma). Also, communities are facing a growing senior population due to the Baby
Boom generation entering this demographic group. Consequently, changes in transportation
systems and even housing styles may follow to accommodate the lifestyles of these residents. If
immigration trends continue as predicted, cities and suburbs will be more diverse ethnically and
linguistically. Employment trends, when combined with new technologies, will shift the ways in
which local residents plan their home-to-work commuting patterns as well as their leisure time.
All of these trends will affect the ways in which residents organize and identify with community-
based associations and will influence how they prepare for and respond to emergencies.3

1 Resilience refers to the ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption
due to emergencies. White House, “Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8),” March 30, 2011.
2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation,” November 2011.
3 Strategic Foresight Initiative, “U.S. Demographic Shifts: Long-term Trends and Drivers and Their Implications for
Emergency Management,” May 2011.
Strategic Foresight Initiative, “Government Budgets: Long-term Trends and Drivers and Their Implications for
Emergency Management,” May 2011.

Figure 1: Joplin, Missouri, May 24, 2011—Homes were leveled with
the force of 200 mph winds as an F5 tornado struck the city on May 22,
2011. This scene is representative of the growing impacts of disasters.
Jace Anderson/FEMA

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

2

This document presents a foundation for increasing individual preparedness and engaging with
members of the community as vital partners in enhancing the resiliency and security of our
Nation through a Whole Community approach. It is intended to promote greater understanding of
the approach and to provide a strategic framework to guide all members of the emergency
management community as they determine how to integrate Whole Community concepts into
their daily practices. This document is not intended to be all-encompassing or focused on any
specific phase of emergency management or level of government, nor does it offer specific,
prescriptive actions that require communities or emergency managers to adopt certain protocols.
Rather, it provides an overview of core principles, key themes, and pathways for action that have
been synthesized from a year-long national dialogue around practices already used in the field.
While this is not a guide or a “how-to” document, it provides a starting point for those learning
about the approach or looking for ways to expand existing practices and to begin more
operational-based discussions on further implementation of Whole Community principles.

N a t i o n a l D i a l o g u e o n a W h o l e C o m m u n i t y A p p r o a c h t o E m e r g e n c y
M a n a g e m e n t
In a congressional testimony, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), Craig Fugate, described today’s reality as follows: “Government can and will continue
to serve disaster survivors. However, we fully recognize that a government-centric approach to
disaster management will not be enough to meet the challenges posed by a catastrophic incident.
That is why we must fully engage our entire societal capacity….”4 To that end, FEMA initiated a
national dialogue on a Whole Community approach to emergency management, an approach that
many communities have used for years with great success, and one which has been gathering
strength in jurisdictions across the Nation.

The national dialogue was designed to foster collective learning from communities’ experiences
across the country. It occurred in various settings, such as organized conference sessions,
research seminars, professional association meetings, practitioner gatherings, and official
government meetings. The various settings created opportunities to listen to those who work in
local neighborhoods, have survived disasters, and are actively engaged in community
development. Participants in this dialogue included a broad range of emergency management
partners, including representatives from the private and nonprofit sectors, academia, local
residents, and government leaders. The conversations with the various stakeholders focused on
how communities are motivated and engaged, how they understand risk, and what their
experiences are with resilience following a disaster. In addition, international and historical
resiliency efforts, such as FEMA’s Project Impact, were explored to gather lessons learned and
best practices.5

FEMA also brought together diverse members from across the country to comprise a core
working group. The working group reviewed and validated emerging Whole Community
principles and themes, gathered examples of the Whole Community approach from the field, and

4 Administrator Craig Fugate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, before the United States House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management at the Rayburn House Office Building, March 30, 2011.
5 FEMA introduced Project Impact in 1997as a national initiative designed to challenge the country to undertake
actions that protect families, businesses, and communities by reducing the effects of natural disasters. The efforts
focused on creating active public-private partnerships to build disaster-resistant communities.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

3

identified people, organizations, and communities with promising local experiences. They
participated in various meetings and conferences and, in some cases, provided the examples
included in this document.

In addition to the national dialogue, this document was created concurrently with a larger effort
to build an integrated, layered, all-of-Nation approach to preparedness, as called for by
Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-8): National Preparedness.6 As such, the Whole Community
approach is being incorporated into all PPD-8 deliverables, including the National Preparedness
Goal, National Preparedness System description, National Planning Frameworks, and the
campaign to build and sustain preparedness nationwide, as well as leverage the approach in their
development.7 In support of these efforts, FEMA seeks to spark exploration into community
engagement strategies to promote further discussion on approaches that position local residents
for leadership roles in planning, organizing, and sharing accountability for the success of local
disaster management efforts, and which enhance our Nation’s security and resilience.

W h o l e C o m m u n i t y D e f i n e d
As a concept, Whole Community is a means by which residents, emergency management
practitioners, organizational and community leaders, and government officials can collectively
understand and assess the needs of their respective communities and determine the best ways to
organize and strengthen their assets, capacities, and interests. By doing so, a more effective path
to societal security and resilience is built. In a sense, Whole Community is a philosophical
approach on how to think about conducting emergency management.

There are many different kinds of communities,
including communities of place, interest, belief, and
circumstance, which can exist both geographically
and virtually (e.g., online forums). A Whole
Community approach attempts to engage the full
capacity of the private and nonprofit sectors,
including businesses, faith-based and disability
organizations, and the general public, in conjunction
with the participation of local, tribal, state, territorial,
and Federal governmental partners. This engagement
means different things to different groups. In an all-
hazards environment, individuals and institutions will
make different decisions on how to prepare for and
respond to threats and hazards; therefore, a
community’s level of preparedness will vary. The
challenge for those engaged in emergency
management is to understand how to work with the
diversity of groups and organizations and the policies
and practices that emerge from them in an effort to
improve the ability of local residents to prevent,
protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from any type of threat or hazard effectively.

6 President Barack Obama, “Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8): National Preparedness,” March 30, 2011.
7 FEMA, “National Preparedness Goal,” September 2011. (Formally released on October 7, 2011.)

Whole Community is a philosophical
approach in how to conduct the
business of emergency management.

Benefits include:
 Shared understanding of community

needs and capabilities
 Greater empowerment and

integration of resources from across
the community

 Stronger social infrastructure
 Establishment of relationships that

facilitate more effective prevention,
protection, mitigation, response, and
recovery activities

 Increased individual and collective
preparedness

 Greater resiliency at both the
community and national levels

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

4

The benefits of Whole Community
include a more informed, shared
understanding of community risks,
needs, and capabilities; an increase in
resources through the empowerment of
community members; and, in the end,
more resilient communities. A more
sophisticated understanding of a
community’s needs and capabilities also
leads to a more efficient use of existing
resources regardless of the size of the
incident or community constraints. In
times of resource and economic
constraints, the pooling of efforts and
resources across the whole community is
a way to compensate for budgetary
pressures, not only for government
agencies but also for many private and
nonprofit sector organizations. The task of cultivating and sustaining relationships to incorporate
the whole community can be challenging; however, the investment yields many dividends. The
process is as useful as the product. In building relationships and learning more about the
complexity of a community, interdependencies that may be sources of hidden vulnerabilities are
revealed. Steps taken to incorporate Whole Community concepts before an incident occurs will
lighten the load during response and recovery efforts through the identification of partners with
existing processes and resources who are available to be part of the emergency management
team. The Whole Community approach produces more effective outcomes for all types and sizes
of threats and hazards, thereby improving security and resiliency nationwide.

W h o l e C o m m u n i t y P r i n c i p l e s a n d S t r a t e g i c T h e m e s
Numerous factors contribute to the resilience of communities and effective emergency
management outcomes. However, three principles that represent the foundation for establishing a
Whole Community approach to emergency management emerged during the national dialogue.

Whole Community Principles:
 Understand and meet the actual needs of the whole community. Community engagement

can lead to a deeper understanding of the unique and diverse needs of a population, including
its demographics, values, norms, community structures, networks, and relationships. The
more we know about our communities, the better we can understand their real-life safety and
sustaining needs and their motivations to participate in emergency management-related
activities prior to an event.

 Engage and empower all parts of the community. Engaging the whole community and
empowering local action will better position stakeholders to plan for and meet the actual
needs of a community and strengthen the local capacity to deal with the consequences of all
threats and hazards. This requires all members of the community to be part of the emergency
management team, which should include diverse community members, social and
community service groups and institutions, faith-based and disability groups, academia,

Figure 2: Madison, Tennessee, May 29, 2010—Gary Lima, Tennessee
Emergency Management Agency Community Relations Coordinator,
leads Boy Scout troop #460 in a Memorial Day project to place flags on
graves. The picture reflects emergency managers becoming involved in
the day-to-day activities of community groups. David Fine/FEMA

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

5

professional associations, and the private and nonprofit sectors, while including government
agencies who may not traditionally have been directly involved in emergency management.
When the community is engaged in an authentic dialogue, it becomes empowered to identify
its needs and the existing resources that may be used to address them.

 Strengthen what works well in communities on a daily basis. A Whole Community
approach to building community resilience requires finding ways to support and strengthen
the institutions, assets, and networks that already work well in communities and are working
to address issues that are important to community members on a daily basis. Existing
structures and relationships that are present in the daily lives of individuals, families,
businesses, and organizations before an incident occurs can be leveraged and empowered to
act effectively during and after a disaster strikes.

In addition to the three Whole Community principles, six strategic themes were identified
through research, discussions, and examples provided by emergency management practitioners.
These themes speak to the ways the Whole Community approach can be effectively employed in
emergency management and, as such, represent pathways for action to implement the principles.

Whole Community Strategic Themes:
 Understand community complexity.
 Recognize community capabilities and needs.
 Foster relationships with community leaders.
 Build and maintain partnerships.
 Empower local action.
 Leverage and strengthen social infrastructure, networks, and assets.
In the Strategic Themes in Practice section of this document, the Whole Community concept is
explored through real-world examples that highlight the key principles and themes of the Whole
Community approach. In order to provide an illustration of how the principles and themes can be
applied, examples for each of the five mission areas—Prevention, Protection, Mitigation,
Response, and Recovery (as outlined in the National Preparedness Goal)—are included. In
addition, examples from other community development and public safety efforts have been
included—most notably, community policing. While the focus and outcomes may differ, such
efforts have proven effective in advancing public health and safety and offer a model for
emergency management personnel to consider. The Pathways for Action section provides a list
of reflective questions and ideas for emergency management practitioners to refer to when they
are beginning to think about how to incorporate the Whole Community concepts into their
security and resilience efforts.

As a field of practice, our collective understanding of how to effectively apply Whole
Community as a concept to the daily business of emergency management will continue to
evolve. It is hoped that this document will assist emergency managers, as members of their
communities, in that evolution—prompting new actions and soliciting new ideas and strategies.
FEMA is committed to continued engagement in ongoing discussions with its partners in the
public, private, and nonprofit sectors to further develop and refine strategies to deliver more
effective emergency management outcomes and enhance the security and resilience of our
communities and our Nation.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

6

S t r a t e g i c T h e m e s i n P r a c t i c e
The strategic themes presented in this section speak to the various ways the Whole Community
approach can be effectively employed in emergency management and, as such, represent
pathways for action by members of the emergency management community at all levels. These
themes and pathways are explored through the presentation of real-world examples that highlight
how Whole Community concepts are being applied in communities across the country.

U n d e r s t a n d C o m m u n i t y C o m p l e x i t y
Communities are unique, multi-
dimensional, and complex. They are
affected by many factors and
interdependencies, including
demographics, geography, access to
resources, experience with government,
crime, political activity, economic
prosperity, and forms of social capital
such as social networks, social cohesion
between different groups, and
institutions. Developing a better
understanding of a community involves
looking at its members to learn how
social activity is organized on a normal
basis (e.g., social patterns, community
leaders, points of collective organization
and action, and decision-making
processes), which will reveal potential
sources (e.g., individuals and
organizations) of new collective action. A realistic understanding of the complexity of a
community’s daily life will help emergency managers determine how they can best collaborate
with and support the community to meet its true needs.

Understanding the complexities of local communities helps with tailoring engagement strategies
and shaping programs to meet various needs. Numerous examples that involve local initiatives to
identify, map, and communicate with a wide range of local groups exist nationwide. For
example, the Houston Department of Health and Human Services (HDHHS) has been actively
identifying ways to better communicate and plan with linguistically isolated populations (LIP)
and limited-English proficient (LEP) populations within the city. HDHHS is working with about
20 community organizations that serve and represent LIP/LEP communities, along with
Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston, four refugee resettlement agencies that work with these
populations, and several apartment complexes in southwest Houston (where many refugee and
some immigrant populations live), in an effort to develop trusted relationships and ways to
provide current preparedness, response, and recovery information. Because of this outreach,
significant unmet needs (e.g., transportation) for these specific populations have been identified.
The City of Houston is using this information to fulfill unmet needs for these populations and
continues to work with these community organizations and private sector partners to improve
outreach materials, methods of communication, and preparedness programs.

Figure 3: New Orleans, Louisiana, September 5, 2008—A bilingual
volunteer helps non-English speaking evacuees, guiding them in the
right direction to board the correct buses to their parishes.
Understanding the complexity of communities (e.g., non-English
speakers) helps emergency management practitioners to meet the
residents’ needs. Jacinta Quesada/FEMA

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

7

The full diversity of communities is better understood
when communication and engagement efforts move
beyond easy, typical approaches to looking at the real
needs and issues a community faces. In one California
city, the police noticed a high level of violent crime in
a particular neighborhood. In a typical policing model,
the police would have assigned additional officers to
patrol the neighborhood, approached the community
to provide them with information about the criminal
activity, and informed residents of what they might do
to avoid being affected by the crime. However, as part
of an operational shift, the police took a proactive
approach by first engaging with the community to
obtain information about the nature and frequency of the local crimes. At the initial meeting, the
police learned from the local residents that a number of problems contributed to the unsafe
conditions of the neighborhood—problems that police response alone could not correct. Cars
speeding through the neighborhood; the presence of abandoned cars, couches, and other litter in
front yards; rundown conditions of apartment buildings; few safe walkways for neighborhood
children; and a lack of lighting on street corners all contributed to the crime situation.

At the next community meeting, the police brought together a number of government
departments, including fire, public works, and the housing authority, to address the residents’
concerns. Government representatives agreed to provide dumpsters for the litter and the residents
agreed to fill them. The community agreed to tow the abandoned cars and identified street
repaving as a high priority. Together, the community and city officials approached the apartment
owners, who agreed to paint the exteriors of the buildings. The public works department fixed
the street lighting. Building upon the cooperation and the demonstrated responsiveness to the
community’s needs, several residents provided the police with information that led to the arrests
of several individuals involved in the area’s drug-related activities. In a relatively short period of
time, police worked with local residents to transform what had been perceived to be a narrow
crime issue into a broad-based community revitalization effort. Crime decreased, residents
became involved, and the neighborhood was significantly improved. Emergency management
practitioners can take a similar approach by understanding the underlying and core community
concerns in order to build relationships and identify opportunities to work together to develop
solutions that meet everyone’s needs.

Numerous approaches exist to identify and better understand the complexities of local
populations, how they interact, what resources are available, and the gaps between needs and
solutions. For example, community mapping is a way to identify community capabilities and
needs by visually illustrating data to reveal patterns. Examples of patterns may take into account
the location of critical infrastructure, demographics, reliance on public transportation, available
assets and resources (e.g., warehouses that can be used as distribution centers), and businesses
that can continue to supply food or water during and after emergencies. Understanding
communities is a dynamic process as patterns may change. Emergency managers and local
groups often use community mapping to gather empirical data on local patterns. Revealing
patterns can help emergency managers to better engage communities and understand and meet
the needs of individuals by illustrating the dynamics of populations, how they interact, and
available resources.

Understand Community “DNA”
Learn how communities’ social activity
is organized and how needs are met
under normal conditions.
A better understanding of how
segments of the community resolve
issues and make decisions—both with
and without government as a player—
helps uncover ways to better meet the
actual needs of the whole community in
times of crisis.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

8

One community mapping program that the Washington State Emergency Management Division
developed (“Map Your Neighborhood”) won FEMA’s 2011 Challenge.gov award for addressing
community preparedness. This program helps citizens identify the most important steps they
need to take to secure their homes and neighborhoods following a disaster. In addition, it helps to
identify the special skills and equipment that neighbors possess, the locations of natural gas and
propane tanks, and a comprehensive contact list of neighbors who may need assistance, such as
older residents, children, and people with disabilities and other access and functional needs.

R e c o g n i z e C o m m u n i t y C a p a b i l i t i e s a n d N e e d s
Appreciating the actual capabilities and
needs of a community is essential to
supporting and enabling local actions.
For example, in response to past
disasters, meals ready-to-eat (MREs)
have been used to feed survivors because
these resources were readily available.
However, for a large portion of the
population, such as children, seniors, or
individuals with dietary or health
considerations, MREs are not a suitable
food source for various reasons, as MREs
tend to contain high levels of fat and
sodium and low levels of fiber.

A community’s needs should be defined
on the basis of what the community
requires without being limited to what
traditional emergency management capabilities can address. By engaging in open discussions,
emergency management practitioners can begin to identify the actual needs of the community
and the collective capabilities (private, public, and civic) that exist to address them, as the role of
government and private and nonprofit sector organizations may vary for each community. The
community should also be encouraged to define what it believes its needs and capabilities are in
order to fully participate in planning and actions.

Based on a shared understanding of actual needs, the
community can then collectively plan to find ways to
address those needs. Following the devastating
tornadoes in Alabama during the spring of 2011,
various agencies, organizations, and volunteers
united to locate recovery resources in the community
and communicate information about those resources
to the public. Two days after the tornadoes, they
formed the Alabama Interagency Emergency
Response Coordinating Committee. The committee
was led by representatives from Independent Living Resources of Greater Birmingham, United
Cerebral Palsy of Greater Birmingham, and the Alabama Governor’s Office on Disability. The
committee also included representatives from FEMA and the American Red Cross.

Figure 4: Fargo, North Dakota, March 23, 2009—Thousands of
students and community members work together with the National
Guard at the Fargo Dome to make sand bags during a 24-hour
operation. Community members have the capabilities to help meet
their own emergency needs. Michael Reiger/FEMA

Recognize Community Capabilities
and Broaden the Team

Recognize communities’ private and
civic capabilities, identify how they can
contribute to improve pre- and post-
event outcomes, and actively engage
them in all aspects of the emergency
management process.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

9

A daily conference call was attended by as many as 60 individuals representing agencies that
serve individuals with disabilities and chronic illnesses. In addition, volunteers with disabilities
continuously scanned broadcast media and printed and electronic newspapers and called agency
contacts to obtain the latest information on resources for disaster recovery. For instance,
volunteers placed calls to local hospitals and clinics, faith-based organizations, and organizations
representing clinical professionals to request help with crisis counseling. Recovery resource
information was compiled in an extensive database with entries grouped within the following
categories: Red Cross, FEMA, emergency shelters/housing assistance, medication assistance,
health care services, mental health support, food assistance, eyewear, communications,
computers/Internet, hiring contractors for home repairs, insurance claims, legal aid, vital
documents, older adult care, childcare, blood donations, animal shelter and services, and
emergency preparation. The Disaster Recovery Resource Database was updated twice daily and
information was disseminated in multiple formats (e.g., email attachment, website, hard copy,
and telephone).

The committee used local media outlets, state agencies (e.g., health, education, rehabilitation,
aging, and mental health), city and county governments, the United Way’s 2-1-1 Information &
Referral Search website, and nonprofit organizations to disseminate the database to community
residents. Independent Living Resources of Greater Birmingham hosted a website with recovery
resources presented by category. This collaboration greatly enhanced the delivery of services to
individuals with disabilities, as well as older residents.

As a protection effort, some communities have
developed self-assessment tools to evaluate how
prepared they are for all threats and hazards. One
example is a Community Resilience Index (CRI),
which was developed by the Gulf of Mexico
Alliance’s Coastal Community Resilience Priority
Issue Team, the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium, and the Louisiana Sea Grant College
Program in collaboration with 18 communities along the Gulf Coast, from Texas to Florida. It is
a self-assessment tool and provides communities with a method of determining if an acceptable
level of functionality may be maintained after a disaster. The self-assessment tool can be used to
evaluate the following areas to provide a preliminary assessment of a community’s disaster
resilience: critical infrastructure and facilities, transportation issues, community plans and
agreements, mitigation measures, business plans, and social systems. Gaps are identified through
this analysis. The CRI helps to identify weaknesses that a community may want to address prior
to the next hazard event and stimulates discussion among emergency responders within a
community, thus increasing its resilience to disasters. As a result of the initial implementation of
the Community Resilience Index (CRI), additional grant funding is being provided by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Storms Program to continue
to build capacity in the region so facilitators can assist communities in taking the next steps.
Under this new grant, facilitators will continue their work by helping communities identify issues
and needs in connection with becoming more resilient, create a shared community understanding
of the potential extent of future losses, apply strategies to serve near- and long-term mitigation
needs, and take the first steps toward adapting to a rise in sea level. This support will be in the
form of follow-up training and/or technical assistance.

Plan for the Real
Plan for what communities will really
need should a severe event occur and
not just for the existing resources on
hand.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

10

F o s t e r R e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h C o m m u n i t y L e a d e r s
Within every community, there are many different formal and informal leaders, such as
community organizers, local council members and other government leaders, nonprofit or
business leaders, volunteer or faith leaders, and long-term residents, all of whom have valuable
knowledge and can provide a comprehensive understanding of the communities in which they
live. These leaders can help identify activities in which the community is already interested and
involved as people might be more receptive to preparedness campaigns and more likely to
understand the relevancy of emergency management to their lives.

The Colorado Emergency Preparedness Partnership (CEPP) exemplifies the benefits of fostering
relationships with community leaders. According to its website, “CEPP is a collaborative
enterprise created by the Denver Police Foundation, Business Executives for National Security,
and the Philanthropy Roundtable. It is a broad coalition to implement a voluntary, all-hazards
partnership between business and government and, to date, is the product of many Colorado
partners including leaders of the philanthropic community, Federal, state and local agencies,
business, academia, and US Northern Command.” CEPP has built these trusted relationships
since its inception in 2008. When not responding to a disaster, Colorado Emergency
Preparedness Partnership (CEPP) partners remain connected with their network through
information bulletins and tap into their capabilities for smaller emergencies and other needs. For
example, the police recently needed a helicopter for a murder investigation and they contacted
CEPP, a trusted partner, to see if there was one available. Within 30 minutes, three helicopters
were offered by three different member organizations.

As suggested previously, disaster-resilient
communities are, first and foremost, communities
that function and solve problems well under normal
conditions. By matching existing capabilities to
needs and working to strengthen these resources,
communities are able to improve their disaster
resiliency. Community leaders and partners can help
emergency managers in identifying the changing
needs and capabilities that exist in the community.
Community leaders can also rally their members to
join community emergency management efforts and to take personal preparedness measures for
themselves and their families. The inclusion of community leaders in emergency management
training opportunities is a way to reach individuals, as these leaders can pass preparedness
information to their members. They can be a critical link between emergency managers and the
individuals they represent. Many emergency management agencies, such as the New York City
Office of Emergency Management, include their private sector partners in regular exercises,
sustaining and strengthening their relationships in the process.

For example, central Ohio is home to the country’s second-largest Somali population. The Mid-
Ohio Regional Planning Commission has been working to gather information about this group’s
preferred communication methods, traditions, behaviors, and customs in order to appropriately
plan for its needs in the event of an emergency. The Somali population requested that planners
include the Somali community leaders in emergency preparedness and response efforts because
they were the foremost sources of trustworthy communication. Both emergency managers and
the community benefit from developing these trusted relationships.

Meet People Where They Are
Engage communities through the
relationships that exist in everyday
settings and around issues that already
have their attention and drive their
interactions. Connect the social,
economic, and political structures that
make up daily life to emergency
management programs.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

11

Trust is a recurring theme that underpins healthy and
strong communities. It acts as the glue that holds
different groups together, strengthens and sustains
solidarity, and supports the means for collective
action. It is crucial that partnerships are based on
trust and not on fear or competition to ensure the
success of the Whole Community approach. Building
social trust requires more than conventional outreach
focused on “trust issues”; it requires collaborating
with communities in joint activities designed to
address specific local problems. As emergency
managers and community leaders work together to
solve problems, trusted relationships are formed as they learn to support and rely on one another.
Fostering relationships and collaborating with community leaders is a way to build trust within
the broader community as they are the links to individual community members. To this end, it is
important that the government and its partners are transparent about information sharing,
planning processes, and capabilities to deal with all threats and hazards.

B u i l d a n d M a i n t a i n P a r t n e r s h i p s
While certainly not a new concept,
building relationships with multi-
organizational partnerships and coalitions
is an exemplary organizing technique to
ensure the involvement of a wide range
of local community members. The
collective effort brings greater
capabilities to the initiatives and provides
greater opportunities to reach agreement
throughout the community and influence
others to participate and support
activities. The critical step in building
these partnerships is to find the
overlapping and shared interests around
which groups and organizations are
brought together. Equally important is to
sustain the motivations and incentives to
collaborate over a long period of time
while improving resilience through
increased public-private partnership. As FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate stated at the first
National Conference on Building Resilience Through Public-Private Partnerships, “We cannot
separate out and segment one sector in isolation; the interdependencies are too great.… We want
the private sector to be part of the team and we want to be in the situation where we work as a
team and not compete with each other.”8

8 Administrator Craig Fugate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, First National Conference on Building
Resilience through Public-Private Partnerships, August 2011.

Build Trust through Participation
Successfully collaborating with
community leaders to solve problems for
non-emergency activities builds
relationships and trust over time.
As trust is built, community leaders can
provide insight into the needs and
capabilities of a community and help to
ramp up interest about emergency
management programs that support
resiliency.

Figure 5: Tuscaloosa, Alabama, June 9, 2011—The Japanese
International Cooperation Agency made a donation of several pallets of
blankets to representatives from several faith-based and volunteer
organizations. The donation came in the wake of the April tornados
that hit the southeast. Tim Burkitt /FEMA

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

12

Businesses play a key role in building resilient
communities. As businesses consider what they need
to do to survive a disaster or emergency, as outlined in
their business continuity plans, it is equally important
that they also consider what their customers will need
in order to survive. Without customers and
employees, businesses will fail. The ongoing
involvement of businesses in preparedness activities
paves the way to economic and social resiliency
within their communities.

An example of a public-private partnership that
successfully negotiated difficult community political
and economic dynamics comes from Medina County,
just southwest of Cleveland, Ohio. Like so many
urban areas, expansion into rural areas placed new
demands on water supplies. Some homebuilders
initially wanted to develop large plots that would
require filling in existing wetlands and natural
floodplains. The building plans also required
firefighting services to truck in large amounts of water
in the event of an incident.

A broad-based coalition that included the local
government, county floodplain manager, planning
commission, homebuilders association, and
emergency manager came together to spearhead a
process to promote development in the county while
protecting water supplies and preserving wetlands and
ponds. The partnership achieved a building standard
that allowed builders to develop their desired housing
design but also required them to build ponds and
wetlands within each housing subdivision in an effort
to sustain water supplies and allow for improved fire
protection and floodplain management. The zoning
and land use mitigation efforts promoted and
protected the health, safety, and welfare of the
residents by making the community less susceptible to
flood and fire damage.

Working as a public-private partnership enabled the
participants to reach an agreement and institutionalize
it through cooperative legal processes. Mutual
interests and priorities brought this otherwise
disparate group together to form a productive
partnership.

Partnerships are attractive when all parties benefit from the relationship. The State of Florida
established a team dedicated to business and industry. This dedicated private sector team is

Partners to Consider Engaging
 Community councils
 Volunteer organizations (e.g., local

Voluntary Organizations Active in
Disaster, Community Emergency
Response Team programs,
volunteer centers, State and County
Animal Response Teams, etc.)

 Faith-based organizations
 Individual citizens
 Community leaders (e.g.,

representatives from specific
segments of the community,
including seniors, minority
populations, and non-English
speakers)

 Disability services
 School boards
 Higher education institutions
 Local Cooperative Extension

System offices
 Animal control agencies and animal

welfare organizations
 Surplus stores
 Hardware stores
 Big-box stores
 Small, local retailers
 Supply chain components, such as

manufacturers, distributors,
suppliers, and logistics providers

 Home care services
 Medical facilities
 Government agencies (all levels and

disciplines)
 Embassies
 Local Planning Councils (e.g.,

Citizen Corps Councils, Local
Emergency Planning Committees)

 Chambers of commerce
 Nonprofit organizations
 Advocacy groups
 Media outlets
 Airports
 Public transportation systems
 Utility providers
 And many others…

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

13

composed of various state agencies/organizations and
business support organizations. The purpose of this
team is to coordinate with local, tribal, state,
territorial, and Federal agencies to provide immediate
and short-term assistance for the needs of business,
industry, and economic stabilization, as well as long-
term business recovery assistance. The private sector
team’s preparedness and response assistance may
include accessing financial, workforce, technical, and
community resources. Local jurisdictions in the state
are also incorporating this concept into their planning
processes. Such partnerships help get businesses
back up and running quickly after a disaster so they can then assist with the response and
recovery efforts.

Throughout 2011, the Miami-Dade County Department of Emergency Management, in
partnership with Communities United Coalition of Churches, the American Red Cross–South
Florida Region, FEMA, Islamic Schools of South Florida and many others, conducted a pilot
effort to identify what works and what does not work in engaging the whole community in
emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. The following seven target population groups
were chosen: low-income and disadvantaged residents, seniors, immigrants and those with
limited English-speaking abilities, those of minority faith traditions, disabled people, youth, and
the homeless. Given the size, diversity (e.g., ethnicity, religion, and age), and breadth of
experience of Miami-Dade County Emergency Management, many lessons could be learned by
focusing Whole Community efforts on this geographic area. Most notably, the pilot identified
previously unknown assets that the target population groups could bring to an emergency
situation, which resulted in the following developments:

 A network of 25 newly affiliated groups now partnering with emergency management and
the Red Cross;

 Identification of 65 houses of worship, community groups, and religious broadcasters who
can support disaster communications and language translation;

 New capacity to serve 8,000 survivors;
 Nine facilities already in the community identified as potential new sites for feeding and

sheltering; and

 Five existing facilities identified as new points of distribution for commodities.
Following the pilot and despite significant budget cuts, Miami-Dade emergency management
officials established a team of people to work over the next two years to institutionalize Whole
Community into the way the department thinks, plans, and acts.

Once partnerships have been established, relationships like the ones created in Miami-Dade can
be sustained through regular activities. Community ownership of projects will help ensure
continued involvement and progress in the future. Furthermore, engaging community members
through routine resilience-building activities, such as business continuity-related exercises, will
ensure they can be activated and sustained during emergencies.

Create Space at the Table
Open up the planning table and engage
in the processes of negotiation,
discussion, and decision making that
govern local residents under normal
conditions.
Encourage community members to
identify additional resources and
capabilities. Promote broader community
participation in planning and empower
local action to facilitate buy-in.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

14

Including partners such as representatives from for-profit and nonprofit private sector
organizations and individuals from the community in preparedness activities (e.g., emergency
management exercises) is a way to maintain momentum. One key aspect of maintaining
partnerships is to set up regular means of communication with community groups and local
leaders, such as through newsletters, meetings, or participating volunteers, to ensure that they
stay informed about and engaged in emergency management activities. The Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians sends out a monthly outreach newsletter that includes emergency
preparedness updates. Contact information is provided in the newsletter to encourage community
members to provide feedback on emergency management programs. The tribe also uses social
media applications like Twitter and Facebook to update the community on emergency
management issues and programs.

Emergency managers can continue to build and maintain partnerships that emerge during the
response phase, enabling a better response when another disaster strikes. For example, Support
Alliance for Emergency Readiness Santa Rosa (SAFER) is a network of organizations
committed to serving actively during disasters. It was developed to bring together local
businesses and faith-based and nonprofit organizations to provide more efficient service to
disaster survivors after Hurricane Ivan devastated northwest Florida. The network’s coordinating
efforts were aimed specifically at eliminating unnecessary duplication of effort.

During non-emergency periods, SAFER works closely with other agencies to address the needs
of the county’s impoverished and vulnerable populations. In connection with this, SAFER helps
families who lose their homes to fire, replenishes local food pantries, and provides cold weather
shelters to the homeless. The relationships it forms while serving community residents daily
provides the foundation for collective action when disaster strikes.

E m p o w e r L o c a l A c t i o n
Recognition that government at all levels cannot manage disasters alone means that communities
need the opportunity to draw on their full potential to operate effectively. Empowering local
action requires allowing members of the communities to lead—not follow—in identifying
priorities, organizing support, implementing programs, and evaluating outcomes. The emergency
manager promotes and coordinates, but does not direct, these conversations and efforts. Lasting
impacts of long-term capacity building can be evident in an evolving set of civic practices and
habits among leaders and the public that become embedded in the life of the community. In this
regard, the issue of social capital becomes an important part of encouraging communities to own
and lead their own resilience activities.9 Furthermore, community ownership of projects provides
a powerful incentive for sustaining action and involvement.

In May 2011, a devastating tornado struck Joplin, Missouri, leading to the development of the
Citizens Advisory Recovery Team (CART). CART is composed of city officials, business
leaders, community leaders, and residents whose shared purposes are to engage residents to
determine their recovery vision and share that vision with the community; provide a systematic
way to address recovery through a planning process; and bring all segments of the community

9 “By analogy with notions of physical capital and human capital—tools and training that enhance individual
productivity—‘social capital’ refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that
facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.” Putnam, Robert D., “Bowling Alone: America’s
Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy 6:1, Jan 1995, 65-78, p. 67.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

15

together to share information and work together.10 Shortly after the tornado, CART, with support
from FEMA’s Long-Term Recovery Task Force, Housing and Urban Development,
Environmental Protection Agency, and the American Institute of Architects, conducted extensive
public input and community sessions to discuss: housing and neighborhoods, schools and
community facilities, infrastructure and environment, and economic development. All of the
ideas and comments from these meetings were used to draft a recovery vision as well as goals
and project concepts. Recommendations were then presented to the City Council in November
2011.

Similarly, following the 2008 flood in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the city came together to identify the
capabilities of agencies and organizations that could assist with the recovery. Representatives
from state, county, and city governments, the chamber of commerce, schools, businesses, faith-
based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and neighborhood associations, many of which
were involved in the response to the flood, formed the Recovery and Reinvestment Coordinating
Team (RRCT). They explicitly forged the partnership to help create a framework for recovery
that would include the broad interests of the entire area.

The RRCT organized open houses and general public
meetings for hundreds of residents and business
owners in an effort to develop a community-wide
discussion on the priorities for long-term
revitalization and investment in the city. They also
focused the public discussions on the need to
integrate the revitalization plan with a flood
protection plan. Out of these efforts, the RRCT
established the Neighborhood Planning Process to
oversee the city’s post-flood Reinvestment and Revitalization Plan. The Reinvestment and
Revitalization Plan included area action plans, goals, timelines, and redevelopment strategies for
all ten affected neighborhoods, ultimately turning the recovery effort into an opportunity for
redesigning and revitalizing the city.

Strengthening the government’s relationship with communities should be based on support and
empowerment of local collective action, with open discussion of the roles and responsibilities of
each party. This vision should be clearly conveyed so that participating organizations can
commit adequate resources over the long term and have a clear understanding of what the
desired outcomes will be. Engaging members of communities as partners in emergency planning
is critical to developing collective actions and solutions.

Two consecutive tragedies involving youth in a city in Colorado caused community members to
recognize a need to better educate their youth on emergencies. A local fire department battalion
chief helped form a small group of volunteers from the fire and police departments, enlisted
support from a local television station’s meteorologist, and began offering clinics and classes.
Other agencies joined the effort and the group also began offering a Youth Disaster Training
program for teenagers, hoping to engage the younger population in a broader, more meaningful
experience through which emergency management skills and knowledge could easily be learned.
The organizers found that when the teen participants became involved, the program’s learning

10 Citizens Advisory Recovery Team. Listening to Joplin: Report of the Citizens Advisory Recovery Team, Nov.
2011.

Let Public Participation Lead
Enable the public to lead, not follow, in
identifying priorities, organizing support,
implementing programs, and evaluating
outcomes. Empower them to draw on
their full potential in developing collective
actions and solutions.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

16

objectives and training approach were transformed from what had initially been envisioned. The
teens rejected the program’s original logo and redesigned it to be more meaningful to their peers.
The teens also pressed for a different type of instruction. They wanted to hear from people who
had actually survived a disaster and learn what the experience was like and how the survivors
and relatives of victims felt afterward.

The Youth Disaster Training program became such a success that requests to participate quickly
outstripped the available and planned resources. Other organizations, including public school
leaders, state agencies, and other organizations, joined in. The teenagers brought their parents,
informed their friends, and participated in activities such as a career development session during
which they met emergency managers from the health, fire, and police departments, as well as the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and FEMA. As a result of the
summer program, the teenagers became empowered to voice their needs and interests and design
and implement the best ways to fulfill them.

Empowering local action is especially important in rural communities where there tends to be
less infrastructure (e.g., telecommunications, public transportation, and health services) and
where emergency managers are often part-time employees who are also responsible for areas
outside of emergency management. Rural communities understand that the social capital found
in local volunteer organizations and individuals is necessary for preparing for and responding to
unique rural threats such as agroterrorism. The Agrosecurity Committee of the Extension
Disaster Education Network (EDEN) has established the Strengthening Community
Agrosecurity Planning (S-CAP) workshop series to address challenges concerning the protection
of agriculture and the food supply. Workshop participants include a wide range of community
representatives (e.g., local emergency management and public health personnel, first responders,
veterinarians, producers/commodity representatives, and agribusinesses). They come together to
address the issues relevant to their specific agricultural vulnerabilities. The workshops help guide
local Extension personnel and other community partners in developing the agricultural
component of their local emergency operations plan to help safeguard the community’s
agriculture, food, natural resources, and pets. The workshops empower communities to build on
their capacity to handle agricultural incidents through improved networking and team building.

L e v e r a g e a n d S t r e n g t h e n S o c i a l I n f r a s t r u c t u r e , N e t w o r k s , a n d
A s s e t s
Leveraging and strengthening existing social infrastructure, networks, and assets means investing
in the social, economic, and political structures that make up daily life and connecting them to
emergency management programs. A community in general consists of an array of groups,
institutions, associations, and networks that organize and control a wide variety of assets and
structure social behaviors. Local communities have their own ways of organizing and managing
this social infrastructure. Understanding how communities operate under normal conditions (i.e.,
before a disaster) is critical to both immediate response and long-term recovery after a disaster.
Emergency managers can strengthen existing capabilities by participating in discussions and
decision-making processes that govern local residents under normal conditions and aligning
emergency management activities to support community partnerships and efforts. Emergency
managers can engage with non-traditional partners within their communities to build upon these
day-to-day functions and determine how they can be leveraged and empowered during a disaster.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

17

Communities are extremely resourceful in using what is available—in terms of funding, physical
materials, or human resources—to meet a range of day-to-day needs. Whether relying on
donations and volunteers to stock a local
food bank or mobilizing neighbors to
form “watch groups” to safeguard
children playing in public parks,
communities have a great capacity for
dealing with everyday challenges. There
are opportunities for government to
support and strengthen these pathways,
such as providing planning spaces where
people can meet and connect, providing
resources to support local activities, and
creating new partnerships to expand
shared resources. Enhancing the
successful, everyday activities in
communities will empower local
populations to define and communicate
their needs, mediate challenges and
disagreements, and participate in local
organizational decision making. As a
result, a culture of shared responsibility
and decision making emerges, linking
communities and leaders in tackling
problems of common concern.

For example, the protection and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure is a shared
responsibility involving all levels of government and critical infrastructure owners and operators.
Prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery efforts relating to the Nation’s
infrastructure are most effective when there is full participation of government and industry
partners. The mission suffers (i.e., full benefits are not realized) without the robust participation
of a wide array of partners.

Following September 11, 2001, communities discovered that partnerships with local rail
enthusiasts can help strengthen the security of the Nation’s rail network. Across the United
States, thousands of rail enthusiasts, or “rail fans,” enjoy a hobby that takes them to public spots
alongside rail yards where they watch and photograph trains. Rail fans are drawn from across a
community’s social and demographic landscape. However, the heightened security measures that
followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, resulted in law enforcement and rail
security police becoming suspicious of rail fans photographing busy locations where commuter
and freight trains clustered.

After two rail fans were detained by local police for taking pictures of trains, a public outcry
arose from rail fans online and their national associations. Across the country, rail fans insisted
that they were far from being a threat to security and were actually one of the rail network’s best
security assets because they were routinely in a position to observe suspicious behavior. A
coalition of senior police officers, rail fans, and local elected leaders convened to review and
resolve the conflict. The controversy subsided as police acknowledged the rights of rail fans to

Figure 6: Margaretville, New York, September 4, 2011—Volunteers
came to help residents remove mud and salvage belongings from
homes ruined by floodwaters on “Labor for Your Neighbor” weekend
events following Hurricane Irene. Elissa Jun/FEMA

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

18

photograph trains from public locations and the rail fans publicly embraced the need for greater
security around rail yards. Rail fans offered to help keep America’s rail network safe from
vandalism, terrorism, and other incidents by reporting situations that appeared to be out of the
ordinary.

BNSF Railway, one of the largest freight rail companies in North America, developed a
community-based rail fan reporting program called Citizens for Rail Security. This program
includes a web-based reporting system in which rail fans can enter a minimal amount of their
personal information, generate an official identification card, and receive guidelines on how to
report any suspicious activities or potential security breaches.

Experiences in Haiti after the catastrophic earthquake in 2010 also underscore the value of
leveraging existing social infrastructure. A research team that had worked for months after the
disaster identified two different types of social and organizational networks providing aid to
earthquake survivors.11 One network consisted of large relief agencies that focused on
transporting a large volume of humanitarian aid from outside the country and into the disaster
area. The second type of network involved pre-existing social groups that routinely worked with
and inside local Haitian neighborhoods to provide basic social services.

The network of large relief agencies had to create
systems and gather manpower and equipment to
distribute the aid, whereas the second group that used
pre-existing social groups already had systems,
manpower, and equipment in place. The unfamiliar
network of large relief agencies was also plagued by
aggression and theft by the locals, which the familiar
pre-existing social groups did not experience. Since the network of pre-existing social groups
routinely worked with and inside local Haitian neighborhoods to provide basic social services,
they were trusted and had detailed knowledge of local conditions, which allowed them to
anticipate local needs accurately and provide the aid required. Since they knew the actual amount
of resources needed, they did not rely on large convoys that would be tempting to vandals.

Many of the problems encountered in providing aid to Haiti resemble difficulties faced in other
large-scale emergency response operations. Problems did not occur because of an absolute
shortage of supplies or slow responses. Rather, they resulted from failures to connect with and
benefit from the strengths of existing, familiar patterns of community interaction and assistance.

One reason why local community organizations are effective during emergencies is that they are
rooted in a broad-based set of activities that address the core needs of a community. They are of,
by, and with the community. They may be, for instance, involved in feeding and sheltering the
homeless or working with children in after-school programs. They also remain visible in the
community, communicating regularly with local residents about issues of immediate concern, as
well as more distant emergency management interests.

11 Holguín-Veras, José, Ph.D., et al., “Field Investigation on the Comparative Performance of Alternative
Humanitarian Logistic Structures after the Port au Prince Earthquake: Preliminary Findings and Suggestions,”
March 2, 2011.

Strengthen Social Infrastructure
Align emergency management activities
to support the institutions, assets, and
networks that people turn to in order to
solve problems on a daily basis.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

19

P a t h w a y s f o r A c t i o n
While there are many similarities that most communities share, communities are ultimately
complex and unique. Ideas that work well in one community may not be feasible for another due
to local regulations, available funding, demographics, geography, or community culture, for
example. Some communities have fully integrated Whole Community concepts into their
operations. For other communities, this is a new concept that they are hearing about for the first
time. If this concept is familiar to you, think about what you can teach and share with others. On
the other hand, if you are looking to begin a Whole Community approach or expand existing
programs, the following questions and bullets may help get you started.

What follows are ideas and recommendations that were collected as part of the national dialogue
during facilitated group discussions with emergency management practitioners from nonprofit
organizations, academia, private sector organizations, and all levels of government. These
recommendations are by no means exhaustive, but are intended to help you think about ways in
which you can establish or broaden a Whole Community practice of emergency management
within your community.

How can we better understand the actual needs of the communities we serve?

 Educate your emergency management staff on the diversity of the community and implement
cultural competence interventions, such as establishing a relationship with a multi-lingual
volunteer to help interact with the various groups.12

 Learn the demographics of your community. Develop strategies to reach community
members and engage them in issues that are important to them.

 Know the languages and communication methods/traditions in the community—not only
what languages people speak and understand, but how they actually exchange new
information and which information sources they trust.

 Know where the real conversations and decisions are made. They are not always made at the
council level, but at venues such as the community center, neighborhood block parties, social
clubs, or places of worship. Tap into these opportunities to listen and learn more about the
community. For example, homeowner association quarterly meetings (social or formal) may
serve as opportunities to identify current community issues and concerns and to disseminate
important public information.

What partnerships might we need in order to develop an understanding of the community’s needs?

 Identify a broad base of stakeholders, including scout troops, sports clubs, home school
organizations, and faith-based and disability communities to identify where relationships can
be built and where information about the community’s needs can be shared. Partner with
groups that interact with a given population on a daily basis, such as first responders, places
of worship, niche media outlets, and other community organizations. These

12 For more information on cultural competence interventions, see Betancourt, J., et al., “Defining Cultural
Competence: A Practical Framework for Addressing Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health and Health Care,” Public
Health Reports, 2003, Vol. 118.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

20

groups/organizations have already established trust within the community and can act as
liaisons to open up communication channels.

 Every year, foreign-born residents and visitors are among those affected by disasters in our
country. Reach out to local foreign country representatives through consulates or embassies
to incorporate international partners in a Whole Community approach to domestic disasters.

How do we effectively engage the whole community in emergency management to include a wide breadth
of community members?

 Reach out and interact with your Citizen Corps Council (or similar organization) to inquire
about groups that are currently involved in emergency planning, as well as groups that are
not involved but should be. Citizen Corps Councils facilitate partnerships among government
and nongovernmental entities, including those not traditionally involved in emergency
planning and preparedness. Additionally, Councils involve community members in order to
increase coordination and collaboration between emergency management and key
stakeholders while increasing the public’s awareness of disasters.

 Strive to hire a diverse staff that is representative of the community.
 Maintain ongoing, clear, and consistent communication with all segments of the community

by using vocabulary that is understood and known by those members.

 Discuss how organizations can have a formal role in the community’s emergency plan and,
when feasible, include them in training activities and exercises.

 Use the power of social media applications (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) to disseminate
messages, create two-way information exchanges, and understand and follow up on
communication that is already happening within the community.

 Involve children and youth through educational programs and activities centered on
individual, family, and community preparedness.

 Develop recovery plans with full participation and partnership within the full fabric of the
community.

 Incorporate emergency planning discussions into the existing format of community meetings.
Multi-purpose meetings help increase participation, especially in communities where
residents must travel long distances to attend such meetings.

 Identify barriers to participation in emergency management meetings (e.g., lack of childcare
or access to transportation, and time of the meeting) and provide solutions where feasible
(e.g., provide childcare, arrange for the meeting to be held in a location accessible by public
transportation, and schedule for after-work hours).

 Consider physical, programmatic, and communication access needs of community members
with disabilities when organizing community meetings.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

21

How do we generate public interest in disaster preparedness to get a seat at the table with community
organizations?

 Integrate the public and community institutions into the planning process by hosting town
hall meetings and by participating in non-emergency management community meetings.
Listen to the public’s needs and discuss how individuals can play a role in the planning
process.

 Make yourself available for local radio call-in programs to answer questions that callers have
about emergency management and solicit input from the listeners on what they see as the top
priorities for community resilience.

 Have an open house at your emergency operations center (EOC) and invite the public. Invite
schools for field trips. Explain the equipment, organization, and coordination that are used to
help protect the community.

How can we tap into what communities are interested in to engage in discussions about increasing
resilience?

 Find local heroes and opinion leaders and learn what they are interested or involved in and
tailor emergency management materials and information to meet their interests.

 Find out what issues or challenges various groups in your community are currently
confronting, how they are organizing, and how emergency management might help them
address pressing needs.

What activities can emergency managers change or create to help strengthen what already works well in
communities?

 Understand how you can share and augment resources with partners within your community
during emergencies. For example, providing a power generator to a store that has all the
supplies the community needs but no power to stay open would be an example of a way in
which to share and augment resources.

 Work with your partner organizations to better understand the various ways they will be able
to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from threats and hazards and
supplement their activities and resources rather than compete with them.

 Identify organizations that already provide support to the community and determine how you
can supplement their efforts during times of disaster when there might be a greater need. For
example, if food banks distribute food on a regular basis, emergency managers can deliver
additional food to the food banks to help them meet a greater demand during a disaster.

 Leverage existing programs, such as the local Parent Teacher Association (PTA), to
strengthen emergency management skills in the community. Offer Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) training to PTA members.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

22

How can communities and emergency management support each other?

 Provide adequate information to organizations ahead of time so they can better prevent,
protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from threats and hazards. In return,
organizations will provide you with information on their status and ability to assist when you
need them. For this reason, ongoing multi-directional information sharing is one of the most
important aspects of maintaining your partnerships. Have regular meetings with formal and
informal community leaders and partners to maintain momentum.

 Provide support to for-profit private sector organizations in the development of business
continuity plans. Keeping businesses up and running after an event helps to stabilize a
community’s economy and promotes resiliency.

When reflecting on the previous questions and ideas, it is important to remember that one size
does not fit all. The definition of success will vary by community. Just as certain Whole
Community efforts are appropriate for some communities and not for others, every jurisdiction
has a different idea of what success means to them. Periodically assessing progress facilitates an
ongoing dialogue and helps determine if the needs of the community are being met. Whole
Community implementation requires flexibility and refinement through routine evaluation as
lessons are learned. Communities should define metrics that are meaningful to them to track
progress in the actions they choose to take toward meeting the communities’ needs.

Regardless of what stage you are at in practicing Whole Community principles, think about how
you can start or continue incorporating Whole Community principles and themes into what you
do today. Test out your ideas and discuss them with your colleagues to learn and continue the
national dialogue.

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

23

C o n c l u s i o n
FEMA began its national dialogue with a proposition: A community-centric approach for
emergency management that focuses on strengthening and leveraging what works well in
communities on a daily basis offers a more effective path to building societal security and
resilience. By focusing on core elements of successful, connected, and committed communities,
emergency management can collectively achieve better outcomes in times of crisis, while
enhancing the resilience of our communities and the Nation. The three core principles of Whole
Community—understanding and meeting the actual needs of the whole community, engaging
and empowering all parts of the community, and strengthening what works well in communities
on a daily basis—provide a foundation for pursuing a Whole Community approach to emergency
management through which security and resiliency can be attained.

Truly enhancing our Nation’s resilience to all threats and hazards will require the emergency
management community to transform the way the emergency management team thinks about,
plans for, and responds to incidents in such a way to support community resilience. It takes all
aspects of a community to effectively prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover
from threats and hazards. It is critical that individuals take responsibility for their own self-
preparedness efforts and that the community members work together to develop the collective
capacity needed to enhance their community’s security and resilience.

Building community resilience in this manner requires emergency management practitioners to
effectively engage with and holistically plan for the needs of the whole community. This
includes but is not limited to accommodating people who speak languages other than English,
those from diverse cultures or economic backgrounds, people of all ages (i.e., from children and
youth to seniors), people with disabilities and other access and functional needs, and populations
traditionally underrepresented in civic governance. At the same time, it is important to realign
emergency management practices to support local needs and work to strengthen the institutions,
assets, and networks that work well in communities on a daily basis.

To that end, FEMA will continue its national dialogue to exchange ideas, recommendations, and
success stories. FEMA also intends to develop additional materials for emergency managers that
will support the adoption of the Whole Community concept at the local level. As part of this
ongoing dialogue, reactions and feedback to the Whole Community concept presented in this
document can be sent to FEMA-Community-Engagement@fema.gov.

This document is just a start. It will take time to transform the way the Nation thinks about,
prepares for, and responds to disasters. FEMA recognizes that the challenges faced by the
communities it serves are constantly evolving; as an Agency, it will always need to adapt, often
at a moment’s notice. This shift in the Nation’s approach to addressing the needs of survivors is
vital in keeping people and communities safe and in preventing the loss of life and property from
all threats and hazards. The Whole Community themes described in this document provide a
starting point to help emergency managers, as members of their communities, address the
challenge. However, it will require the commitment of members of the entire community—from
government agencies to local residents—to continue learning together.

mailto:FEMA-Community-Engagement@fema.gov

A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action

24

This page intentionally left blank.

Introduction
National Dialogue on a Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management
Whole Community Defined
Whole Community Principles and Strategic Themes
Strategic Themes in Practice
Understand Community Complexity
Recognize Community Capabilities and Needs
Foster Relationships with Community Leaders
Build and Maintain Partnerships
Empower Local Action
Leverage and Strengthen Social Infrastructure, Networks, and Assets
Pathways for Action
Conclusion

National Response

Framework

Third Edition
June 2016

National Response Framework

i

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y
The National Response Framework is a guide to how the Nation responds to all types of disasters and
emergencies. It is built on scalable, flexible, and adaptable concepts identified in the National
Incident Management System to align key roles and responsibilities across the Nation. This
Framework describes specific authorities and best practices for managing incidents that range from
the serious but purely local to large-scale terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters. The
National Response Framework describes the principles, roles and responsibilities, and coordinating
structures for delivering the core capabilities required to respond to an incident and further describes
how response efforts integrate with those of the other mission areas. This Framework is always in
effect and describes the doctrine under which the Nation responds to incidents. The structures,
roles, and responsibilities described in this Framework can be partially or fully implemented in the
context of a threat or hazard, in anticipation of a significant event, or in response to an incident.
Selective implementation of National Response Framework structures and procedures allows for a
scaled response, delivery of the specific resources and capabilities, and a level of coordination
appropriate to each incident.

The Response mission area focuses on ensuring that the Nation is able to respond effectively to all
types of incidents that range from those that are adequately handled with local assets to those of
catastrophic proportion that require marshaling the capabilities of the entire Nation. The objectives of
the Response mission area define the capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the
environment, meet basic human needs, stabilize the incident, restore basic services and community
functionality, and establish a safe and secure environment to facilitate the integration of recovery
activities.1 The Response mission area includes 15 core capabilities: planning; public information
and warning; operational coordination; critical transportation; environmental response/health and
safety; fatality management services; fire management and suppression; infrastructure systems;
logistics and supply chain management; mass care services; mass search and rescue operations; on-
scene security, protection, and law enforcement; operational communications; public health,
healthcare, and emergency medical services; and situational assessment.

The priorities of the Response mission area are to save lives, protect property and the environment,
stabilize the incident, and provide for basic human needs. The following principles establish
fundamental doctrine for the Response mission area: engaged partnership; tiered response; scalable,
flexible, and adaptable operational capabilities; unity of effort through unified command; and
readiness to act.

Scalable, flexible, and adaptable coordinating structures are essential in aligning the key roles and
responsibilities to deliver the Response mission area’s core capabilities. The flexibility of such
structures helps ensure that communities across the country can organize response efforts to address
a variety of risks based on their unique needs, capabilities, demographics, governing structures, and
non-traditional partners. This Framework is not based on a one-size-fits-all organizational construct,
but instead acknowledges the concept of tiered response, which emphasizes that response to incidents
should be handled at the lowest jurisdictional level capable of handling the mission.

1 As with all activities in support of the National Preparedness Goal, activities taken under the response mission
must be consistent with all pertinent statutes and policies, particularly those involving privacy and civil and human
rights, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Civil Rights Act of
1964.

National Response Framework

ii

In implementing the National Response Framework to build national preparedness, partners are
encouraged to develop a shared understanding of broad-level strategic implications as they make
critical decisions in building future capacity and capability. The whole community should be
engaged in examining and implementing the strategy and doctrine contained in this Framework,
considering both current and future requirements in the process.

National Response Framework

iii

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

Introduction

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

1

Framework Purpose and Organization ………………………………………………………………………1
Evolution of the Framework ………………………………………………………………………………………3
Relationship to NIMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Intended Audience …………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Scope

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Guiding Principles …………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Risk Basis ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7

Roles and Responsibilities

………………………………………………………………………………. 8
Individuals, Families, and Households ……………………………………………………………………….8
Communities ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
Nongovernmental Organizations ………………………………………………………………………………..9
Private Sector Entities ……………………………………………………………………………………………..10
Local Governments ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
State, Tribal, Territorial, and Insular Area Governments …………………………………………12
Federal Government ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

15

Core Capabilities

…………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
Context of the Response Mission Area………………………………………………………………………20
Response Actions to Deliver Core Capabilities ………………………………………………………….28

Coordinating Structures and Integration

………………………………………………………… 32
Local Coordinating Structures …………………………………………………………………………………32
State and Territorial Coordinating Structures ………………………………………………………….32
Tribal Coordinating Structures ………………………………………………………………………………..32
Private Sector Coordinating Structures ……………………………………………………………………33
Federal Coordinating Structures………………………………………………………………………………33
Operational Coordination ………………………………………………………………………………………..39
Integration ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………45

National Response Framework

iv

Relationship to Other Mission Areas

………………………………………………………………. 47

Operational Planning

…………………………………………………………………………………….. 47
Response Operational Planning ……………………………………………………………………………….48
Planning Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………..51
Framework Application …………………………………………………………………………………………..51

Supporting Resources

…………………………………………………………………………………… 51

Conclusion

……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 52

National Response Framework
1

I n t r o d u c t i o n
The National Preparedness System outlines an organized process for the whole community to move
forward with their preparedness activities and achieve the National Preparedness Goal. The National
Preparedness System integrates efforts across the five preparedness mission areas—Prevention,
Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery—in order to achieve the goal of a secure and
resilient Nation. The National Response Framework (NRF), part of the National Preparedness
System, sets the strategy and doctrine for how the whole community builds, sustains, and delivers the
Response core capabilities identified in the National Preparedness Goal in an integrated manner with
the other mission areas. This third edition of the NRF reflects the insights and lessons learned from
real-world incidents and the implementation of the National Preparedness System.

Prevention: The capabilities necessary to avoid, prevent, or stop a threatened or actual
act of terrorism. Within the context of national preparedness, the term “prevention” refers
to preventing imminent threats.

Protection: The capabilities necessary to secure the homeland against acts of terrorism
and manmade or natural disasters.

Mitigation: The capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and property by lessening
the impact of disasters.

Response: The capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the
environment, and meet basic human needs after an incident has occurred.

Recovery: The capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by an incident to
recover effectively.

F r a m e w o r k P u r p o s e a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n
The NRF is a guide to how the Nation responds to all types of disasters and emergencies. It is built
on scalable, flexible, and adaptable concepts identified in the National Incident Management System
(NIMS)2 to align key roles and responsibilities across the Nation. The NRF describes specific
authorities and best practices for managing incidents that range from the serious but purely local to
large-scale terrorist attacks or catastrophic3 natural disasters.

This document supersedes the NRF that was issued in May 2013. It becomes effective
60 days after publication.

The term “response,” as used in the NRF, includes actions to save lives, protect property and the
environment, stabilize communities, and meet basic human needs following an incident. Response
also includes the execution of emergency plans and actions to support short-term recovery. The NRF
describes doctrine for managing any type of disaster or emergency regardless of scale, scope, and
complexity. This Framework explains common response disciplines and processes that have been

2 http://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system
3 A catastrophic incident is defined as any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, that results in
extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure,
environment, economy, national morale, or government functions.

http://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system

National Response Framework

2

developed at all levels of government (local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area,4 and Federal) and
have matured over time.

To support the Goal, the objectives of the NRF are to:

 Describe scalable, flexible, and adaptable coordinating structures, as well as key roles and
responsibilities for integrating capabilities across the whole community,5 to support the efforts of
local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments in responding to actual and
potential incidents.

 Describe, across the whole community, the steps needed to prepare for delivering the response
core capabilities.

 Foster integration and coordination of activities within the Response mission area.

 Outline how the Response mission area relates to the other mission areas, as well as the
relationship between the Response core capabilities and the core capabilities in other mission
areas.

 Provide guidance through doctrine and establish the foundation for the development of the
Response Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP).

 Incorporate continuity operations and planning to facilitate the performance of response core
capabilities during all hazards emergencies or other situations that may disrupt normal
operations.

The NRF is composed of a base document, Emergency Support Function (ESF) Annexes, and
Support Annexes. The annexes provide detailed information to assist with the implementation of the
NRF.

 ESF Annexes describe the Federal coordinating structures that group resources and capabilities
into functional areas that are most frequently needed in a national response.

 Support Annexes describe the essential supporting processes and considerations that are most
common to the majority of incidents.

Note that the incident annexes, which address response to specific risks and hazards, can now be
found as annexes to the Response FIOP rather than as supplements to the NRF. This change is
consistent with guidance in the National Preparedness System.

4 Per the Stafford Act, insular areas include Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American
Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Other statutes or departments and agencies may define the term insular area
differently.
5 Whole community includes individuals and communities, the private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based
organizations, and all levels of government (local, regional/metropolitan, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and
Federal). Whole community is defined in the National Preparedness Goal as “a focus on enabling the participation in
national preparedness activities of a wider range of players from the private and nonprofit sectors, including
nongovernmental organizations and the general public, in conjunction with the participation of all levels of
governmental in order to foster better coordination and working relationships.” The National Preparedness Goal may
be found online at http://www.fema.gov.

http://www.fema.gov/

National Response Framework

3

Figure 1: NRF and FIOP Structure

E v o l u t i o n o f t h e F r a m e w o r k
The NRF builds on over 20 years of Federal response guidance beginning with the Federal Response
Plan published in 1992, which focused largely on Federal roles and responsibilities. The
establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the emphasis on the development
and implementation of common incident management and response principles led to the development
of the National Response Plan (NRP) in 2004. The NRP broke new ground by integrating all levels
of government, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) into a common
incident management framework. In 2008, the NRP was superseded by the first NRF, which
streamlined the guidance and integrated lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and other incidents.

This NRF reiterates the principles and concepts of the 2013 version of the NRF and implements the
new requirements and terminology of the National Preparedness System. By fostering a holistic
approach to response, this NRF emphasizes the need for the involvement of the whole community.
Along with the National Planning Frameworks for other mission areas, this document now describes
the all-important integration and inter-relationships among the mission areas of Prevention,
Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery.

R e l a t i o n s h i p t o N I M S
The response protocols and structures described in the NRF align with NIMS. NIMS provides the
incident management basis for the NRF and defines standard command and management structures.
Standardizing national response doctrine on NIMS provides a consistent, nationwide template to
enable the whole community to work together to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and
recover from the effects of incidents regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity.

All of the components of the NIMS—including preparedness, communications and information
management, resource management, and command and management—support response. The NIMS
concepts of multiagency coordination and unified command are described in the command and
management component of NIMS. These two concepts are essential to effective response operations

National Response Framework

4

because they address the importance of: (1) developing a single set of objectives, (2) using a
collective, strategic approach, (3) improving information flow and coordination, (4) creating a
common understanding of joint priorities and limitations, (5) ensuring that no agency’s legal
authorities are compromised or neglected, and (6) optimizing the combined efforts of all participants
under a single plan.

I n t e n d e d A u d i e n c e
Although the NRF is intended to provide guidance for the whole community, it focuses especially on
the needs of those who are involved in delivering and applying the response core capabilities defined
in the National Preparedness Goal. This includes emergency management practitioners, first
responders, community leaders, and government officials who must collectively understand and
assess the needs of their respective communities and organizations and determine the best ways to
organize and strengthen their resilience.

The NRF is intended to be used by the whole community. The whole community includes
individuals, families, households, communities, the private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based
organizations, and local, state, tribal, territorial, and Federal governments. This all-inclusive
approach focuses efforts and enables a full range of stakeholders to participate in national
preparedness activities and to be full partners in incident response. Government resources alone
cannot meet all the needs of those affected by major disasters. All elements of the community must
be activated, engaged, and integrated to respond to a major or catastrophic incident.

Engaging the whole community, particularly with regards to developing individual and community
preparedness, is essential to the Nation’s success in achieving resilience and national preparedness.
By providing equal access to acquire and use the necessary knowledge and skills, this Framework is
intended to enable the whole community to contribute to and benefit from national preparedness.
This includes children6; older adults; individuals with disabilities and others with access and
functional needs7; those from religious, racial, and ethnically diverse backgrounds; people with
limited English proficiency; and owners of animals, including household pets and service and
assistance animals. Their contributions must be integrated into the Nation’s efforts, and their needs
must be incorporated as the whole community plans and executes the core capabilities.8

S c o p e
The NRF describes structures for implementing nationwide response policy and operational
coordination for all types of domestic incidents.9 This section describes the scope of the Response

6 Children require a unique set of considerations across the core capabilities contained within this document. Their
needs must be taken into consideration as part of any integrated planning effort.
7 Access and functional needs refers to persons who may have additional needs before, during and after an incident
in functional areas, including but not limited to: maintaining health, independence, communication, transportation,
support, services, self-determination, and medical care. Individuals in need of additional response assistance may
include those who have disabilities; live in institutionalized settings; are older adults; are children; are from diverse
cultures; have limited English proficiency or are non-English speaking; or are transportation disadvantaged.
8 For further information, see the Core Capabilities section.
9 A domestic incident may have international and diplomatic impacts and implications that call for coordination and
consultations with foreign governments and international organizations. The NRF also applies to the domestic
response to incidents of foreign origin that impact the United States. See the International Coordination Support
Annex for more information.

National Response Framework

5

mission area, the guiding principles of response doctrine and their application, and how risk informs
response planning.

The Response mission area focuses on ensuring that the Nation is able to respond effectively to all
types of incidents that range from those that are adequately handled with local assets to those of
catastrophic proportion that require marshaling the capabilities of the entire Nation. The objectives of
the Response mission area define the capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the
environment, meet basic human needs, stabilize the incident, restore basic services and community
functionality, and establish a safe and secure environment to facilitate the integration of recovery
activities.10

The NRF describes the principles, roles and responsibilities, and coordinating structures for
delivering the core capabilities required to respond to any incident and further describes how
response efforts integrate with those of the other mission areas. The NRF is always in effect, and
elements can be implemented at any time. The structures, roles, and responsibilities described in
the NRF can be partially or fully implemented in the context of a threat or hazard, in anticipation of a
significant event, or in response to an incident. Selective implementation of NRF structures and
procedures allows for a scaled response, delivery of the specific resources and capabilities, and a
level of coordination appropriate to each incident.

In this Framework, the term ‘incident’ includes actual or potential emergencies and disasters
resulting from all types of threats and hazards, ranging from accidents and natural disasters to cyber
intrusions and terrorist attacks. The NRF’s structures and procedures address how Federal
departments and agencies coordinate support for local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area
governments.

Nothing in the NRF is intended to alter or impede the ability of any local, state, tribal, territorial,
insular area, or Federal government department or agency to carry out its authorities or meet its
responsibilities under applicable laws, executive orders, and directives.

G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s
The priorities of response are to save lives, protect property and the environment, stabilize the
incident, and provide for basic human needs. The following principles establish fundamental doctrine
for the Response mission area: (1) engaged partnership, (2) tiered response, (3) scalable, flexible, and
adaptable operational capabilities, (4) unity of effort through unified command, and (5) readiness to
act. These principles are rooted in the Federal system and the Constitution’s division of
responsibilities between state and Federal governments. These principles reflect the history of
emergency management and the distilled wisdom of responders and leaders across the whole
community.

Engaged Partnership
Effective partnership relies on engaging all elements of the whole community, as well as
international partners in some cases. This also includes survivors who may require assistance and
who may also be resources to support community response and recovery.

10 As with all activities in support of the National Preparedness Goal, activities taken under the response mission
must be consistent with all pertinent statutes and policies, particularly those involving privacy and civil and human
rights, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Civil Rights Act of
1964.

National Response Framework

6

Those who lead emergency response efforts must communicate and support engagement with the
whole community by developing shared goals and aligning capabilities to reduce the risk of any
jurisdiction being overwhelmed in times of crisis. Layered, mutually supporting capabilities of
individuals, communities, the private sector, NGOs, and governments at all levels allow for
coordinated planning in times of calm and effective response in times of crisis. Engaged partnership
and coalition building includes ongoing clear, consistent, accessible, effective,11 and culturally and
linguistically appropriate communication and shared situational awareness about an incident to
ensure an appropriate response.

Tiered Response
Most incidents begin and end locally and are managed at the local or tribal level. These incidents
may require a unified response from local agencies, the private sector, and NGOs. Some may require
additional support from neighboring jurisdictions or state governments. A smaller number of
incidents require Federal support or are led by the Federal Government.12 National response
protocols are structured to provide tiered levels of support when additional resources or capabilities
are needed.

Scalable, Flexible, and Adaptable Operational Capabilities
As incidents change in size, scope, and complexity, response efforts must adapt to meet evolving
requirements. The number, type, and sources of resources must be able to expand rapidly to meet the
changing needs associated with a given incident and its cascading effects. As needs grow and change,
response processes must remain nimble and adaptable. The structures and processes described in the
NRF must be able to surge resources from the whole community. As incidents stabilize, response
efforts must be flexible to facilitate the integration of recovery activities.

Unity of Effort through Unified Command
Effective, unified command is indispensable to response activities and requires a clear understanding
of the roles and responsibilities of all participating organizations.13 The Incident Command System
(ICS), a component of NIMS, is an important element in ensuring interoperability across multi-
jurisdictional or multiagency incident management activities. Unified command, a central tenet of
ICS, enables organizations with jurisdictional authority or functional responsibility for an incident to
support each other through the use of mutually developed incident objectives. Each participating
agency maintains its own authority, responsibility, and accountability.

11 Information, warnings, and communications associated with emergency management must ensure effective
communication, such as through the use of appropriate auxiliary aids and services (e.g., interpreters, captioning,
alternate format documents) for individuals with disabilities, and provide meaningful access to limited English
proficient individuals.
12 Certain incidents such as a pandemic or cyber event may not be limited to a specific geographic area and may be
managed at the local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, or Federal level depending on the nature of the incident.
13 The ICS’s “unified command” concept is distinct from the military use of this term. Concepts of “command” and
“unity of command” have distinct legal and cultural meanings for military forces and military operations. Military
forces always remain under the control of the military chain of command and are subject to redirection or recall at
any time. Military forces do not operate under the command of the incident commander or under the unified
command structure, but they do coordinate with response partners and work toward a unity of effort while
maintaining their internal chain of command.

National Response Framework

7

Readiness to Act
Effective response requires a readiness to act that is balanced with an understanding of the risks and
hazards responders face. From individuals and communities to the private and nonprofit sectors,
faith-based organizations, and all levels of government (local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area,
and Federal), national response depends on the ability to act decisively. A forward-leaning posture is
imperative for incidents that may expand rapidly in size, scope, or complexity, as well as incidents
that occur without warning. Decisive action is often required to save lives and protect property and
the environment. Although some risk to responders may be unavoidable, all response personnel are
responsible for anticipating and managing risk through proper planning, organizing, equipping,
training, and exercising.

R i s k B a s i s
The NRF leverages the results of the Strategic National Risk Assessment (SNRA), contained in the
second edition of the National Preparedness Goal, to build and deliver the response core capabilities.
The results indicate that a wide range of threats and hazards continue to pose a significant risk to the
Nation, affirming the need for an all-hazards, capability-based approach to preparedness planning.
The results contained in the Goal include:

 Natural hazards, including hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, drought, wildfires, winter storms,
and floods, present a significant and varied risk across the country. Climate change has the
potential to cause the consequence of weather-related hazards to become more severe.

 A virulent strain of pandemic influenza could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, affect
millions more, and result in economic loss. Additional human and animal infectious diseases,
including those undiscovered, may present significant risks.

 Technological and accidental hazards, such as transportation system failures, dam failures, or
chemical spills or releases, have the potential to cause extensive fatalities and severe economic
impacts. In addition, these hazards may increase due to aging infrastructure.

 Terrorist organizations or affiliates may seek to acquire, build, and use weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). Conventional terrorist attacks, including those by “lone actors” employing
physical threats such as explosives and armed attacks, present a continued risk to the Nation.

 Cybersecurity threats exploit the increased complexity and connectivity of critical infrastructure
systems, placing the Nation’s security, economy, and public safety and health at risk. Malicious
cyber activity can have catastrophic consequences, which in turn, can lead to other hazards, such
as power grid failures or financial system failures. These cascading hazards increase the potential
impact of cyber incidents.

 Some incidents, such as explosives attacks or earthquakes, generally cause more localized
impacts, while other incidents, such as human pandemics, may cause impacts that are dispersed
throughout the Nation, thus creating different types of impacts for planners to consider.

No single threat or hazard exists in isolation. As an example, a hurricane can lead to flooding, dam
failures, and hazardous materials spills. The Framework, therefore, focuses on core capabilities that
can be applied to deal with cascading effects. Since many incidents occur with little or no warning,
these capabilities must be able to be delivered in a no-notice environment.

Effective continuity planning helps to ensure the uninterrupted ability to engage partners; respond
appropriately with scaled, flexible, and adaptable operational capabilities; specify succession to

National Response Framework

8

office and delegations of authority to protect the unity of effort and command; and to account for the
availability of responders regardless of the threat or hazard.

In order to establish the basis for these capabilities, planning factors drawn from a number of
different scenarios are used to develop the Response FIOP, which supplements the NRF. Refer to the
Operational Planning section for additional details on planning assumptions.

R o l e s a n d R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
Effective response depends on integration of the whole community and all partners executing their
roles and responsibilities. This section describes those roles and responsibilities and sharpens the
focus on identifying who is involved with the Response mission area. It also addresses what the
various partners must do to deliver the response core capabilities and to integrate successfully with
the Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, and Recovery mission areas.

An effective, unified national response requires layered, mutually supporting capabilities. Individuals
and communities, the private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based organizations, and all levels of
government (local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal) should each understand their
respective roles and responsibilities and how to complement each other in achieving shared goals. All
elements of the whole community play prominent roles in developing the core capabilities needed to
respond to incidents. This includes developing plans, conducting assessments and exercises,
providing and directing resources and capabilities, and gathering lessons learned. These activities
require that all partners understand how they fit within and are supported by the structures described
in the NRF.

Emergency management staff in all jurisdictions have a fundamental responsibility to consider the
needs of all members of the whole community. The potential contributions of all these individuals
toward delivering core capabilities during incident response (e.g., through associations and alliances
that serve the people identified above) should be incorporated into planning efforts.

Emergency management staff must also consider those who own or have responsibility for animals,
both as members of the community who may be affected by incidents and as a potential means of
supporting response efforts. This includes those with household pets, service and assistance animals,
working dogs, and agricultural animals/livestock, as well as those who have responsibility for
wildlife, exotic animals, zoo animals, research animals, and animals housed in shelters, rescue
organizations, breeding facilities, and sanctuaries.

I n d i v i d u a l s , F a m i l i e s , a n d H o u s e h o l d s
Although not formally part of emergency management operations, individuals, families, and
households play an important role in emergency preparedness and response. By reducing hazards in
and around their homes by efforts such as raising utilities above flood level or securing unanchored
objects against the threat of high winds, individuals reduce potential emergency response
requirements. Individuals, families, and households should also prepare emergency supply kits and
emergency plans, so they can take care of themselves and their neighbors until assistance arrives.
Information on emergency preparedness can be found at many community, state, and Federal
emergency management Web sites, such as http://www.ready.gov.

Individuals can also contribute to the preparedness and resilience of their households and
communities by volunteering with emergency organizations (e.g., the local chapter of the American
Red Cross, Medical Reserve Corps, or Community Emergency Response Teams [CERT]) and
completing emergency response training courses. Individuals, families, and households should make

http://www.ready.gov/

National Response Framework

9

preparations with family members who have access and functional needs or medical needs. Their
plans should also include provisions for their animals, including household pets or service and
assistance animals. During an actual disaster, emergency, or threat, individuals, households, and
families should monitor emergency communications and follow guidance and instructions provided
by local authorities.

C o m m u n i t i e s
Communities are groups that share goals, values, and institutions. They are not always bound by
geographic boundaries or political divisions. Instead, they may be faith-based organizations,
neighborhood partnerships, advocacy groups, academia, social and community groups, and
associations. Communities bring people together in different ways for different reasons, but each
provides opportunities for sharing information and promoting collective action. Engaging these
groups in preparedness efforts, particularly at the local and state levels, is important to identifying
their needs and taking advantage of their potential contributions.

N o n g o v e r n m e n t a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s
NGOs play vital roles at the local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and national levels in
delivering important services, including those associated with the response core capabilities. NGOs
include voluntary, racial and ethnic, faith-based, veteran-based, and nonprofit organizations that
provide sheltering, emergency food supplies, and other essential support services. NGOs are
inherently independent and committed to specific interests and values. These interests and values
drive the groups’ operational priorities and shape the resources they provide. NGOs bolster
government efforts at all levels and often provide specialized services to the whole community.
NGOs are key partners in preparedness activities and response operations.

Examples of NGO contributions include:

 Training, management, and coordination of volunteers and donated goods.
 Identifying and communicating physically accessible shelter locations and needed supplies to

support people displaced by an incident.

 Providing emergency commodities and services, such as water, food, shelter, assistance with
family reunification, clothing, and supplies for post-emergency cleanup.

 Supporting the evacuation, rescue, care, and sheltering of animals displaced by the incident.
 Providing search and rescue, transportation, and logistics services and support.
 Identifying those whose needs have not been met and helping to provide assistance.
 Providing health, medical, mental health, and behavioral health resources.
 Assisting, coordinating, and providing assistance to individuals with access and functional needs.
At the same time when NGOs support response core capabilities, they may also require government
assistance. When planning for local community emergency management resources, government
organizations should consider the potential need to better enable NGOs to perform their essential
response functions.

Some NGOs are officially designated as support elements to national response capabilities:

 The American Red Cross. The American Red Cross is chartered by Congress to provide relief
to survivors of disasters and help people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies. The

National Response Framework

10

Red Cross has a legal status of “a federal instrumentality” and maintains a special relationship
with the Federal Government. In this capacity, the American Red Cross supports several ESFs
and the delivery of multiple core capabilities.

 National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (National VOAD).14 National VOAD is
the forum where organizations share knowledge and resources throughout the disaster cycle—
preparation, response, recovery, and mitigation—to help disaster survivors and their
communities. National VOAD is a consortium of approximately 50 national organizations and 55
territorial and state equivalents.

 Volunteers and Donations. Incident response operations frequently exceed the resources of
government organizations. Volunteers and donors support response efforts in many ways, and
governments at all levels must plan ahead to incorporate volunteers and donated resources into
response activities. The goal of volunteer and donations management is to support jurisdictions
affected by disasters through close collaboration with the voluntary organizations and agencies.
The objective is to manage the influx of volunteers and donations to voluntary agencies and all
levels of government before, during, and after an incident. Additional information may be found
in the Volunteers and Donations Management Support Annex.

 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). Within the NCMEC, the
National Emergency Child Locator Center (NECLC) facilitates the expeditious identification and
reunification of children with their families.

P r i v a t e S e c t o r E n t i t i e s
Private sector organizations contribute to response efforts through partnerships with each level of
government. They play key roles before, during, and after incidents. Private sector entities include
large, medium, and small businesses; commerce, private cultural and educational institutions; and
industry; as well as public/private partnerships that have been established specifically for emergency
management purposes. During an incident, key private sector partners should have a direct link to
emergency managers and, in some cases, be involved in the decision making process. Strong
integration into response efforts can offer many benefits to both the public and private sectors.

Private sector organizations may be affected by direct or indirect consequences of an incident. Such
organizations include entities that are significant to local, regional, and national economic recovery
from an incident. Examples include major employers and suppliers of key commodities or services.
As key elements of the national economy, it is important for private sector organizations of all types
and sizes to take every precaution necessary to boost resilience, the better to stay in business or
resume normal operations quickly.

Unique private sector organizations including critical infrastructure and regulated entities may
require additional efforts to promote resilience. Critical infrastructure—such as privately owned
transportation and transit, telecommunications, utilities, financial institutions, hospitals, and other
health regulated facilities—should have effective business continuity plans.

Owners/operators of certain regulated facilities or hazardous operations may be legally responsible
for preparing for and preventing incidents and responding when an incident occurs. For example,
Federal regulations require owners/operators of nuclear power plants to maintain emergency plans
and to perform assessments, notifications, and training for incident response.

14 Additional information is available at http://www.nvoad.org.

Homepage

National Response Framework

11

Private sector entities may serve as partners in state and local emergency preparedness and response
organizations and activities and with Federal sector-specific agencies. Private sector entities often
participate in state and local preparedness activities by providing resources (donated or compensated)
during an incident—including specialized teams, essential services, equipment, and advanced
technologies—through local public-private emergency plans or mutual aid and assistance agreements
or in response to requests from government and nongovernmental-volunteer initiatives.

A fundamental responsibility of private sector organizations is to provide for the welfare of their
employees in the workplace. In addition, some businesses play an essential role in protecting critical
infrastructure systems and implementing plans for the rapid reestablishment of normal commercial
activities and critical infrastructure operations following a disruption. In many cases, private sector
organizations have immediate access to commodities and services that can support incident response,
making them key potential contributors of resources necessary to deliver the core capabilities. How
the private sector participates in response activities varies based on the type of organization and the
nature of the incident.

Examples of key private sector activities include:

 Addressing the response needs of employees, infrastructure,

and facilities.

 Protecting information and maintaining the continuity of business operations.
 Planning for, responding to, and recovering from incidents that impact their own infrastructure

and facilities.

 Collaborating with emergency management personnel to determine what assistance may be
required and how they can provide needed support.

 Contributing to communication and information-sharing efforts during incidents.
 Planning, training, and exercising their response capabilities.
 Providing assistance specified under mutual aid and assistance agreements.
 Contributing resources, personnel, and expertise; helping to shape objectives; and receiving

information about the status of the community.

L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t s
The responsibility for responding to natural and manmade incidents that have recognizable
geographic boundaries generally begins at the local level with individuals and public officials in the
county, parish, city, or town affected by an incident. The following paragraphs describe the
responsibilities of specific local officials who have emergency management responsibilities.

Chief Elected or Appointed Official
Jurisdictional chief executives are responsible for the public safety and welfare of the people of their
jurisdiction. These officials provide strategic guidance and resources across all five mission areas.
Chief elected or appointed officials must have a clear understanding of their emergency management
roles and responsibilities and how to apply the response core capabilities as they may need to make
decisions regarding resources and operations during an incident. Lives may depend on their
decisions. Elected and appointed officials also routinely shape or modify laws, policies, and budgets
to aid preparedness efforts and improve emergency management and response capabilities. The local
chief executive’s response duties may include:

 Obtaining assistance from other governmental agencies.

National Response Framework

12

 Providing direction for response activities.
 Ensuring appropriate information is provided to the public.

Emergency Manager
The jurisdiction’s emergency manager oversees the day-to-day emergency management programs
and activities. The emergency manager works with chief elected and appointed officials to establish
unified objectives regarding the jurisdiction’s emergency plans and activities. This role entails
coordinating and integrating all elements of the community. The emergency manager coordinates the
local emergency management program. This includes assessing the capacity and readiness to deliver
the capabilities most likely required during an incident and identifying and correcting any shortfalls.
The local emergency manager’s duties often include:

 Advising elected and appointed officials during a response.
 Conducting response operations in accordance with the NIMS.
 Coordinating the functions of local agencies.
 Coordinating the development of plans and working cooperatively with other local agencies,

community organizations, private sector entities, and NGOs.

 Developing and maintaining mutual aid and assistance agreements.
 Coordinating resource requests during an incident through the management of an emergency

operations center.

 Coordinating damage assessments

during an incident.

 Advising and informing local officials and the public about emergency management activities

during an incident.

 Developing and executing accessible public awareness and education programs.
 Conducting exercises to test plans and systems and obtain lessons learned.
 Coordinating integration of the rights of individuals with disabilities, individuals from racially

and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and others with access and functional needs into emergency
planning and response.

 Helping to ensure the continuation of essential services and functions through the development
and implementation of continuity of operations plans.

Other Local Departments and Agencies
Department and agency heads collaborate with the emergency manager during the development of
local emergency plans and provide key response resources. Participation in the planning process
helps to ensure that specific capabilities are integrated into a workable plan to safeguard the
community. These department and agency heads and their staffs develop, plan, and train on internal
policies and procedures to meet response needs safely. They also participate in interagency training
and exercises to develop and maintain necessary capabilities.

S t a t e , T r i b a l , T e r r i t o r i a l , a n d I n s u l a r A r e a G o v e r n m e n t s
State, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments are responsible for the health and welfare of
their residents, communities, lands, and cultural heritage.

National Response Framework

13

States
State governments15 supplement local efforts before, during, and after incidents by applying in-state
resources first. If a state anticipates that its resources may be exceeded, the governor16 may request
assistance from other states or the Federal Government through a Stafford Act Declaration.

The following paragraphs describe some of the relevant roles and responsibilities of key officials.

Governor
The public safety and welfare of a state’s residents are the fundamental responsibilities of every
governor. The governor coordinates state resources and provides the strategic guidance for response
to all types of incidents. This includes supporting local governments as needed and coordinating
assistance with other states and the Federal Government. A governor also:

 In accordance with state law, may make, amend, or suspend certain orders or regulations
associated with response.

 Communicates to the public, in an accessible manner (e.g., effective communications to address
all members of the whole community), and helps people, businesses, and organizations cope with
the consequences of any type of incident.

 Coordinates with tribal governments within the state.

 Commands the state military forces (National Guard personnel not in Federal service and state
militias).

 Coordinates assistance from other states through interstate mutual aid and assistance agreements,
such as the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC).17

State Homeland Security Advisor
Many states have designated homeland security advisors who serve as counsel to the governor on
homeland security issues and may serve as a liaison between the governor’s office, the state
homeland security structure, and other organizations both inside and outside of the state. The advisor
often chairs a committee composed of representatives of relevant state agencies, including public
safety, the National Guard, emergency management, public health, environment, agriculture, and
others charged with developing prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery strategies.

State Emergency Management Agency Director
All states have laws mandating the establishment of a state emergency management agency, as well
as the emergency plans coordinated by that agency. The director of the state emergency management
agency is responsible for ensuring that the state is prepared to deal with large-scale emergencies and

15 States are sovereign entities, and the governor has responsibility for public safety and welfare. Although U.S.
territories, possessions, freely associated states, and tribal governments also have sovereign rights, there are unique
factors involved in working with these entities. Federal assistance is available to states and to the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. Federal disaster preparedness, response, and recovery assistance is available to the Federated States
of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands pursuant to Compacts of Free Association. The extent to
which Federal response or assistance is provided to tribes, territories, and insular areas under other Federal laws is
defined in those laws and supporting regulations.
16 “Governor” is used throughout this document to refer to the chief executive of states, territories, and insular areas.
17 A reference paper on EMAC is available at http://www.emacweb.org.

http://www.emacweb.org/

National Response Framework

14

coordinating the statewide response to any such incident. This includes supporting local and tribal
governments as needed, coordinating assistance with other states and the Federal Government, and,
in some cases, with NGOs and private sector organizations. The state emergency management
agency may dispatch personnel to assist in the response and recovery effort.

National Guard
The National Guard is an important state and Federal resource available for planning, preparing, and
responding to natural or manmade incidents. National Guard members have expertise in critical
areas, such as emergency medical response; communications; logistics; search and rescue; civil
engineering; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear response and planning; and
decontamination.18

The governor may activate elements of the National Guard to support state domestic civil support
functions and activities. The state adjutant general may assign members of the Guard to assist with
state, regional, and Federal civil support plans.

Other State Departments and Agencies
State department and agency heads and their staffs develop, plan, and train on internal policies and
procedures to meet response and recovery needs. They also participate in interagency training and
exercises to develop and maintain the necessary capabilities. They are vital to the state’s overall
emergency management program, as they bring expertise spanning various response functions and
serve as core members of the state emergency operations center (EOC) and incident command posts
(ICP). Many of them have direct experience in providing accessible and vital services to the whole
community during response operations. State departments and agencies typically work in close
coordination with their Federal counterpart agencies during joint state and Federal responses, and
under some Federal laws, they may request assistance from these Federal partners.

Tribes
The United States has a trust relationship with federally-recognized Indian tribes and recognizes their
right to self-government. Under the Stafford Act, federally-recognized Indian tribes may directly
request their own emergency and major declaration, or they may request assistance under a state
request. In addition, federally-recognized Indian tribes can request Federal assistance for incidents
that impact the tribe, but do not result in a Stafford Act declaration.

In accordance with the Stafford Act, the Chief Executive19 of an affected Indian tribal government
may submit a request for a declaration by the President. Tribal governments are responsible for
coordinating resources to address actual or potential incidents.

Tribes are encouraged to build relationships with local jurisdictions and their states as they may have
resources most readily available. The NRF’s Tribal Coordination Support Annex outlines processes
and mechanisms that tribal governments may use to request Federal assistance during an incident.

18 The President may call National Guard forces into Federal service for domestic duties, including pursuant to
under section 12406 of Title 10 (providing such authority e.g., in cases of invasion by a foreign nation, rebellion
against the authority of the United States, or where the President is unable to execute the laws of the United States
with regular forces) under 10 U.S. Code § 12406). When called into Federal service, National Guardsmen are
employed under Title 10 of the U.S. Code and are no longer under the command of the governor. Instead, they
operate under the Secretary of Defense.
19 The Stafford Act uses the term “Chief Executive” to refer to the person who is the Chief, Chairman, Governor,
President, or similar executive official of an Indian tribal government.

National Response Framework
15

Chief Executive
The Chief Executive is responsible for the public safety and welfare of his or her respective tribe.
The Chief Executive:

 Coordinates resources needed to respond to incidents of all types.

 In accordance with the law, may make, amend, or suspend certain orders or regulations
associated with the response.

 Communicates with the public in an accessible manner and helps people, businesses, and
organizations cope with the consequences of any type of incident.

 Negotiates mutual aid and assistance agreements with other local jurisdictions, states, tribes,
territories, and insular area governments.

 Can request Federal assistance.

Territories/Insular Area Governments
Territorial and insular area governments are responsible for coordinating resources to address actual
or potential incidents. Due to their remote locations, territories and insular area governments often
face unique challenges in receiving assistance from outside the jurisdiction quickly and often request
assistance from neighboring islands, other nearby countries, states, private sector or NGO resources,
or the Federal Government.

Territorial/Insular Area Leader
The territorial/insular area leader is responsible for the public safety and welfare of the people of
his/her jurisdiction. As authorized by the territorial or insular area government, the leader:

 Coordinates resources needed to respond to incidents of all types.
 In accordance with the law, may make, amend, or suspend certain orders or regulations
associated with the response.
 Communicates with the public in an accessible manner and helps people, businesses, and
organizations cope with the consequences of any type of incident.

 Commands the territory’s military forces.

 Negotiates mutual aid and assistance agreements with other local jurisdictions, states, tribes,
territories, and insular area governments.
 Can request Federal assistance.

F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t
The Federal Government maintains a wide range of capabilities and resources that may be required
to deal with domestic incidents in order to save lives and protect property and the environment while
ensuring the protection of privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. To be successful, any approach to
the delivery of Response capabilities will require an all-of-nation approach. All Federal departments
and agencies must cooperate with one another, and with local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular
area governments, community members, and the private sector to the maximum extent possible.

The Federal Government becomes involved with a response when Federal interests are involved;
when state, local, tribal, or territorial resources are overwhelmed and Federal assistance is requested;

National Response Framework

16

or as authorized or required by statute, regulation, or policy. Accordingly, in some instances, the
Federal Government may play a supporting role to state, local, tribal, or territorial authorities by
providing Federal assistance to the affected parties. For example, the Federal Government provides
assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial authorities when the President declares a major
disaster or emergency under the Stafford Act. In other instances, the Federal Government may play a
leading role in the response where the Federal Government has primary jurisdiction or when
incidents occur on Federal property (e.g., National Parks, military bases).

Regardless of the type of incident, the President leads the Federal Government response effort to
ensure that the necessary resources are applied quickly and efficiently to large-scale and
catastrophic incidents. Different Federal departments or agencies lead coordination of the Federal
Government’s response depending on the type and magnitude of the incident and are also
supported by other agencies that bring their relevant capabilities to bear in responding to the
incident. For example, FEMA leads and coordinates Federal response and assistance when the
President declares a major disaster or emergency under the Stafford Act. Similarly, the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) leads all Federal public health and medical response to
public health emergencies and incidents covered by the NRF.

Secretary of Homeland

Security

In conjunction with these efforts, the statutory mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to
act as a focal point regarding both natural and manmade crises and emergency planning. Pursuant to
the Homeland Security Act and Presidential directive, the Secretary of Homeland Security is the
principal federal official for domestic incident management. The Secretary of Homeland Security
coordinates preparedness activities within the United States to respond to and recover from terrorist
attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The Secretary coordinates with Federal entities to
provide for Federal unity of efforts for domestic incident management.

As part of these responsibilities, the Secretary provides the Executive Branch with an overall
architecture for domestic incident management and coordinates the Federal response, as required.
The Secretary of Homeland Security may monitor activities and activate specific response
mechanisms to support other Federal departments and agencies without assuming the overall
coordination of the Federal response during incidents that do not require the Secretary to coordinate
the response or do not result in a Stafford Act declaration. Other Federal departments and agencies
carry out their response authorities and responsibilities within this overarching construct of DHS
coordination.

Unity of effort differs from unity of command. Various Federal departments and agencies may have
statutory responsibilities and lead roles based upon the unique circumstances of the incident. Unity of
effort provides coordination through cooperation and common interests and does not interfere with
Federal departments’ and agencies’ supervisory, command, or statutory authorities. The Secretary
ensures that overall Federal actions are unified, complete, and synchronized to prevent unfilled gaps
or seams in the Federal Government’s overarching effort. This coordinated approach ensures that the
Federal actions undertaken by DHS and other departments and agencies are harmonized and
mutually supportive. The Secretary executes these coordination responsibilities, in part, by engaging
directly with the President and relevant Cabinet, department, agency, and DHS component heads as
is necessary to ensure a focused, efficient, and unified Federal preparedness posture. All Federal
departments and agencies, in turn, cooperate with the Secretary in executing domestic incident
management duties.

The Secretary’s responsibilities also include management of the broad “emergency management” and
“response” authorities of FEMA and other DHS components. DHS component heads may have lead

National Response Framework

17

response roles or other significant roles depending on the type and severity of the incident. For
example, the U.S. Secret Service is the lead agency for security design, planning, and implementation
of National Special Security Events (NSSE) while the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and
Communications coordinates the response to significant cyber incidents.

FEMA Administrator
The Administrator is the principal advisor to the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and
the Homeland Security Council regarding emergency management. The FEMA Administrator’s
duties include assisting the President, through the Secretary, in carrying out the Stafford Act,
operation of the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC), the effective support of all ESFs,
and more generally, preparation for, protection against, response to, and recovery from all-hazards
incidents. Reporting to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the FEMA Administrator is also
responsible for managing the core DHS grant programs supporting homeland security activities.20

Attorney General
Like other Executive Branch departments and agencies, the Department of Justice and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will endeavor to coordinate their activities with other members of the
law enforcement community, and with members of the Intelligence Community, to achieve
maximum cooperation consistent with the law and operational necessity.

The Attorney General has lead responsibility for criminal investigations of terrorist acts or terrorist
threats by individuals or groups inside the United States, or directed at United States citizens or
institutions abroad, where such acts are within the Federal criminal jurisdiction of the United States,
as well as for related intelligence collection activities within the United States, subject to the National
Security Act of 1947 (as amended), and other applicable law, Executive Order 12333 (as amended),
and Attorney General-approved procedures pursuant to that Executive Order. Generally acting
through the FBI, the Attorney General, in cooperation with other Federal departments and agencies
engaged in activities to protect our national security, shall also coordinate the activities of the other
members of the law enforcement community to detect, prevent, preempt, and disrupt terrorist attacks
against the United States. In addition, the Attorney General, generally acting through the FBI
Director, has primary responsibility for searching for, finding, and neutralizing WMD within the
United States.

The Attorney General approves requests submitted by state governors pursuant to the Emergency
Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Act for personnel and other Federal law enforcement support
during incidents. The Attorney General also enforces Federal civil rights laws, such as the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Further
information on the Attorney General’s role is provided in the National Prevention Framework and
Prevention FIOP.

Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Defense has authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense
(DOD).21 DOD resources may be committed when requested by another Federal agency and
approved by the Secretary of Defense, or when directed by the President. However certain DOD

20 See the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, enacted as part of the FY 2007 DHS Appropriations
Act, P.L. 109-295.
21 10 U.S.C. §113.

National Response Framework

18

officials and organizations may provide support under the immediate response authority,22 a mutual
aid agreement with the local community,23 or pursuant to independent authorities or agreements.24
When DOD resources are authorized to support civil authorities, command of those forces remains
with the Secretary of Defense. DOD elements in the incident area of operations coordinate closely
with response organizations at all levels.

Secretary of State
A domestic incident may have international and diplomatic implications that call for coordination
and consultation with foreign governments and international organizations. The Secretary of State is
responsible for all communication and coordination between the U.S. Government and other nations
regarding the response to a domestic crisis. The Department of State also coordinates international
offers of assistance and formally accepts or declines these offers on behalf of the U.S. Government
based on needs conveyed by Federal departments and agencies as stated in the International
Coordination Support Annex. Some types of international assistance are pre-identified, and bilateral
agreements are already established. For example, the USDA/Forest Service and Department of the
Interior have joint bilateral agreements with several countries for wildland firefighting support.

Director of National Intelligence
The Director of National Intelligence serves as the head of the Intelligence Community, acts as the
principal advisor to the President for intelligence matters relating to national security, and oversees
and directs implementation of the National Intelligence Program. The Intelligence Community,
comprising 17 elements across the Federal Government, functions consistent with laws, executive
orders, regulations, and policies to support the national security-related missions of the U.S.
Government. It provides a range of analytic products, including those that assess threats to the
homeland and inform planning, capability development, and operational activities of homeland
security enterprise partners and stakeholders. In addition to intelligence community elements with
specific homeland security missions, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence maintains a
number of mission and support centers that provide unique capabilities for homeland security
partners.

Other Federal Department and Agency Heads
Various Federal departments or agencies play primary, coordinating, or support roles in delivering
response core capabilities. In some circumstances, other Federal agencies may have a lead or support
role in coordinating operations, or elements of operations, consistent with applicable legal
authorities. Nothing in the NRF precludes any Federal department or agency from executing its

22 In response to a request for assistance from a civilian authority, under imminently serious conditions, and if time
does not permit approval from higher authority, DOD officials may provide an immediate response by temporarily
employing the resources under their control, subject to any supplemental direction provided by higher headquarters,
to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage within the United States. Immediate
response authority does not permit actions that would subject civilians to the use of military power that is regulatory,
prescriptive, proscriptive, or compulsory. (DOD Directive 3025.18)
23 DOD installation commanders may provide support to local jurisdictions under mutual aid agreements (also
known as reciprocal fire protection agreements), when requested.
24 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has independent statutory authorities regarding emergency management, such
as Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1941 (Public Law 84-99) (e.g., providing technical assistance; direct
assistance such as providing sandbags, pumps, and other types of flood fight materials, emergency contracting; and
emergency water assistance due to contaminated water source). Also, the Defense Logistics Agency has an
interagency agreement with FEMA to provide commodities including fuel to civil authorities responding to
disasters.

National Response Framework

19

existing authorities. For all incidents, Federal department and agency heads serve as advisors for the
Executive Branch relative to their areas of responsibility.

When the Secretary of Homeland Security is not coordinating the overall response, Federal
departments and agencies may coordinate Federal operations under their own statutory authorities, or
as designated by the President, and may activate response structures applicable to those authorities.
The head of the department or agency may also request the Secretary of Homeland Security to
activate NRF structures and elements (e.g. Incident Management Assistance Teams and National
Operation Center elements) to provide additional assistance, while still retaining leadership for the
response.

Several Federal departments and agencies have authorities to respond to and declare specific types of
disasters or emergencies. These authorities may be exercised independently of, concurrently with, or
become part of a Federal response coordinated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to
Presidential directive. Federal departments and agencies carry out their response authorities and
responsibilities within the NRF’s overarching construct or under supplementary or complementary
operational plans. Table 1 provides examples of scenarios in which specific Federal departments and
agencies have the responsibility for coordinating response activities. This is not an all-inclusive list.

Table 1: Examples of Other Federal Department and Agency Authorities25

Scenario Department/Agency Authorities

Agricultural and
Food Incident

Department of
Agriculture (USDA)

The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to declare an
extraordinary emergency and take action due to the
presence of a pest or disease of livestock that threatens
livestock in the United States. (7 U.S. Code § 8306 [2007]).

The Secretary of Agriculture also has the authority to declare
an extraordinary emergency and take action due to the
presence of a plant pest or noxious weed whose presence
threatens plants or plant products of the United States. (7 U.S.
Code § 7715 [2007]).

Public Health
Emergency26

Department of
Health and Human
Services

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services has the authority to take actions to protect the public
health and welfare, declare a public health emergency, and
to prepare for and respond to public health emergencies.
(Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S. Code §§ 201 et seq.).

Oil and
Hazardous
Materials Spills

EPA or USCG

The EPA and USCG have the authority to take actions to
respond to oil discharges and releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants, including leading
the response. (42 U.S. Code § 9601, et seq., 33 U.S. Code §
1251 et seq.) The EPA Administrator and Commandant of the
USCG27 may also classify an oil discharge as a Spill of
National Significance and designate senior officials to
participate in the response. (40 CFR § 300.323).28

25 These authorities may be exercised independently of, concurrently with, or become part of a Federal response
coordinated by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to Presidential directive.
26 A declaration of a public health emergency may make available any funds appropriated to the Public Health
Emergency Fund.
27 The Commandant of the USCG coordinates the designation of a Spill of National Significance with the Secretary
of Homeland Security, as appropriate.
28 See the ESF #10 – Oil and Hazardous Materials Response Annex for more information on these authorities.

National Response Framework

20

When a Federal department, agency, or component of DHS has responsibility for directing or
managing a major aspect of a response coordinated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, that
organization is part of the national leadership for the incident and is represented in field, regional,
and headquarters unified command and coordination organizations.

Additional information regarding Federal department and agency roles in delivering core capabilities
may be found in the Coordinating Structures and Integration section and in the various annexes to
this Framework.

C o r e C a p a b i l i t i e s
Once an incident occurs, efforts focus on saving lives, protecting property and the environment, and
preserving the social, economic, cultural, and political structure of the jurisdiction. Depending on the
size, scope, and magnitude of an incident, local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments,
and, in some cases, the Federal Government, may be called to action. The response core capabilities
are the activities that generally must be accomplished in incident response regardless of which levels
of government are involved.

These core capabilities were developed based on the results of the SNRA which identified a variety
of threats and hazards that pose a significant risk to the Nation. Each mission area—Prevention,
Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery—identified functions that would be required to
address these threats and hazards; these are the core capabilities. The core capabilities are distinct
critical elements necessary to achieve the Goal. They provide a common vocabulary describing the
significant functions that must be developed and executed across the whole community to ensure
national preparedness.

This section addresses the core capabilities for the Response mission area and the actions required to
build and deliver these capabilities.

C o n t e x t o f t h e R e s p o n s e M i s s i o n A r e a
By engaging the whole community to build and deliver the response core capabilities, the Nation is
better prepared to respond to any threat or hazard, assist in restoring basic services and community
functionality, and facilitate the integration of recovery activities. The Response mission area includes
15 core capabilities—12 that apply to response and 3 that are common to all 5 mission areas. Table 2
lists the core capabilities associated with each of the five mission areas.

National Response Framework

21

Table 2: Core Capabilities by Mission Area

29

Prevention Protection Mitigation Response Recovery

Planning

Public Information and Warning

Operational Coordination

Intelligence and Information Sharing Community
Resilience

Long-term
Vulnerability
Reduction

Risk and Disaster
Resilience

Assessment

Threats and
Hazards

Identification

Infrastructure Systems

Interdiction and Disruption Critical Transportation

Environmental
Response/Health and

Safety

Fatality Management
Services

Fire Management and
Suppression

Logistics and Supply
Chain Management

Mass Care Services

Mass Search and
Rescue Operations

On-scene Security,
Protection, and Law

Enforcement

Operational
Communications

Public Health,
Healthcare, and

Emergency Medical
Services

Situational
Assessment

Economic
Recovery

Health and
Social Services

Housing

Natural and
Cultural

Resources

Screening, Search, and Detection

Forensics and
Attribution

Access Control
and Identity
Verification

Cybersecurity

Physical
Protective
Measures

Risk
Management for

Protection
Programs and

Activities

Supply Chain
Integrity and

Security

29 Planning, Public Information and Warning, and Operational Coordination are common to all mission areas.

National Response Framework

22

Table 3 provides a summary of each response core capability and the critical tasks to achieve its
objective.

Table 3: Overview of Response Core Capabilities in the National Preparedness Goal

Core Capabilities and Critical Tasks
1. Planning
(Cross-cutting with all mission areas)

Objective: Conduct a systematic process engaging the
whole community as appropriate in the development of
executable strategic, operational, and/or tactical-level
approaches to meet defined objectives.

Critical Tasks:
 Develop operational plans that adequately identify critical objectives based on the planning

requirements, provide a complete and integrated picture of the sequence and scope of the tasks
to achieve the objectives, and are implementable within the time frame contemplated in the plan
using available resources.

2. Public Information and Warning
(Cross-cutting with all mission areas)

Objective: Deliver coordinated, prompt, reliable, and
actionable information to the whole community through
the use of clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally
and linguistically appropriate methods to effectively relay
information regarding any threat or hazard and, as
appropriate, the actions being taken and the assistance
being made available.

Critical Tasks:
 Inform all affected segments of society by all means necessary, including accessible tools in

multiple formats of critical lifesaving and life-sustaining information to expedite the delivery of
emergency services and aid the public in taking protective actions.

 Deliver credible and actionable messages to inform ongoing emergency services and the public
about protective measures and other life-sustaining actions and facilitate the integration of
recovery activities.

3. Operational Coordination
(Cross-cutting with all mission areas)

Objective: Establish and maintain a unified and
coordinated operational structure and process that
appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders and
supports the execution of core capabilities.

Critical Tasks:
 Mobilize all critical resources and establish command, control, and coordination structures within

the affected community and other coordinating bodies in surrounding communities and across the
Nation and maintain as needed throughout the duration of an incident.

 Enhance and maintain command, control, and coordination structures, consistent with the
National Incident Management System (NIMS), to meet basic human needs, stabilize the incident,
and facilitate the integration of restoration and recovery activities.

National Response Framework

23

Core Capabilities and Critical Tasks
4. Critical Transportation Objective: Provide transportation (including

infrastructure access and accessible transportation
services) for response priority objectives, including the
evacuation of people and animals, and the delivery of
vital response personnel, equipment, and services into
the affected areas.

Critical Tasks:
 Monitor and report the status of and damage to the transportation system and infrastructure.
 Identify temporary alternative transportation solutions to be implemented when primary systems

or routes are unavailable or overwhelmed.
 Implement appropriate air traffic and airspace management measures.
 Coordinate regulatory waivers and exemptions.
 Provide longer-term coordination of the restoration and recovery of the affected transportation

systems and infrastructure if required.
 Ensure basic human needs are met, stabilize the incident, transition into recovery for an affected

area, and restore basic services and community functionality.
 Clear debris from any route type (i.e., road, rail, airfield, port facility, waterway) to facilitate

response operations.
5. Environmental Response/Health and
Safety

Objective: Conduct appropriate measures to ensure the
protection of the health and safety of the public and
workers, as well as the environment, from all-hazards in
support of responder operations and the affected
communities.

Critical Tasks:
 Identify, assess, and mitigate worker health and safety hazards and disseminate health and

safety guidance and resources to response and recovery workers.
 Minimize public exposure to environmental hazards through assessment of the hazards and

implementation of public protective actions.
 Detect, assess, stabilize, and clean up releases of oil and hazardous materials into the

environment, including buildings/structures, and properly manage waste.
 Identify, evaluate, and implement measures to prevent and minimize impacts to the environment,

natural and cultural resources, and historic properties from all-hazard emergencies and response
operations.

6. Fatality Management Services Objective: Provide fatality management services,
including decedent remains recovery and victim
identification, working with local, state, tribal, territorial,
insular area, and Federal authorities to provide mortuary
processes, temporary storage or permanent internment
solutions, sharing information with mass care services
for the purpose of reunifying family members and
caregivers with missing persons/remains, and providing
counseling to the bereaved.

Critical Tasks:
 Establish and maintain operations to recover a significant number of fatalities over a

geographically dispersed area.
 Mitigate hazards from remains, facilitate care to survivors, and return remains for final disposition.

National Response Framework

24

Core Capabilities and Critical Tasks
7. Fire Management and Suppression

Objective: Provide structural, wildland, and specialized
firefighting capabilities to manage and suppress fires of
all types, kinds, and complexities while protecting the
lives, property, and the environment in the affected area.

Critical Tasks:
 Provide traditional first response or initial attack firefighting services.
 Conduct expanded or extended attack firefighting and support operations through coordinated

response of fire management and specialized fire suppression resources.
 Ensure the coordinated deployment of appropriate local, regional, national, and international fire

management and fire suppression resources to reinforce firefighting efforts and maintain an
appropriate level of protection for subsequent fires.

8. Infrastructure Systems
(Cross-cutting with Recovery mission
area)

Objective: Stabilize critical infrastructure functions,
minimize health and safety threats, and efficiently
restore and revitalize systems and services to support a
viable, resilient community.

Critical Tasks:
 Decrease and stabilize immediate infrastructure threats to the affected population, to include

survivors in the heavily- damaged zone, nearby communities that may be affected by cascading
effects, and mass care support facilities and evacuation processing centers with a focus on life-
sustainment and congregate care services.

 Re-establish critical infrastructure within the affected areas to support ongoing emergency
response operations, life sustainment, community functionality, and facilitate the integration of
recovery activities.

 Provide for the clearance, removal, and disposal of debris.
 Formalize partnerships with governmental and private sector cyber incident or emergency

response teams to accept, triage, and collaboratively respond to cascading impacts in an efficient
manner.

9. Mass Care Services Objective: Provide life-sustaining and human services
to the affected population, to include hydration, feeding,
sheltering, temporary housing, evacuee support,
reunification, and distribution of emergency supplies.

Critical Tasks:
 Move and deliver resources and capabilities to meet the needs of disaster survivors, including

children and adults with disabilities and/or access and functional needs.
 Establish, staff, and equip emergency shelters and other temporary housing options ensuring that

shelters and temporary housing units are physically accessible for children and adults with
disabilities and/or with access and functional needs.

 Move from congregate care to non-congregate care alternatives, and provide relocation
assistance or interim housing solutions for families unable to return to their pre-disaster homes.

National Response Framework

25

Core Capabilities and Critical Tasks
10. Mass Search and Rescue
Operations

Objective: Deliver traditional and atypical search and
rescue capabilities, including personnel, services,
animals, and assets to survivors in need, with the goal of
saving the greatest number of endangered lives in the
shortest time possible.

Critical Tasks:
 Conduct search and rescue operations to locate and rescue persons in distress.
 Initiate community-based search and rescue support operations across a wide geographically

dispersed area.
 Ensure the synchronized deployment of local, regional, national, and international teams to

reinforce ongoing search and rescue efforts and facilitate the integration of recovery activities.
11. On-scene Security, Protection, and
Law Enforcement

Objective: Ensure a safe and secure environment
through law enforcement and related security and
protection operations for people and communities
located within affected areas and also for response
personnel engaged in lifesaving and life-sustaining
operations.

Critical Tasks:
 Establish a safe and secure environment in an affected area.
 Provide and maintain on-scene security and meet the protection needs of the affected population

over a geographically dispersed area while eliminating or mitigating the risk of further damage to
persons, property, and the environment.

12. Operational Communications Objective: Ensure the capacity for timely
communications in support of security, situational
awareness, and operations by any and all means
available, among and between affected communities in
the impact area and all response forces.

Critical Tasks:
 Ensure the capacity to communicate with both the emergency response community and the

affected populations and establish interoperable voice and data communications between local,
state, tribal, territorial, and Federal first responders.

 Re-establish sufficient communications infrastructure within the affected areas to support ongoing
life-sustaining activities, provide basic human needs, and facilitate the integration of recovery
activities.

 Re-establish critical information networks, including cybersecurity information- sharing networks,
in order to inform situational awareness, enable incident response, and support the resiliency of
key systems.

13. Logistics and Supply Chain
Management

Objective: Deliver essential commodities, equipment,
and services in support of impacted communities and
survivors, to include emergency power and fuel support,
as well as the coordination of access to community
staples. Synchronize logistics capabilities and enable the
restoration of impacted supply chains.

Critical Tasks:
 Mobilize and deliver governmental, nongovernmental, and private sector resources within and

outside of the affected area to save lives, sustain lives, meet basic human needs, stabilize the
incident, and facilitate the integration of recovery efforts, to include moving and delivering
resources and services to meet the needs of disaster survivors.

 Enhance public and private resource and services support for an affected area.

National Response Framework

26

Core Capabilities and Critical Tasks
14. Public Health, Healthcare, and
Emergency Medical Services

Objective: Provide lifesaving medical treatment via
Emergency Medical Services and related operations and
avoid additional disease and injury by providing targeted
public health, medical, and behavioral health support,
and products to all affected populations.

Critical Tasks:
 Deliver medical countermeasures to exposed populations.
 Complete triage and initial stabilization of illness or casualties and begin definitive care for those

likely to benefit from care and survive. Develop public health interventions to maintain and
improve the health of individuals placed at risk due to disruptions in healthcare and societal
support networks.

 Return medical surge resources to pre-incident levels, complete health assessments, and identify
recovery processes.

15. Situational Assessment Objective: Provide all decision makers with decision-
relevant information regarding the nature and extent of
the hazard, any cascading effects, and the status of the
response.

Critical Tasks:
 Deliver information sufficient to inform decision making regarding immediate lifesaving and life-

sustaining activities, and engage governmental, private, and civic sector resources within and
outside of the affected area to meet basic human needs and stabilize the incident.

 Deliver enhanced information to reinforce ongoing lifesaving and life-sustaining activities, and
engage governmental, private, and civic sector resources within and outside of the affected area
to meet basic human needs, stabilize the incident, and facilitate the integration of recovery
activities.

No core capability is the responsibility of any one party or single level of government. Each requires
an approach that integrates the abilities of elements in the whole community from the individual
through the Federal Government, including traditional and non-traditional partners. The Nation must
be prepared to deal not only with the normal type of incidents that communities handle every day,
but also with incidents of catastrophic proportions. Most of the resources and functions required at
the local level to deliver a given core capability are provided by local government agencies with
additional members of the community assisting as needed. Catastrophic incidents require many more
response assets and engagement with a broader set of partners.30 Community involvement is vital to
providing additional response support. Local residents may well be the primary source of additional
manpower in the first hours and days after a catastrophic incident.

Cross-cutting Response Core Capabilities
Three response core capabilities—Planning, Public Information and Warning, and Operational
Coordination—span all five mission areas. These common core capabilities are essential to the
success of the other core capabilities. They help establish unity of effort among all those involved in
the Response mission area.

30 Given the scope and magnitude of a catastrophic incident, waivers, exceptions, and exemptions to policy,
regulations, and laws may be available in order to save and sustain life, and to protect property and the environment.
However, any such waivers, exceptions, and exemptions must be consistent with laws that preserve human and civil
rights and protect individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional needs.

National Response Framework

27

 Planning. Planning makes it possible to manage the life cycle of a potential crisis, determine
capability requirements, and help stakeholders learn their roles. It includes the collection,
analysis, and dissemination of risk assessment data and the development of plans, procedures,
mutual aid and assistance agreements, strategies, and other arrangements to perform specific
missions and tasks. Governments at all levels have a responsibility to develop all-hazards
response plans prior to and during an incident. Including a broad range of partners in the planning
process helps ensure that the needs and potential contributions of all elements are integrated into
workable plans.

In addition, governments at all levels should establish continuity plans to ensure seamless and
immediate continuation of mission-essential functions during an incident. Continuity plans
should identify essential functions, succession and delegation of authority, continuity facilities,
communication capabilities, and human resource issues.

 Public Information and Warning. For an effective response, jurisdictions must provide
accurate and accessible information to decision makers and the public. This includes
development of accessible message content, such as incident facts, health risk warnings, pre-
incident recommendations, evacuation guidance, and other protective measures. It also includes
developing strategies for when, where, how, and by whom information will be delivered and
ensuring that all levels of government agree on unified messages. Information must be shared
with the public and other members of the response community efficiently, effectively, and in an
accessible manner. Effective public information and warning is particularly important in dealing
with incidents that start small but may evolve to have greater consequences.

 Operational Coordination. For incident response, coordination of operations must occur both
among those tasked to deliver the various response core capabilities and with those delivering the
core capabilities of other mission areas. This coordination occurs through response structures
based on clearly established roles, responsibilities, and reporting protocols. Using NIMS
principles, structures, and coordinating processes enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of
response. Specific actions to achieve this core capability may include coordinating initial actions,
managing ESFs, coordinating requests for additional support, and identifying and integrating
resources and capabilities.

Integration among Response Core Capabilities and Mission Areas
Interdependencies exist among many of the core capabilities. For example, organizations involved in
providing Mass Care Services often rely on resources and functions from organizations that provide
Critical Transportation or Logistics and Supply Chain Management for commodities distribution;
Public Information and Warning for messaging, translators, and interpreters; and Operational
Communications for reporting and communication that allows shelters to stay in touch with
operations centers.

The core capabilities in various mission areas may also be linked through shared assets and services.
For example, the functionality provided by geographic information systems can be applied across
multiple response core capabilities, as well as core capabilities in the other four mission areas. Thus
synergy among mission area resources and processes is important to maximize capabilities and
minimize risk. The overarching nature of functions described in these capabilities frequently involves
either support to or cooperation of several incident management partners to ensure the seamless
integration of prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery activities.

Potential points of intersection between the Response mission area and other mission areas include
the following:

National Response Framework

28

 Prevention. Many Response and Prevention mission area decisions will have interdependencies
upon operations. Strong operational coordination and information sharing between these mission
areas will best position the whole community to save lives, protect property, and prevent terrorist
attacks and follow-on attacks. As an example, Prevention activities may identify and locate
WMD material. The sharing of this information along with technical data will inform response
activities resulting in swift public information and warning and protective guidance.

 Protection. Protection of critical infrastructure systems and implementation of plans for the rapid
restoration of commercial activities and critical infrastructure operations are crucial aspects of the
Protection mission area. Many of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors31 within the Protection
mission area are also represented in the Response mission area. For example, the Logistics and
Supply Chain Management capability depends on private sector owners and operators of critical
infrastructure for achieving the capability’s objective.

 Mitigation. Achieving the mitigation core capability preliminary targets allows for the
incorporation of lessons learned in the analysis and planning processes and makes the response
core capabilities more resilient and effective.

 Recovery. Even while response activities are underway, recovery operations must begin. The
emphasis on response gradually gives way to recovery operations; however, recovery core
capabilities may involve some of the same functions as response core capabilities. This includes
providing essential public health and safety services, restoring interrupted utility and other
essential services, reestablishing transportation routes, providing food and shelter for those
displaced by an incident, protecting natural and cultural resources and performing environmental
compliance, ensuring equal access, reunifying children who have been displaced from their
families/guardians, and reopening schools and child care centers.

These overlapping areas are identified through comprehensive planning with the whole community
to ensure that they are properly addressed during the response to an incident. Ensuring that
operational plans properly account for the integration of mission areas is essential.

R e s p o n s e A c t i o n s t o D e l i v e r C o r e C a p a b i l i t i e s
This section describes the key tasks each major element of the whole community must accomplish to
be prepared to deliver the core capabilities. More detailed concepts of operations for the delivery of
the core capabilities are provided in the Response FIOP and operational plans developed by various
jurisdictions, the private sector, and NGOs.

Individuals and Households
Many individuals have talents and experience that can be tapped to support core capabilities.
Individuals can contribute to the delivery of response core capabilities through community
organizations, by participating in community preparedness activities, such as CERT, and by ensuring
that they have household/family emergency plans.32

Private Sector
Roles and responsibilities of private sector entities are described in the Roles and Responsibilities
section. Private sector entities can assist in delivering the response core capabilities by collaborating

31 The critical infrastructure sectors are described in the 2013 National Infrastructure Protection Plan.
32 Individual and household preparedness information can be located at http://www.ready.gov/make-a-plan.

http://www.ready.gov/make-a-plan

National Response Framework
29

with emergency management personnel before an incident occurs to determine what assistance may
be necessary and how they can support local emergency management during response operations.33

Nongovernmental Organizations
NGOs manage volunteers and resources that bolster government efforts to ensure a successful
incident response. Collaboration with responders, governments at all levels, and other agencies and
organizations helps NGOs to tailor and direct their efforts that are necessary to accomplish and
deliver the response core capabilities.

Local, State, and Tribal Actions
Communities apply NIMS principles to integrate response plans and resources across jurisdictions
and departments as well as with the private sector and NGOs. Neighboring communities play a key
role by providing support through a network of mutual aid and assistance agreements that identify the
resources that communities may be able to share during an incident.

The state is the gateway to many government resources that help communities respond. When an
incident grows or has the potential to grow beyond the capability of a local jurisdiction and
responders cannot meet the needs with mutual aid and assistance resources, local officials contact the
state. Tribes may request assistance from the state or the Federal Government. Upon receiving a
request for assistance from a local or tribal government, state officials may:

 Coordinate warnings and public information through the activation of the state’s public
communications strategy.

 Distribute supplies stockpiled to meet the needs of the emergency.

 Provide technical assistance and support to meet the response and recovery needs.

 Suspend or waive statutes, rules, ordinances, and orders, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure
timely performance of response functions.

 Implement state volunteer and donations management plans and coordinate with the private
sector and NGOs.

 Order or recommend evacuations ensuring the integration and inclusion of the requirements of
populations such as children; individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional
needs; those from religious, racial, and ethnically diverse communities; people with limited
English proficiency; and owners of animals, including household pets and service and assistance
animals.

 Mobilize resources to meet the requirements of individuals with disabilities and others with
access and functional needs in compliance with Federal civil rights laws.

If local resources are inadequate, local authorities may seek assistance from the county emergency
manager or the state. Under some Federal authorities, local jurisdictions and tribes may also seek
assistance directly from the Federal Government for non-Stafford Act incidents.

State-to-State Assistance
If additional resources are required, states can request assistance from other states through interstate
mutual aid and assistance agreements such as EMAC. Administered by the National Emergency

33 Additional information sharing and collaborative opportunities can be located at FEMA Private Sector Focus
http://www.fema.gov/private-sector.

http://www.fema.gov/private-sector

National Response Framework

30

Management Association, EMAC is an interstate mutual aid agreement that streamlines the interstate
mutual aid and assistance process.

Federal Authorities
Federal assistance can be provided to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions, as well as to other Federal
departments and agencies, through a number of different mechanisms and authorities. Federal
financial assistance may also be available for disability-related access and functional needs
equipment.

Federal Response and Assistance Available Without a Stafford Act Declaration
The NRF covers the full range of complex and constantly changing requirements in anticipation of,
or in response to, threats or actual incidents. In addition to Stafford Act support, the NRF or other
supplementary or complementary operational plans may be applied to respond or provide other forms
of support.

Federal Departments and Agencies Acting Under Their Own Authorities

Immediate lifesaving assistance to states, as well as other types of assistance, such as wildland
firefighting support or response to an agricultural disease or cybersecurity incident, are performed by
Federal departments or agencies under their own authorities and funding or through reciprocal
mutual assistance agreements. Some Federal departments or agencies conduct or may lead Federal
response actions under their own authorities using funding sources other than the President’s Disaster
Relief Fund. For example, specific trust funds are established under Federal environmental laws to
support and fund oil and hazardous substances response operations.

Federal-to-Federal Support

Federal departments and agencies may execute interagency or intra-agency reimbursable agreements
in accordance with the Economy Act or other applicable authorities. The Financial Management
Support Annex to the NRF contains information about this process. A Federal department or agency
responding to an incident under its own authorities may also request support from the Secretary of
Homeland Security in obtaining and coordinating additional Federal assistance. The Secretary of
Homeland Security may activate one or more ESFs to provide the requested support.

Federal Response and Assistance Under the Stafford Act
The Federal Government may provide assistance in the form of funding, resources, and services.
Federal departments and agencies respect the sovereignty and responsibilities of local, state, tribal,
territorial, and insular area governments while rendering assistance that supports the affected local or
state governments.

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

Local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments do not require Federal assistance to
respond to most incidents; however, when an incident is of such severity and magnitude that
effective response is beyond the capabilities of the state and local governments, the governor or
Chief Executive of a tribe can request Federal assistance under the Stafford Act. In certain
circumstances, the President may declare an emergency without a request from a governor when the
primary responsibility for response rests with the United States, because the emergency involves a
subject area for which, under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the United States
exercises exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority.

National Response Framework

31

The Stafford Act authorizes the President to provide financial and other assistance to local, state,
tribal, territorial, and insular area governments, certain private nonprofit organizations, and
individuals to support response, recovery, and mitigation efforts following a Stafford Act Emergency
or Major Disaster Declaration.34 Most forms of Stafford Act assistance require a state cost share.
While Federal assistance under the Stafford Act may only be delivered after a declaration, FEMA
may pre-deploy Federal assets when a declaration is likely and imminent. The Stafford Act provides
for two types of declarations:

 An Emergency Declaration is more limited in scope than a Major Disaster Declaration,
provides fewer Federal programs, and is not normally associated with recovery programs.
However, the President may issue an Emergency Declaration prior to an actual incident to lessen
or avert the threat of a catastrophe. Generally, Federal assistance and funding are provided to
meet specific emergency needs or to help prevent a catastrophe from occurring.

 A Major Disaster Declaration provides more Federal programs for response and recovery than
an Emergency Declaration. Unlike an Emergency Declaration, a Major Disaster Declaration may
only be issued after an incident.

Proactive Response to Catastrophic Incidents

Prior to and during catastrophic incidents, especially those that occur with little or no notice, the
Federal Government may mobilize and deploy assets in anticipation of a formal request from the
state. Such deployments of significant Federal assets would occur in anticipation of or following
catastrophic incidents involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive
WMD; large-magnitude earthquakes; or other incidents affecting heavily populated areas. Proactive
efforts are intended to ensure that Federal resources reach the scene in time to assist in reducing
disruption of normal functions of state and local governments and are done in coordination and
collaboration with local and state governments, private sector entities, and NGOs when possible.

34 The President has delegated most of his authority under the Stafford Act to the Secretary of Homeland Security,
who has, in turn, delegated those authorities to the FEMA Administrator.

National Response Framework

32

C o o r d i n a t i n g S t r u c t u r e s a n d I n t e g r a t i o n
Coordinating structures aid preparedness and response at all levels of government and within the
private sector, communities, and nongovernmental entities. The structures help organize and measure
the whole community’s capabilities in order to address the requirements of the Response mission
area, facilitate problem solving, improve access to response resources, and foster coordination prior
to and following an incident.

Scalable, flexible, and adaptable coordinating structures are essential in aligning the key roles and
responsibilities to deliver the Response mission area’s core capabilities. The flexibility of such
structures helps ensure that communities across the country can organize response efforts to address
a variety of risks based on their unique needs, capabilities, demographics, governing structures, and
non-traditional partners. The NRF is not based on a one-size-fits-all organizational construct, but
instead acknowledges the concept of tiered response, which emphasizes that response to incidents
should be handled at the lowest jurisdictional level capable of handling the mission. These structures
can be partially or fully implemented in the context of a threat, in anticipation of a significant event,
or in response to an incident. Selective implementation allows for a scaled response, delivery of the
exact resources that are needed, and a level of coordination appropriate to each incident.

The following section describes the coordinating structures within the Response mission area and
explains how they integrate with the coordinating structures that support other mission areas to build
preparedness and enhance the Nation’s resilience to all types of risks and hazards.

L o c a l C o o r d i n a t i n g S t r u c t u r e s
Local jurisdictions and states employ a variety of coordinating structures to help identify risks,
establish relationships, organize, and build capabilities. Due to the unique partnerships, geographic
conditions, threats, and established capabilities each jurisdiction faces, the coordinating structures at
these levels vary.

Examples of local response coordinating structures include local planning committees, CERTs, and
chapters of national-level associations. These structures organize and integrate their capabilities and
resources with neighboring jurisdictions, the state, the private sector, and NGOs.

S t a t e a n d T e r r i t o r i a l C o o r d i n a t i n g S t r u c t u r e s
States and territories also leverage the capabilities and resources of partners across the state/territory
when identifying needs and building capabilities. The coordinating structures at the state or territorial
level also vary depending on factors such as geography, population, industry, and the capabilities of
the local jurisdictions within the state. These structures are also designed to leverage appropriate
representatives from across the whole community, some of whom may also participate in local or
regional coordinating structures. Many states or territories create independent committees or councils
focused on specific areas or functions as a sub-set of their emergency management agency.

T r i b a l C o o r d i n a t i n g S t r u c t u r e s
The Tribal Assistance Coordination Group, or TAC-G, is a Multiagency Coordination (MAC) group
that assists federally-recognized tribes during emergencies and disasters, as well as providing
information and technical assistance for tribal emergency management programs. The TAC-G is led
and managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Emergency Management (BIA EM) Program. The
TAC-G consists of partners from all levels of government (local, county, state, tribal, Federal, etc.) as

National Response Framework

33

well as non-profit aid organizations and the private sector. This coordinating body is instrumental in
executing the responsibilities of the Tribal Coordination Support Annex (TCSA).

P r i v a t e S e c t o r C o o r d i n a t i n g S t r u c t u r e s
Business EOCs, industry trade groups, and private sector information and intelligence centers serve
as coordinating structures for the private sector. These organizations, composed of multiple
businesses and entities brought together by shared geography or common function (e.g., banking,
supply chain management, transportation, venue management), support the collaboration,
communication, and sharing of information within the private sector. Such organizations can
coordinate with and support NGOs, and in many cases they serve as a conduit to local and state
government coordinating structures.

F e d e r a l C o o r d i n a t i n g S t r u c t u r e s

National Security Council
The National Security Council (NSC) is the principal policy body for consideration of national
security policy issues requiring Presidential determination. The NSC advises and assists the President
in integrating all aspects of national security policy as it affects the United States—domestic, foreign,
military, intelligence, and economic (in conjunction with the National Economic Council). Along
with its subordinate committees, the NSC is the President’s principal means for coordinating
Executive Branch departments and agencies in the development and implementation of national
security policy.

Emergency Support Functions
The Federal Government and many state governments organize their response resources and
capabilities under the ESF construct. ESFs have proven to be an effective way to bundle and manage
resources to deliver core capabilities. The Federal ESFs are the primary, but not exclusive, Federal
coordinating structures for building, sustaining, and delivering the response core capabilities. Most
Federal ESFs support a number of the response core capabilities. In addition, there are
responsibilities and actions associated with Federal ESFs that extend beyond the core capabilities and
support other response activities, as well as department and agency responsibilities.

The Federal ESFs bring together the capabilities of Federal departments and agencies and other
national-level assets. ESFs are not based on the capabilities of a single department or agency, and the
functions for which they are responsible cannot be accomplished by any single department or agency.
Instead, Federal ESFs are groups of organizations that work together to deliver core capabilities and
support an effective response.

As noted above, many local, state, and tribal jurisdictions have adopted and tailored the ESF
construct. Because state and local jurisdictions establish ESFs based on their specific risks and
requirements, there is no mandatory or direct linkage to the Federal ESFs. Local and state
governments are encouraged to engage members of the whole community as part of whatever
coordinating processes they use.

Table 4 summarizes the Federal ESFs and indicates the response core capabilities each ESF most
directly supports. All ESFs support the common core capabilities–Planning, Public Information and
Warning, and Operational Coordination–and many ESFs support more than those that are listed.

National Response Framework

34

Table 4: Emergency Support Functions and ESF Coordinators

ESF #1—Transportation
ESF Coordinator: Department of Transportation
Key Response Core Capability: Critical Transportation
Coordinates the support of management of transportation systems and infrastructure, the regulation of
transportation, management of the Nation’s airspace, and ensuring the safety and security of the
national transportation system. Functions include but are not limited to:
 Transportation modes management and control
 Transportation safety
 Stabilization and reestablishment of transportation infrastructure
 Movement restrictions
 Damage and impact assessment.
ESF #2—Communications
ESF Coordinator: DHS/Cybersecurity and Communications
Key Response Core Capability: Operational Communications, Infrastructure Systems
Coordinates government and industry efforts for the reestablishment and provision of critical
communications infrastructure, facilitates the stabilization of systems and applications from malicious
cyber activity, and coordinates communications support to response efforts. Functions include but are
not limited to:
 Coordination with telecommunications and information technology industries
 Coordination of the reestablishment and provision of critical communications infrastructure
 Protection, reestablishment, and sustainment of national cyber and information technology

resources
 Oversight of communications within the Federal response structures
 Facilitation of the stabilization of systems and applications from cyber events.
ESF #3—Public Works and Engineering
ESF Coordinator: DOD/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Key Response Core Capabilities: Infrastructure Systems, Critical Transportation, Logistics and Supply
Chain Management, Environmental Response/Health and Safety, Fatality Management, Mass Care
Services, Mass Search and Rescue Operations
Coordinates the capabilities and resources to facilitate the delivery of services, technical assistance,
engineering expertise, construction management, and other support to prepare for, respond to, and/or
recover from a disaster or an incident. Functions include but are not limited to:
 Infrastructure protection and emergency repair
 Critical infrastructure reestablishment
 Engineering services and construction management
 Emergency contracting support for lifesaving and life-sustaining services.
ESF #4—Firefighting
ESF Coordinator: USDA/U.S. Forest Service and DHS/FEMA/U.S. Fire Administration
Key Response Core Capabilities: Operational Communications Logistics and Supply Chain
Management, Infrastructure Systems On-Scene Security, Protection, and Law Enforcement Public
Health, Healthcare, and Emergency Medical Services, Fire Management and Suppression, Situational
Assessment
Coordinates the support for the detection and suppression of fires. Functions include but are not limited
to:
 Support to wildland, rural, and urban firefighting operations.

National Response Framework

35

ESF #5—Information and Planning
ESF Coordinator: DHS/FEMA
Key Response Core Capabilities: Situational Assessment, Planning, Public Information and Warning
Supports and facilitates multiagency planning and coordination for operations involving incidents
requiring Federal coordination. Functions include but are not limited to:
 Incident action planning
 Information collection, analysis, and dissemination.
ESF #6—Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Temporary Housing, and Human Services
ESF Coordinator: DHS/FEMA
Key Response Core Capabilities: Mass Care Services, Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Public
Health, Healthcare, and Emergency Medical Services, Critical Transportation, Fatality Management
Services
Coordinates the delivery of mass care and emergency assistance. Functions include but are not limited
to:
 Mass care
 Emergency assistance
 Temporary housing
 Human services.
ESF #7—Logistics
ESF Coordinator: General Services Administration and DHS/FEMA
Key Response Core Capabilities: Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Mass Care Services, Critical
Transportation, Infrastructure Systems, Operational Communications
Coordinates comprehensive incident resource planning, management, and sustainment capability to
meet the needs of disaster survivors and responders. Functions include but are not limited to:
 Comprehensive, national incident logistics planning, management, and sustainment capability
 Resource support (e.g., facility space, office equipment and supplies, contracting services).
ESF #8—Public Health and Medical Services
ESF Coordinator: Department of Health and Human Services
Key Response Core Capabilities: Public Health, Healthcare, and Emergency Medical Services, Fatality
Management Services, Mass Care Services, Critical Transportation, Public Information and Warning,
Environmental Response/Health and Safety, Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Coordinates the mechanisms for assistance in response to an actual or potential public health and
medical disaster or incident. Functions include but are not limited to:
 Public health
 Medical surge support including patient movement
 Behavioral health services
 Mass fatality management.
ESF #9—Search and Rescue
ESF Coordinator: DHS/FEMA
Key Response Core Capability: Mass Search and Rescue Operations
Coordinates the rapid deployment of search and rescue resources to provide specialized lifesaving
assistance. Functions include but are not limited to:
 Structural collapse (urban) search and rescue
 Maritime/coastal/waterborne search and rescue
 Land search and rescue.

National Response Framework

36

ESF #10—Oil and Hazardous Materials Response
ESF Coordinator: Environmental Protection Agency
Key Response Core Capabilities: Environmental Response/Health and Safety, Critical Transportation,
Infrastructure Systems, Public Information and Warning
Coordinates support in response to an actual or potential discharge and/or release of oil or hazardous
materials. Functions include but are not limited to:
 Environmental assessment of the nature and extent of oil and hazardous materials contamination
 Environmental decontamination and cleanup, including buildings/structures and management of

contaminated waste.
ESF #11—Agriculture and Natural Resources
ESF Coordinator: Department of Agriculture
Key Response Core Capabilities:, Mass Care Services, Critical Transportation, Logistics and Supply
Chain Management
Coordinates a variety of functions designed to protect the Nation’s food supply, respond to plant and
animal pest and disease outbreaks, and protect natural and cultural resources. Functions include but are
not limited to:
 Nutrition assistance
 Animal and agricultural health issue response
 Technical expertise, coordination, and support of animal and agricultural emergency management
 Meat, poultry, and processed egg products safety and defense
 Natural and cultural resources and historic properties protection.
ESF #12—Energy
ESF Coordinator: Department of Energy
Key Response Core Capabilities: Infrastructure Systems, Logistics and Supply Chain Management,
Situational Assessment
Facilitates the reestablishment of damaged energy systems and components and provides technical
expertise during an incident involving radiological/nuclear materials. Functions include but are not limited
to:
 Energy infrastructure assessment, repair, and reestablishment
 Energy industry utilities coordination
 Energy forecast.
ESF #13—Public Safety and Security
ESF Coordinator: Department of Justice/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Key Response Core Capability: On-Scene Security, Protection, and Law Enforcement
Coordinates the integration of public safety and security capabilities and resources to support the full
range of incident management activities. Functions include but are not limited to:
 Facility and resource security
 Security planning and technical resource assistance
 Public safety and security support
 Support to access, traffic, and crowd control.

National Response Framework

37

ESF #14—Superseded by National Disaster Recovery Framework

ESF #15—External Affairs
ESF Coordinator: DHS
Key Response Core Capability: Public Information and Warning
Coordinates the release of accurate, coordinated, timely, and accessible public information to affected
audiences, including the government, media, NGOs, and the private sector. Works closely with state and
local officials to ensure outreach to the whole community. Functions include, but are not limited to:
 Public affairs and the Joint Information Center
 Intergovernmental (local, state, tribal, and territorial) affairs
 Congressional affairs
 Private sector outreach
 All Hazards Emergency Response Operations Tribal.

ESF Member Roles and Responsibilities
ESFs are not solely attributed to any one organization, nor are they mechanisms for executing an
agency’s statutory authorities. Each ESF is composed of a department or agency that has been
designated as the ESF coordinator along with a number of primary and support agencies. Primary
agencies are designated on the basis of their authorities, resources, and capabilities. Support agencies
are assigned based on resources or capabilities in a given functional area. To the extent possible,
resources provided by the ESFs are identified consistently with NIMS resource typing categories.

 ESF Coordinators. ESF coordinators oversee the preparedness activities for a particular ESF
and coordinate with its primary and support agencies. Responsibilities of the ESF coordinator
include:

• Maintaining contact with ESF primary and support agencies through conference calls,
meetings, training activities, and exercises.

• Monitoring the ESF’s progress in meeting the core capabilities it supports.

• Coordinating efforts with corresponding private sector, NGO, and Federal partners.

• Ensuring the ESF is engaged in appropriate planning and preparedness activities.

 Primary Agencies. ESF primary agencies have significant authorities, roles, resources, and
capabilities for a particular function within an ESF. Primary agencies are responsible for:

• Orchestrating support within their functional area for the appropriate response core
capabilities and other ESF missions.

• Notifying and requesting assistance from support agencies.

• Managing mission assignments (in Stafford Act incidents) and coordinating with support
agencies, as well as appropriate state officials, operations centers, and other stakeholders.

• Coordinating resources resulting from mission assignments.

• Working with all types of organizations to maximize the use of all available resources.

• Monitoring progress in achieving core capability and other ESF missions and providing that
information as part of situational and periodic readiness or preparedness assessments.

• Planning for incident management, short-term recovery operations, and long-term recovery.

National Response Framework

38

• Maintaining trained personnel to support interagency emergency response and support teams

• Identifying new equipment or capabilities required to prevent or respond to new or emerging
threats and hazards or to validate and improve capabilities to address changing risks.

• Promoting physical accessibility, programmatic inclusion, and effective communication for
the whole community, including individuals with disabilities.

 Support Agencies. ESF support agencies have specific capabilities or resources that support
primary agencies in executing the mission of the ESF. The activities of support agencies typically
include:

• Participating in planning for incident management, short-term recovery operations, long-
term-recovery, and the development of supporting operational plans, standard operating
procedures, checklists, or other job aids.

• Providing input to periodic readiness assessments.

• Maintaining trained personnel to support interagency emergency response and support teams.

• Identifying new equipment or capabilities required to respond to new or emerging threats and
hazards, or to improve the ability to address existing threats.

• Coordinating resources resulting from response mission assignments.

 Emergency Support Function Leaders Group (ESFLG). The ESFLG comprises the Federal
departments and agencies that are designated as coordinators for ESFs or coordinating agencies
for other NRF annexes. FEMA leads the ESFLG and is responsible for calling meetings and
other administrative functions. The ESFLG provides a forum for departments and agencies with
roles in Federal incident response to jointly address topics such as policies, preparedness, and
training.

ESF Activation
Departments and agencies supporting Federal ESFs may be selectively activated by FEMA or as
directed by the Secretary of Homeland Security to support response activities for incidents. Not all
incidents requiring Federal support result in the activation of ESFs.

When departments and agencies supporting Federal ESFs are activated, they may assign staff at
headquarters, regional, and incident levels. Through the Stafford Act and in accordance with 6 U.S.
Code Sections 741(4) and 753(c), FEMA may issue mission assignments at all levels to obtain
resources and services from Federal departments and agencies across the ESFs.

ESFs are the primary, but not exclusive, response coordinating structures at the Federal level.
Communities, states, regions, and other Federal departments and agencies may use the ESF
construct, or they may employ other coordinating structures or partners appropriate to their location,
threats, or authorities. Whatever structures are used, they are encouraged to work closely with
Federal ESFs at the incident, regional, or headquarters levels if they are activated.

Non-Stafford Act Coordinating Structures
ESFs may not always be the most appropriate response coordinating structures for non-Stafford Act
incidents. For incidents in which there is no Stafford declaration, the department or agency with
primary legal authority or the presidentially designated lead Federal agency may activate the
coordinating structures as they see fit. These structures are generally organized consistently with
NIMS concepts and principles. In addition to their own structures, departments or agencies

National Response Framework

39

responding under their own legal authorities may request the Secretary of Homeland Security to
activate relevant ESFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security coordinates with the head of the
department or agency with primary legal authority, but retains the authority to activate ESFs or other
coordinating structures, as appropriate.

NRF Support Annexes
The NRF Support Annexes describe other mechanisms by which support is organized among private
sector, NGO, and Federal partners. Federal departments and agencies designated as coordinating and
cooperating agencies in NRF support annexes conduct a variety of activities to include managing
specific functions and missions and providing Federal support within their functional areas. The
Support Annexes include:

 Critical Infrastructure
 Financial Management
 International Coordination
 Private Sector Coordination
 Tribal Coordination
 Volunteer and Donations Management
 Worker Safety and Health.

O p e r a t i o n a l C o o r d i n a t i o n
Response operations involve multiple partners and stakeholders. Operational coordination occurs at
all government levels and consists of actions and activities that enable decision makers to determine
appropriate courses of action and provide oversight for complex homeland security operations to
achieve unity of effort and effective outcomes.

Local Response Operational Structures
Emergency responders at all levels of government use ICS command and coordinating structures to
manage response operations (see Figure 2). ICS is a management system designed to integrate
facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications within a common organizational
structure.

At the local level, coordinating structures are usually composed of entities within a specific
functional area such as public works, law enforcement, emergency medical services, and fire
departments. Integration among these structures occurs at an ICP, which provides on-scene incident
command and management.

National Response Framework

40

Figure 2: ICS Command and General Staff

ICS is widely used by all levels of government, as well as by private sector organizations and NGOs
to organize field-level operations for a broad spectrum of incidents. ICS is a flexible organization
which is structured to facilitate activities in six areas: command, operations,
intelligence/investigation, planning, logistics, and finance/administration.

If the local incident commander determines that additional resources or capabilities are needed, he or
she contacts the local EOC and relays requirements to the local emergency manager. Local EOC
personnel facilitate multiagency coordination, help form a common operating picture of the incident,
relieve on-scene command of the burden of external coordination, and secure additional resources to
help meet response requirements.

EOCs at all levels of government may also encourage participation by the private sector, NGOs,
academia, associations, racial and ethnic organizations, and access and functional needs subject
matter experts. These members of the whole community, in turn, often maintain their own structures,
such as nongovernmental or private sector EOCs.

Incident management may also involve Multiagency Coordination Groups (MAC Groups). A MAC
Group is composed of senior officials, such as agency administrators, executives, or their designees,
who are authorized to represent or commit agency resources and funds in support of incident
activities. A MAC Group acts as an executive- or policy-level body during incidents, supporting
resource prioritization and allocation, and enabling decision-making among elected and appointed
officials and those responsible for managing the incident (i.e. the Incident Commander). In some
communities and jurisdictions, MAC Groups are located at or near EOCs in order to authorize
additional resources, approve emergency authorities, and provide guidance on emerging issues.

State Response Operational Structures
The local incident command structure directs on-scene incident management activities and maintains
command and control of on-scene incident operations. State EOCs are activated as necessary to
support local EOCs and to ensure that responders have the resources they need to conduct response

National Response Framework

41

activities. This is achieved through integration of state-level coordinating structures working with
local coordinating structures or the local incident command structure.

State Emergency Operations Center
State EOCs provide a common location for interagency coordination and support to local EOCs
and/or incident personnel. Every state maintains an EOC to manage incidents requiring state-level
assistance (see Figure 3). Some states have additional EOCs for coordinating information and
resources within a region or area.

Figure 3: State and Local Response Structure

Many states involve their tribal counterparts within the EOC to ensure that tribal coordinating
structures are integrated into the delivery of capabilities and tribal needs are addressed.

Federal Response Operational Structures
When an incident occurs that exceeds, or is anticipated to exceed, local or state resources—or when
an incident is managed by Federal departments or agencies acting under their own authorities—the
Federal Government may use the management structures described within the NRF. Additionally, the
Federal Government may use supplementary or complementary plans to involve all necessary
department and agency resources to organize the Federal response and ensure coordination among all
response partners.

All Federal departments and agencies may play significant roles in response activities depending on
the nature and size of an incident. Many of the arrangements by which departments and agencies
participate are defined in the ESF Annexes, coordinated through pre-scripted mission assignments in
a Stafford Act response, formalized in interagency agreements, or described in NRF supplementary
plans.

The following sections describe Federal support operations at the incident, regional, and headquarters
levels.

Federal Incident-level Operations
To help deliver Federal support or response at the incident level, coordinating structures are aligned
to incident-level structures.

National Response Framework

42

Unified Coordination
Unified Coordination is the term used to describe the primary state/tribal/Federal incident
management activities conducted at the incident level. Unified Coordination is typically directed
from a Joint Field Office (JFO), a temporary Federal facility that provides a central location for
coordination of response efforts by the private sector, NGOs, and all levels of government. Unified
Coordination is organized, staffed, and managed in a manner consistent with NIMS principles using
an ICS structure. The Unified Coordination Group (UCG) is composed of senior leaders representing
state, tribal, and Federal interests and, in certain circumstances, local jurisdictions and the private
sector. UCG members must have significant jurisdictional responsibility and authority. The
composition of the UCG varies from incident to incident depending on the scope and nature of the
disaster. The UCG leads the unified coordination staff. Personnel from state, tribal, and Federal
departments and agencies, other jurisdictional entities, the private sector, and NGOs may be assigned
to the unified coordination staff at various incident facilities (e.g., JFO, staging areas, and other field
offices). The UCG determines staffing of the unified coordination staff based on incident
requirements.

Although Unified Coordination is based on the ICS structure, it does not manage on-scene
operations. Instead, it focuses on providing support to on-scene response efforts and conducting
broader support operations that may extend beyond the incident site. Unified Coordination must
include robust operations, planning, public information, and logistics capabilities that integrate local,
state, and Federal—as well as tribal, territorial, and insular area governments—personnel when
appropriate, so that all levels of government work together to achieve unity of effort.

When incidents affect multiple localities and states or the entire Nation, multiple UCGs with
associated unified coordination staff may be established. In these situations, coordination occurs
according to the principles of area command as described in NIMS.

As the primary field entity for Federal response, Unified Coordination integrates diverse Federal
authorities and capabilities and coordinates Federal response and recovery operations. Figure 4
depicts a Unified Coordination organization that might be assembled to deal with a major incident,
such as a terrorist attack, that includes a law enforcement dimension. Federal agencies that conduct
on-scene, tactical-level activities may also establish incident and area command structures, generally
in conjunction with their counterpart local, state, tribal, territorial and/or insular area government
agencies, to manage that work.

National Response Framework

43

Figure 4: Unified Coordination

Federal Incident-level Operations for Non-Stafford Act Incidents
For non-Stafford Act incidents, the department or agency with primary legal jurisdiction activates the
response structures appropriate to its authorities; these structures are generally organized based on
NIMS concepts and principles. When coordinating according to Presidential directive, the Secretary
of Homeland Security coordinates with the head of the department or agency with primary legal
jurisdiction but retains the authority to activate the additional response structures the Secretary
determines appropriate. In non-Stafford Act incidents, Federal agencies who have responsibility for
on-scene, tactical-level operations may establish incident command and area command structures, or
coordinate with state, tribal and local agencies to form unified incident command and unified area
command structures.

Federal Regional Operational Support
Coordinating structures can be assembled and organized at the regional level to address incidents that
cross state borders or have broad geographic or system-wide implications or to manage competing
requirements for response assets among multiple incidents.

Federal Regional Facilities
Most Federal departments and agencies have regional or field offices that may participate with state
and local governments in planning for incidents and provide response assets when an incident occurs
in their jurisdiction. Some Federal departments and agencies share the same standard Federal
regional structure as FEMA. In larger-scale incidents, these regional and field offices may provide
the initial response assets with additional support being provided from other department and agency
offices across the Nation. Some Federal regional and field offices have their own EOCs to support
deployments of their assets.

 FEMA Regional Response Coordination Center (RRCC). FEMA has 10 regional offices,
each headed by a Regional Administrator. Each of FEMA’s regional offices maintains an RRCC.

National Response Framework

44

When activated, RRCCs are multi-agency coordination centers generally staffed by ESFs in
anticipation of or immediately following an incident. Operating under the direction of the FEMA
Regional Administrator, the staff within the RRCCs coordinates Federal regional response efforts
and maintains connectivity with FEMA Headquarters and with state EOCs, state and major urban
area fusion centers, Federal Executive Boards, Tribal governments and other Federal, tribal, and
state operations and coordination centers that potentially contribute to the development of
situational awareness. The UCG assumes responsibility for coordinating Federal response
activities at the incident level once Unified Coordination is established, freeing the RRCC to deal
with new incidents should they occur.

Federal Headquarters Operational Support
Coordinating structures are assembled and organized at the headquarters level, particularly to address
incidents that cross regional borders or have broad geographic or system-wide implications.

Federal Operations Centers
Most Cabinet-level departments and agencies have at least one headquarters-level operations center.
A wide range of such centers maintain situational awareness within their functional areas and provide
relevant information to the DHS National Operations Center (NOC)35 during an incident. These
operations centers may also coordinate ESF activities, communicate with other Federal operations
centers, and communicate with their local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area government
counterparts. Examples of Federal Operations Centers include:

 National Operations Center (NOC). In the event of an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or
other emergency, the National Operations Center (NOC),36 as the principal operations center for
the Department of Homeland Security, coordinates and integrates information from NOC
components to provide situational awareness and a common operating picture for the entire
Federal Government, as well as for local, tribal, and state governments, as appropriate, to ensure
that accurate and critical terrorism and disaster-related information reaches government decision
makers in a timely manner. Additionally, the NOC serves as the national fusion center, collecting
and synthesizing all-source information, including information from state and major urban area
fusion centers, for all threats and hazards across the entire integrated national preparedness
system.

 National Response Coordination Center (NRCC). When activated, the NRCC is a
multiagency coordination center located at FEMA Headquarters. Its staff coordinates the overall
Federal support for major disasters and emergencies, including catastrophic incidents and
emergency management program implementation. FEMA maintains the NRCC as a functional
component of the NOC for incident support operations.

 National Military Command Center (NMCC). DOD’s NMCC is the Nation’s focal point for
continuous monitoring and coordination of worldwide military operations. It directly supports
combatant commanders, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and
the President in the command of U.S. Armed Forces in peacetime contingencies and war. The
NMCC participates in a wide variety of activities, ranging from missile warning and attack
assessment to management of peacetime operations such as Defense Support of Civil Authorities
during national emergencies.

35 The NOC is composed of the NOC Watch, Intelligence Watch, FEMA National Watch Center, and National
Response Coordination Center, and the National Infrastructure Coordination Center.

National Response Framework

45

 Strategic Information and Operations Center (SIOC). The SIOC acts as the FBI’s worldwide
EOC. The SIOC maintains situational awareness of criminal or terrorist threats, critical incidents
and crises, both foreign and domestic, regardless of cause or origin, and provides FBI
headquarters executives, domestic field offices, and overseas legal attachés with timely
notification and the dissemination of strategic information. The SIOC shares information and
intelligence with other EOCs at all levels of government. Maintaining a constant state of
readiness to support any crisis or major event, the SIOC provides a secure venue to support crisis
management, special event monitoring, and significant operations. It provides command, control,
communications connectivity, and a common operating picture for managing FBI operational
responses and assets anywhere in the world on behalf of FBI Headquarters divisions, field
offices, and legal attachés. In the event of a crisis, the SIOC establishes the headquarters
command post and develops connectivity to field command posts and Joint Operations Centers.

 Joint Operations Center (JOC). In response to significant threats or incidents involving Federal
crimes under the criminal jurisdiction of the United States, the FBI may establish a JOC, a
regional multijurisdictional interagency investigative, intelligence, and operations center to lead
and coordinate the law enforcement response, investigative operations and related intelligence
activities. The JOC is led by an FBI On-Scene Commander and is supported by a federal, state,
local, territorial, and tribal Command Group and a Consequence Management Group, as
appropriate. The JOC is the place from which the FBI leads and coordinates the law enforcement
operational response, on-scene law enforcement, and related investigative and intelligence
activities. In response to terrorist threats, FBI will establish a Joint Operations Center for the
purpose of managing the investigation and coordinating the law enforcement response to resolve
terrorist threats or incidents. If the threat involves potential attacks in or threats spanning multiple
geographic areas, then multiple JOCs may be established. The JOC is established by the FBI
under the operational control of the Operations Section Chief (OSC), and acts as the focal point
for the strategic management and direction of on-site activities, identification of State and local
requirements and priorities, and coordination of the Federal counterterrorism response.
Additionally, the JOC will be augmented by outside agencies, including representatives from the
Domestic Emergency Support Team (DEST) (if deployed), who provide interagency technical
expertise. The JOC is established to ensure inter-incident coordination and to organize multiple
agencies and jurisdictions within an overall command and coordination structure. Representation
within the JOC includes officials from local, State and Federal agencies with specific roles in
counterterrorism and consequence management.

The specific structures that are activated for any given incident depend on the levels of government
involved, as well as the legal authorities under which the response is being conducted.

I n t e g r a t i o n
Effective emergency response requires the ability for the response coordinating structures to link to
and share information with the coordinating structures in the other mission areas. For example, in the
wake of a terrorist attack that results in the need for a coordinated Federal response, Response
mission area coordinating structures must work closely with those in the Prevention, Protection,
Mitigation, and Recovery mission areas. Effective mitigation efforts directly reduce the required
scale of response operations. Prevention and protection activities continue after an attack to prevent
and protect from follow-on attacks. This requires close coordination of prevention and protection
activities with response and recovery efforts. Integration of response mission activities with
protection efforts may also occur in the context of a credible threat. Following determination of such
a threat, Protection mission area organizations may switch to an enhanced steady-state posture. At

National Response Framework

46

that time, Response mission area assets may need to be positioned to respond quickly should
protection, mitigation, and prevention efforts fail. Establishing close working relationships, lines of
communication, and coordination protocols between protection, prevention, response, and recovery
organizations facilitate this process.

Examples of Response mission area coordinating structures cooperating with other mission area
assets include:

 Coordinating with Prevention and Protection mission area structures to share information.
 Coordinating with Protection mission area structures in the wake of an incident to ensure that

communities and emergency responders have the protection needed to perform their jobs.

 Coordinating anticipatory Response mission area activities with the Mitigation and Recovery
mission activities. Although they are generally considered to be prevention or protection focused
organizations, the various state and major urban area fusion centers are examples of coordinating
structures whose utility spans mission areas. The collection, analysis, and dissemination of
information by the fusion centers can inform response activities through information sharing and
operational coordination efforts.

Because of the natural relationship between response and recovery efforts and the fact that response
and recovery activities often occur simultaneously, the responsibilities of some ESFs correspond with
or transition to the responsibilities of Recovery Support Functions (RSF), the Recovery mission area
coordinating structures defined in the National Disaster Recovery Framework. The RSFs frequently
build on the ESF capabilities and short-term recovery efforts applied by the ESFs to meet basic
human needs to integrate short-term recovery efforts with intermediate and long-term recovery
needs. The relationships and integration between the ESFs and the coordinating structures of other
mission areas are detailed in the FIOPs.

Science and Technology
Science and technology (S&T) capabilities and investments are essential for enabling the delivery
and continuous improvement of National Preparedness. The whole community should design,
conduct, and improve operations based on the best, most rigorous scientific data, methods, and
science-based understandings available. Commitments and investments that ensure global leadership
in science and technology will yield leading-edge technology and scientific understanding to guide
National Preparedness actions. In addition, coordination across the whole community, including
scientific researchers, will ensure that scientific efforts are relevant to National Preparedness.

Science and technology-based capabilities and assets are essential to the response mission area.
When natural disasters strike, leading edge scientific assets are deployed via satellite and aerial
platforms to provide fast, high resolution information about conditions on the ground. When
technological accidents occur, such as chemical spills or releases, embedded or rapidly deployed
scientific and technological experts employ the most relevant, best-available scientific analyses and
assessment methods to diagnose conditions and protect public health and safety. Effective decision
making in a rapidly changing disaster situation requires timely and relevant information for
situational awareness and technologies that enable communication across platforms and teams.
Further, integrating science and technology breakthroughs into emergency response teams’ tools and
training ensures the most up-to-date and effective treatment of victims.

Ensuring long-term S&T investments to advance the ability to respond to ever-evolving hazards, and
sustaining a healthy science and technology workforce, supports the response mission area core

National Response Framework

47

capabilities for years into the future. Coordination between those with response mission
responsibilities and U.S. science and technology communities and institutions will be necessary to
ensure that scientific efforts, education, and investments are relevant to response.

R e l a t i o n s h i p t o O t h e r M i s s i o n A r e a s
All five mission areas integrate with each other through interdependencies, shared assets, and
overlapping objectives. These overlapping areas are identified through comprehensive planning with
the whole community to ensure that they are addressed during response to an incident.

The Response mission area integrates with the other four mission areas in the following manner:

 Prevention. Response organizations coordinate with those responsible for preventing imminent
acts of terrorism to understand potential and specific threats and to prepare accordingly by
planning for general threats and through crisis action planning for credible threats. Response
mission area capabilities must be available in case efforts to prevent terrorist attacks fail or
credible threats are identified. Coordinating with prevention officials aids response officials in
understanding the extraordinary response capabilities that terrorist attacks may require. When
response activities are occurring, whether due to a terrorist attack or another type of incident,
prevention activities continue.

 Protection. Efforts to protect people and communities, as well as vital facilities, systems, and
resources, are inextricably linked to response efforts. Responders that support the Protection and
Recovery mission areas include many of the same people and organizations. Protection activities
occur before, during, and after incidents. In the aftermath of an incident, a physically secure
environment should be established before Response mission area organizations can deliver
essential response capabilities.

 Mitigation. Reducing risk through hazard mitigation reduces requirements for response
capabilities. Mitigation organizations often have special insight into risks and hazards that can be
shared with response personnel to improve response planning and execution.

 Recovery. Communities should build recovery plans before an incident occurs. After an incident,
recovery efforts must begin as soon as possible, often while response capabilities are still being
applied.

O p e r a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g
Planning across the full range of homeland security operations is an inherent responsibility of every
level of government. This NRF fosters unity of effort for emergency operations planning by
providing common doctrine and purpose.

A plan is a continuous, evolving instrument of anticipated actions that maximizes opportunities and
guides response operations. Since planning is an ongoing process, a plan is a product based on
information and understanding at the moment and is subject to revision.

Operational planning is conducted across the whole community, including the private sector, NGOs,
and all levels of government. Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 provides further
information on the various types of plans and guidance on the fundamentals of planning.

From the Federal perspective, integrated planning helps explain how Federal departments and
agencies and other national-level whole community partners provide the right resources at the right
time to support local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area government response operations. From

National Response Framework

48

their perspectives, integrated planning provides answers to questions about which traditional and
non-traditional partners can provide the necessary resources.

Federal plans for incidents are developed using a six-step process, as shown below, in alignment with
the steps described in CPG 101.

Figure 5: The Six-Step Planning Process

The following section outlines how operational planning is applied within the Response mission area
and provides guidance for the development of the Response FIOP.

R e s p o n s e O p e r a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g
Figure 6 below provides an overview of how Federal incident operational planning efforts are
aligned under the National Preparedness System and are mutually supportive in their development,
coordination, and use.

Step 1: Form a
Collaborative

Planning Team

Step 2:
Understand the

Situation

Step 3:
Determine Goals
and Objectives

Step 4: Plan
Development

Step 5: Plan
Preparation,
Review and

Approval

Step 6: Plan
Implementation

and Maintenance

National Response Framework

49

Figure 6: Alignment of Planning Efforts with PPD 8 – National Preparedness

Federal Planning
At the Federal level, the NRF is supported by the Response FIOP for all hazards. Incident Annexes to
the FIOP address unique concepts of operations or capabilities for risks that are not otherwise
addressed by the FIOP. The concepts in the NRF and NIMS guide Federal operational response
planning the Response FIOP, which provides further information regarding roles and responsibilities,
identifies the critical tasks an entity takes in executing core capabilities, and identifies resourcing and
sourcing requirements.

The Response FIOP further defines the concepts, principles, structures, and actions introduced in this
Framework with a specific focus on these elements at the Federal level. It addresses
interdependencies and integration with the other mission areas throughout the plan’s concept of
operations. It also describes the management of concurrent actions and coordination points with the
areas of prevention, protection, mitigation, and recovery.

The Response FIOP takes an all-hazards approach to preparedness, highlights key areas of
interoperability across the five mission areas, and addresses the whole community to optimize
resources. The concept of operations in the Response FIOP is based on a no-notice catastrophic

National Planning Frameworks
• Mitigation • Response • Recovery • Protection • Prevention

Federal Interagency Operational Plans
• Mitigation • Response • Recovery • Protection • Prevention

Federal Interagency Operational Plan/ Annexes
• Mitigation • Response • Recovery • Protection • Prevention

Strategic and Executive Guidance
• National Preparedness System
• Strategic National Risk Assessment
• National Preparedness Goal

Department/Agency Plans

* 44 CFR, Part 201 provides information on the policies and procedures for mitigation planning as required by the provisions of
section 322 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5165

Department/Agency Plan Annexes

Advise/Coordinate Direct Alignment

Regional Plans
• FEMA
• OFA

State, Local, Tribal, Territorial Plans
• Emergency Operational Plans
• Recovery Plans
• Hazard Mitigation Plans*

National Response Framework

50

incident that spans multiple regions and states and assumes hundreds of thousands of casualties,
severe damage to critical infrastructure, and limited ingress and egress due to massive damage to
transportation systems. Such an incident would have significant ramifications on the political,
economic, social, environmental, logistical, technical, legal, and administrative structures and would
overwhelm local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area government response capabilities.

While the planning factors used for the Response FIOP suggest an incident that will result in a
Stafford Act declaration, the plan also addresses the responsibility of certain Federal departments and
agencies to lead elements of a response under their own authorities in response to a non-Stafford Act
incident.

The Response FIOP contains:

 A detailed concept of operations.
 A description of critical tasks and responsibilities.
 Detailed resourcing, personnel, and sourcing requirements.
 Specific provisions for the rapid integration of resources and personnel to incidents caused by

any of the hazards/threats to which the whole community is particularly vulnerable.

 Functional and incident-specific annexes as necessary.
It does not contain detailed descriptions of specific department or agency functions as such
information is located in department- or agency-level operational plans.

The NRF is based on the concept of tiered response with an understanding that most incidents start at
the local and tribal level, and as needs exceed resources and capabilities, additional local, state, tribal,
and Federal assets are applied. The Response FIOP, therefore, is intended to align with other local,
state, tribal, territorial, insular area government, and Federal plans to ensure that all response partners
share a common operational focus. Similarly, integration occurs at the Federal level among the
departments, agencies, and nongovernmental partners that compose the respective mission area
through the frameworks, FIOPs, and departmental and agency operations plans.

In developing the Response FIOP, the following planning needs are taken into account:

 Food and water.
 Physically accessible evacuation and sheltering.
 Accessible transportation.
 Medical surge, medical countermeasures, and treatment capability.
 General and medical supplies that include, but are not limited to, durable medical equipment,

consumable medical supplies, accessible cots, and services such as personal assistance services.

 Emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs.
 Reunification and safety of unaccompanied minors.
 Guardianship.
 All communication efforts are distributed at the same time and are provided in multiple formats

to account for the access and functional needs of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing,
individuals with limited English proficiency, individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds,
individuals with cognitive limitations, and individuals who do not use traditional media.

National Response Framework

51

 Animal emergency management needs.

P l a n n i n g A s s u m p t i o n s
The detailed planning factors for the Response FIOP focus on the impacts associated with a large-
scale emergency or disaster that could occur anywhere within the United States, its territories, or
insular area governments and results in a substantial number of fatalities and injuries, widespread
property loss, and disruption of essential services across a large geographic area. Such an occurrence
has significant ramifications on the political, economic, social, environmental, logistical, technical,
legal, and administrative structures within the impacted area and may overwhelm governmental
response capabilities.

The plan addresses the potential, unique requirements and needs of all members of the whole
community. While the Response FIOP contains assumptions for each of the response core
capabilities, some of the overarching assumptions include the following:

 Multiple catastrophic incidents or attacks will occur with little or no warning.
 Incidents are typically managed at the lowest possible geographic, organizational, and

jurisdictional level.

 Incident management activities will be initiated and conducted using the principles contained in
NIMS.

 The combined expertise and capabilities of government at all levels, the private sector, and
NGOs will be required to respond to a catastrophic incident.

F r a m e w o r k A p p l i c a t i o n
Implementation of the concepts within the NRF and Response FIOP is mandatory for Federal
departments and agencies. While the NRF does not direct the actions of other response elements, the
guidance contained in the NRF and the Response FIOP is intended to inform local, state, tribal,
territorial, and insular area governments, as well as NGOs and the private sector, regarding how the
Federal Government responds to incidents. These partners can use this information to inform their
planning and ensure that assumptions regarding Federal assistance and response and the manner in
which Federal support will be provided are accurate.

S u p p o r t i n g R e s o u r c e s
To assist NRF users, FEMA will maintain an online repository that contains electronic versions of
the current NRF documents—base document, ESF annexes, and support annexes—as well as other
supporting materials. This Resource Center will provide information, training materials, and other
tools, such as an overview of the main Stafford Act provisions, a guide to authorities and references,
and an abbreviation list to assist response partners in understanding and executing their roles under
the NRF.

Resource Center materials will be regularly evaluated, updated, and augmented as necessary.
Additional content may be added or modified at the request of Response mission area partners and
other users.

National Response Framework

52

C o n c l u s i o n
The environment in which the Nation operates grows ever more complex and unpredictable. In
implementing the NRF to build national preparedness, partners are encouraged to develop a shared
understanding of broad-level strategic implications as they make critical decisions in building future
capacity and capability. The whole community should be engaged in examining and implementing
the strategy and doctrine contained in this Framework, considering both current and future
requirements in the process. This means that this Framework is a living document, and it will be
regularly reviewed to evaluate consistency with existing and new policies, evolving conditions, and
the experience gained from its use. Reviews will be conducted in order to evaluate the effectiveness
of the Framework on a quadrennial basis.

DHS will coordinate and oversee the review and maintenance process for the NRF. The revision
process includes developing or updating any documents necessary to carry out capabilities.
Significant updates to the Framework will be vetted through a Federal senior-level interagency
review process. This Framework will be reviewed in order to accomplish the following:

 Assess and update information on the core capabilities in support of Response goals and
objectives.

 Ensure that it adequately reflects the organization of responsible entities.
 Ensure that it is consistent with the other four mission areas.
 Update processes based on changes in the national threat/hazard environment.
 Incorporate lessons learned and effective practices from day-to-day operations, exercises, and

actual incidents and alerts.

 Reflect progress in the Nation’s Response mission activities, the need to execute new laws,
executive orders, and Presidential directives, as well as strategic changes to national priorities
and guidance, critical tasks, or national capabilities.

The implementation and review of this Framework will consider effective practices and lessons
learned from exercises and operations, as well as pertinent new processes and technologies. Effective
practices include continuity planning, which ensures that the capabilities contained in this
Framework can continue to be executed regardless of the threat or hazard. Pertinent new processes
and technologies should enable the Nation to adapt efficiently to the evolving risk environment and
use data relating to location, context, and interdependencies that allow for effective integration across
all missions using a standards-based approach. Updates to the NRF Annexes may occur
independently from reviews of the base document.

America’s security and resilience work is never finished. While the Nation is safer, stronger, and
better prepared than it was a decade ago, the commitment to safeguard the Nation against its greatest
risks, now and for decades to come, remains resolute. By bringing the whole community together
now to address future needs, the Nation will continue to improve its preparedness to face whatever
challenges unfold.

Introduction
Framework Purpose and Organization
Evolution of the Framework
Relationship to NIMS
Intended Audience
Scope
Guiding Principles
Engaged Partnership
Tiered Response
Scalable, Flexible, and Adaptable Operational Capabilities
Unity of Effort through Unified Command
Readiness to Act
Risk Basis
Roles and Responsibilities
Individuals, Families, and Households
Communities
Nongovernmental Organizations
Private Sector Entities
Local Governments
Chief Elected or Appointed Official
Emergency Manager
Other Local Departments and Agencies
State, Tribal, Territorial, and Insular Area Governments
States
Governor
State Homeland Security Advisor
State Emergency Management Agency Director
National Guard
Other State Departments and Agencies
Tribes
Chief Executive
Territories/Insular Area Governments
Territorial/Insular Area Leader

Federal Government
The Federal Government becomes involved with a response when Federal interests are involved; when state, local, tribal, or territorial resources are overwhelmed and Federal assistance is requested; or as authorized or required by statute, regulation, …
Different Federal departments or agencies lead coordination of the Federal Government’s response depending on the type and magnitude of the incident and are also supported by other agencies that bring their relevant capabilities to bear in responding …
Secretary of Homeland Security
Attorney General
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of State
Director of National Intelligence
Other Federal Department and Agency Heads

Core Capabilities
Context of the Response Mission Area
Cross-cutting Response Core Capabilities
Integration among Response Core Capabilities and Mission Areas
Response Actions to Deliver Core Capabilities
Individuals and Households
Private Sector
Nongovernmental Organizations
Local, State, and Tribal Actions
State-to-State Assistance
Federal Authorities
Federal Response and Assistance Available Without a Stafford Act Declaration
Federal Departments and Agencies Acting Under Their Own Authorities
Federal-to-Federal Support
Federal Response and Assistance Under the Stafford Act
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
Proactive Response to Catastrophic Incidents

Coordinating Structures and Integration
Local Coordinating Structures
State and Territorial Coordinating Structures
Tribal Coordinating Structures
Private Sector Coordinating Structures
Federal Coordinating Structures
National Security Council
Emergency Support Functions
ESF Member Roles and Responsibilities
ESF Activation
Non-Stafford Act Coordinating Structures
NRF Support Annexes

Operational Coordination
Local Response Operational Structures
State Response Operational Structures
State Emergency Operations Center
Many states involve their tribal counterparts within the EOC to ensure that tribal coordinating structures are integrated into the delivery of capabilities and tribal needs are addressed.
Federal Response Operational Structures
Federal Incident-level Operations
Unified Coordination
Federal Incident-level Operations for Non-Stafford Act Incidents
Federal Regional Operational Support
Federal Regional Facilities
Federal Headquarters Operational Support
Federal Operations Centers

Integration
Science and Technology

Relationship to Other Mission Areas
Operational Planning
Response Operational Planning
Federal Planning
Planning Assumptions
Framework Application
Supporting Resources
Conclusion

Community Preparedness:

Simple Activities for
Everyone

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page i

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

CONTENTS

Purpose

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

The Preparedness Topics……………………………………………………………………………………………………2

How To Use the Materials

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..3

Planning Your Program ………………………………………………………………………………………………………4

Step 1: Identify Your Target Audience

………………………………………………………………………4
Step 2: Determine Interests and Needs …………………………………………………………………….4
Step 3: Select Presenters ………………………………………………………………………………………..5
Step 4: Prepare the Presentation ……………………………………………………………………………..6
Step 5: Arrange Logistics…………………………………………………………………………………………8
Step 6: Get the Word Out ………………………………………………………………………………………..9

Getting Feedback

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10

Acknowledging Accomplishments

……………………………………………………………………………………….10

Additional Resources

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………11

Note: Copies of the activities are in the Facilitator Guide and Handout Masters
document.

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page 1

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

PURPOSE

Preparedness is the shared responsibility of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit
sectors, and individual citizens.

Individuals and households are at the core of our Nation’s preparedness. A community’s ability
to respond to or recover from a disaster depends on the level of preparedness of every
member. However, a 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey found that 29 percent of Americans
have not prepared because they think that emergency responders will help them and that over
60 percent expect to rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster.
The reality is that in a complex disaster, first responders and emergency workers may not be
able to reach everyone right away. In addition, providers may not be able to restore critical
services, such as power, immediately.

The purpose of this initiative is to promote personal and community preparedness through
engaging activities for individuals, neighbors, or households. These activities are a set of
building blocks. You can mix and match the activities based on the needs of your target
audience or time available. Most activities can be completed during a 15-minute to 60-minute
session. You should adapt the materials to include critical local information, such as information
on local hazards, local alerts and warnings, and local community response resources and
protocols.

Remember, preparedness does not have to be complex or overly time consuming. Rather, it
should motivate, empower, and engage the whole community.

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page 2

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

THE PREPAREDNESS TOPICS

Below is a list of the preparedness activities:

Core Preparedness Topics
Title Information and Activities on . . . Approx. Length
Preparedness on a
Shoestring

Creating a no-cost or low-cost disaster kit 30 – 60 minutes

Where Is Everybody? Developing a communications plan 20 minutes
Who Can You Count On?
Who Counts on You?

Establishing a personal support network 20 minutes

Easy Out: Getting to Safety Planning for and practicing an evacuation

30 minutes

Storm Safe — Sheltering in
Place

Staying safe when evacuation is not an option 20 – 40 minutes

Disaster Plan Dress
Rehearsal

Practicing your disaster plan 30 – 60 minutes

Hazard-Reduction Topics
Title Information and Activities on . . . Approx. Length
Hunting Home Hazards Identifying and reducing home hazards 30 – 60 minutes
An Ounce of Fire Prevention Identifying and reducing fire risks 30 minutes
Putting Out Fires Using a fire extinguisher 30 – 60 minutes
Home Safe Home Implementing simple risk-reduction (mitigation)

measures
30 – 60 minutes

Safeguarding Your Valuables Protecting important items and documents 30 minutes

Specialized Preparedness Topics
Title Information and Activities on . . . Approx. Length
Pet/Service Animal
Preparedness

Taking care of pets and service animals during a
disaster

30 minutes

Rx for Readiness Starting a “Stay Healthy” Kit and plan 30 minutes
Going Off Grid: Utility
Outages

Preparing for utility outages 20 – 40 minutes

Coming Home After a
Disaster

Planning for recovery from disaster 20 minutes

Preparedness: The Whole
Community

Understanding emergency management and
response roles and getting involved

30 – 90 minutes

Remember . . . You can mix and match the topics based on the needs of your audience. In
addition, you may adjust the times by modifying the activities demonstrated during the session.

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page 3

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

HOW TO USE THE MATERIALS

Each topic includes a facilitator guide and participant materials.

The program design has limited the number of pages and the need for presentation equipment
such as computers and projectors.

The first pages of each topic
provide the facilitator with:
• Overall purpose of the

session.
• Suggested preparation

steps and materials.
• Presentation tips.

Facilitator Guide

Following the facilitator guide
are handouts for the
participants to use during the
session or as “take away”
materials.

Handouts

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page 4

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

PLANNING YOUR PROGRAM

To plan your preparedness program, you may want to complete the following steps:

Below are suggestions for completing each step.

Step 1: Identify Your Target Audience

Think about who would benefit from this program. Make a list of the potential members of your
target audience.

Step 2: Determine Interests and Needs

Now that you have identified the members of your target audience, ask yourself:

• What will motivate these individuals to attend preparedness session(s)?
• What do you think participants will hope to gain or learn?
• Which topics are of most interest to them?
• How much time will individuals want to spend at a session? How likely are they to return if

you offered multiple sessions?
• What day, time, and location will be best?
• What is the ideal mix of people to help foster networking and sustainability after the session?

Use the answers to these questions to select the topics to be included in your program and
determine how to schedule your session(s).

Step 6: Get the Word Out

Step 5: Arrange Logistics

Step 4: Prepare the Presentation

Step 3: Select Presenters

Step 2: Determine Interests and Needs
Step 1: Identify Your Target Audience

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page 5

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

PLANNING YOUR PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

Step 3: Select Presenters

A facilitator with effective communications skills should be able to conduct most of the
sessions.

However, it is recommended that individuals with the following expertise present the two
sessions below.

Title Recommended Presenter
Putting Out Fires Fire Service Personnel
Preparedness: The Whole Community Emergency Management Personnel

Optional: You may want to consult or involve the following additional individuals in the
following sessions:

Title Optional Individuals To Involve
Preparedness on a Shoestring Emergency Management Personnel
Where Is Everybody? Emergency Management Personnel
Who Can You Count On? Who Counts
on You?

Representatives From Functional Needs
Community

Easy Out: Getting to Safety Emergency Management Personnel
Storm Safe — Sheltering in Place Emergency Management Personnel
Disaster Plan Dress Rehearsal Emergency Management Personnel
Hunting Home Hazards Fire Service Personnel
An Ounce of Fire Prevention Fire Service Personnel
Home Safe Home Construction Expert or Structural

Engineer/Mitigation Specialist
Pet/Service Animal Preparedness Local Animal Shelter Personnel/Veterinarian
Rx for Readiness Local Medical or Public Health Personnel
Going Off Grid: Utility Outages Local Public Works Personnel/Utility Company

Representative
Coming Home After a Disaster Construction Expert or Structural

Engineer/Emergency Management Personnel

In addition, local nongovernmental groups, such as the American Red Cross or Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) members are invaluable resources to help with
presentations or prepare you to conduct the sessions.

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page 6

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

PLANNING YOUR PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

Step 4: Prepare the Presentation

The facilitator’s preparation and conduct of the session are keys to the effectiveness of this
program. Presenters should do the following:

• Read the materials thoroughly.
• Complete all activities and be prepared to answer the questions that the participants will

likely ask while completing the activities.
• Draft your own notes in the margins of the materials.
• Add personal experiences to help explain the important points.
• Tailor the material with information on local hazards, local alerts and warnings, and local

community response resources and protocols. Also, you may want to emphasize different
information (e.g., apartment evacuation vs. single homes) to meet your audience’s needs.

• Rehearse with a small group and ask for suggestions for enhancing the delivery.
• Remember to use the following effective facilitation techniques:

Facilitation Techniques

 Make yourself part of the group. Do not separate yourself physically from the
group by standing behind a podium or a table. Feel free to move around the
room while you are speaking.

 Do not read or lecture to the group. Think back to the last class that you
attended. If the instructor lectured incessantly, chances are that you tuned out
and did not learn much. This package is a guide, not your script. Flexibility is the
key to success. You may modify discussion questions to meet the needs of the
group. If you do not like or do not understand a question, change it.

 Don’t answer questions if you are not sure of the answers. If a participant
asks you a question to which you do not know the answer:
• Tell the participant that you do not know the answer.
• Explain that you will find the answer and get back to the participant.

 Check for understanding. Sticking to the agenda is important, but do not move

to the next activity before ensuring that the group understands what has already
been discussed. You can check understanding by asking for volunteers to
summarize concepts and fill in gaps during your transitions.

 Watch for both verbal and nonverbal responses and clues. Use your
observations to keep the session running smoothly.

Additional presentation do’s and don’ts are listed on the next page.

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page 7

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

PLANNING YOUR PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

Step 4: Prepare the Presentation (Continued)

Do’s . . . Don’ts . . .

Eye Contact Eye Contact
• Look at people’s eyes.
• Continually scan the group with your eyes.
• Look at the whole group.

• Avoid eye contact.
• Scan the group too rapidly or infrequently.

Body Movement Body Movement
• Position your body so you face the majority

of the people.
• Vary your position in the room.
• Stand with good posture.
• Walk toward people when they speak.

• Talk to your notes, easel, or board.
• Turn your back to part of the group.
• Stand in fixed positions.
• Slouch.
• Distance yourself from people.

Gestures Gestures
• Use natural and spontaneous gestures.
• Smile and be animated.

• Engage in distracting behavior such as looking at
your watch, or jingling change.

Voice/Speech Voice/Speech
• Speak loud enough to be heard.
• Vary the pace of your presentation.
• Slow down for important points.
• Use the pause.

• Mumble.
• Use “fillers” such as “like” or “um.”
• Speak with a monotone voice.
• Be afraid of pauses.

Ask Questions Ask Questions
• Ask clear, concise questions.
• Focus each question on a single issue.
• Make sure the participants can answer your

questions.

• Ask questions that require two distinct answers.
• Answer your own question! Rephrase your

question if you don’t get an answer.

Listening Listening
• Keep an open mind.
• Maintain eye contact and show interest.
• Consider the speaker’s nonverbal

behaviors and tone of voice.
• Ask for clarification.
• Paraphrase the meaning and feelings being

expressed.

• Be judgmental.
• Interrupt the speaker.
• Begin formulating a rebuttal.
• Distort the message based on your own beliefs

or thoughts.

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page 8

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

PLANNING YOUR PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

Step 5: Arrange Logistics

Use the checklist below to organize and take care of all logistics.

Notifications

• Have all participants and presenters been notified of the time and location?  Yes  No
• Has any needed transportation been arranged?  Yes  No

Condition of Room

• Is the training room clean?  Yes  No
• Does the room accommodate individuals with disabilities?  Yes  No
• Is seating capacity adequate?  Yes  No
• Is seating arrangement (round tables, conference tables) satisfactory?  Yes  No

Safety

• Are there adequate exits from the room?  Yes  No
• Are exits clearly marked?  Yes  No
• Do any hazards exist (e.g., loose wires/cables, narrow aisles, loose carpet,

sharp edges on tables, etc.)?
 Yes  No

Supplies, Materials, and Refreshments

• Do you have all needed supporting materials?  Yes  No
• Are there sufficient copies of all handout materials?  Yes  No
• Are there pens and paper for the participants to take notes?  Yes  No
• Are there badges or name tents for the participants?  Yes  No
• Do you have feedback questionnaires for the participants?  Yes  No
• Do you plan to serve refreshments?  Yes  No

Forming partnerships with other organizations or getting sponsorship from the business
community can help defray some of the expenses for supplies, materials, and refreshments.

Faith-based organizations, libraries, civic associations, schools, or government office buildings
may have space for hosting the sessions.

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page 9

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

PLANNING YOUR PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

Step 6: Get the Word Out

You may need to let your target audience know about the preparedness program. Below are
suggestions for getting the word out:

• Email messages to members
• Newsletter articles
• Web, social media, or blog postings
• Public service announcements
• Local cable television notices

Forming a partnership with local media outlets can be invaluable for promoting your program
and recognizing contributions from presenters and others.

Taking photographs of preparedness sessions may be useful for promoting future sessions.
Remember, you should get releases from individuals before publishing the photographs.

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page 10

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

GETTING FEEDBACK

At the end of your session, you may want to get feedback from your participants. Below are
sample questions that you can ask:

Sample Feedback Questions

• What was the most effective portion of the presentation?
• How could we improve this presentation?
• Following this presentation, what preparedness actions do you plan to take?
• What additional preparedness information would be helpful?

ACKNOWLEDGING ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Following your session, you may want to take the following actions:

• Thank-You Notes: Make sure to send thank-you notes to individuals and organizations

who helped with presentations or provided sponsorship.

• Follow-Up: Contact participants to see if they are implementing preparedness actions.

• Certificates: Present certificates to participants who complete the entire program.

• Articles or Postings: Feature preparedness accomplishments in articles or web postings
to reinforce actions and encourage others.

Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone

September 2011 Page 11

PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Below are additional resources that you may want to use in planning and conducting your
preparedness program.

• Citizen Preparedness Publications
 Preparing for Disaster – FEMA 475
 Helping Children Cope With Disaster – FEMA 478
 Food and Water in an Emergency – FEMA 477
 Emergency Financial First Aid Kit – FEMA 532

Web Site: http://www.citizencorps.gov/ready/cc_pubs.shtm

• Ready.gov
 Ready Family Emergency Plans
 Hazard-Specific Information
 Family Communications Plan and Wallet Card
 Printer-Friendly Supplies

Web Site: http://www.ready.gov

• Red Cross
 Ready Quick-Reference
 Disaster Preparedness for People With Disabilities

Web Site: http://www.redcross.org

• Weather Information
 Weather Information

Web Site: http://www.weather.gov
 NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards

Web Site: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/streamaudio.htm

• Flu.gov
Web Site: http://www.flu.gov

• Foodsafety.gov
Web Site: http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/emergency/index.html

• Firesafety.gov
Web Site: http://www.firesafety.gov

http://www.citizencorps.gov/ready/cc_pubs.shtm

http://www.ready.gov/

http://www.redcross.org/

http://www.weather.gov/

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/streamaudio.htm

http://www.flu.gov/

http://www.flu.gov/

http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/emergency/index.html

http://www.foodsafety.gov/

http://www.foodsafety.gov/

http://www.foodsafety.gov/

http://www.firesafety.gov/

http://www.firesafety.gov/

• Contents

Purpose

• The PREPAREDNESS TOPICS

How To Use the Materials

• planning your program

Step 1: Identify Your Target Audience
Step 2: Determine Interests and Needs

• planning your program (ContinuEd)

Step 3: Select Presenters
planning your program (ContinuEd)
Step 4: Prepare the Presentation
planning your program (ContinuEd)
Step 4: Prepare the Presentation (Continued)
planning your program (ContinuEd)
Step 5: Arrange Logistics
planning your program (ContinuEd)
Step 6: Get the Word Out
Getting Feedback
Acknowledging Accomplishments
Additional Resources

September 2013

i

Contents
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………… 1

1. Preparedness Actions ………………………………………………………….. 5

1.1 Recommended Preparedness Actions

……………………………………………………………. 6
1.2 Self-Reported Preparedness Behavior ……………………………………………………………11
1.3 Perceived Barriers to Preparedness ……………………………………………………………..12

2. Beliefs about Risk and Efficacy by Hazard ……………………………… 13
2.1 Perceived Risk and Severity …………………………………………………………………………14
2.2 Perceived Efficacy ………………………………………………………………………………………15
2.3 Disaster Groups ………………………………………………………………………………………….16

3. Beliefs and Experiences Relate to Preparedness Behaviors ……… 17
3.1 Relationships With Preparedness Behaviors …………………………………………………..18
3.2 Beliefs: Relationship to Preparedness Behaviors ……………………………………………..19
3.3 Experiences: Relationship to Preparedness Behaviors ……………………………………..21

4. Preparedness Profiles Based on Beliefs and Experiences ………… 23
4.1 Preparedness Profiles …………………………………………………………………………………24

5. Preparedness Through Social Networks ………………………………… 29
5.1 Select Social Networks ………………………………………………………………………………..30
5.2 The Workplace …………………………………………………………………………………………..30
5.3 School ………………………………………………………………………………………………………33
5.4 Volunteerism in Preparedness/Safety/Disasters ………………………………………………36
5.5 Expectations for Assistance ………………………………………………………………………….38

6. Preparedness Among Sociodemographic Groups ……………………. 39

Translating Research Into Action ……………………………………………….. 49

Next Steps for FEMA ……………………………………………………………….. 51

Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………. 55
Appendix A: Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………….57
Appendix B:

Survey Questions Reported in

Preparedness in America

……………………….59

Preparedness in America

ii

Executive Summary

1

As disasters continue to impact our Nation, the role of individuals and the importance of
engaging all sectors in reducing the impact of disasters has become increasingly evident.
Recognizing the need to involve the Nation more fully, Presidential Policy Directive-8 (PPD-
8), issued on March 20, 2011, states that “our national preparedness is the shared responsibility
of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and individual citizens.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is committed to social and physical
science as the foundation for increasing individual and community preparedness and has
conducted national household surveys to assess the public’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors
on preparing for a range of hazards since 2007.1 Preparedness in America: Research Insights to
Increase Individual, Organizational, and Community Action advances our understanding of the
complexities of motivating the public to prepare by examining trend data on personal
preparedness behaviors and by providing findings on several new areas of analysis:






Exploring the relationship between preparedness behaviors and individuals’ beliefs and
experiences around disasters;

Identifying profiles of the general public to assist practitioners in conducting more targeted
and effective engagement, education, and messaging strategies; and

Examining the effect of community connections and networks on personal preparedness.

FEMA recognizes that widespread cultural change is a long-term process, and while the national
statistics on basic preparedness actions have remained largely constant, findings documented in
Preparedness in America offer valuable insights for adapting education efforts to increase
preparedness. Key findings from the research focus on the public’s behaviors, knowledge, and
attitudes related to preparing for a range of hazards.

Preparedness Actions






The percentage of surveyed individuals taking recommended preparedness actions remains
largely unchanged since 2007.

Seventy percent of respondents in 2011 lived in homes (rented or owned) where at least one
action was taken to protect the structure; however, of the six mitigation measures analyzed,
only two had been completed by more than a quarter of the homes.

More than a quarter of respondents in 2011 reported they were contemplating or preparing to
take action to prepare for emergencies and were likely to be receptive to outreach efforts.

Cost and not knowing how to prepare were each perceived as barriers by one quarter of those
surveyed.

1 See Appendix A for a description of the FEMA National Survey Methodology and Appendix B for survey questions summarized in
this report.

Executive Summary

Preparedness in America

2

Beliefs About Risk and Efficacy by Hazard

 The data identified clear differences in how survey respondents perceived risk, severity, and
efficacy by different categories of hazard. Respondents believed they were at risk for natural
disasters and that preparing for them is helpful. Respondents believed terrorist acts,
hazardous materials accidents, and disease outbreaks were less likely and that preparedness
would not be as helpful.

Beliefs and Experiences Related to Preparedness Behaviors








All examined beliefs (confidence in one’s ability to respond, perceived risk, belief that
preparing will help in an event, and belief that a disaster could be severe) related to natural
disasters had a positive relationship with preparedness behaviors.

For terrorist acts, hazardous materials accidents, and disease outbreaks, only the confidence
in one’s ability to respond had a positive relationship with preparedness behaviors.

Willingness to consider preparing, knowing how to prepare, and having thought about
preparedness had a positive relationship with preparedness behaviors.

Referencing a personal disaster experience is likely more effective in motivating
preparedness behavior than referencing disasters in other locations.

Talking about preparedness had a strong positive relationship with preparedness behavior,
yet less than half of the respondents reported doing so in the previous 2 years.

Having planning and training encouraged or required at work or school had a positive
relationship with other preparedness behaviors.

Preparedness Profiles Based on Beliefs and

Experiences

 The public can be placed into Preparedness Profiles based on beliefs and experiences.
Sociodemographic attributes have been identified for each Preparedness Profile.

Preparedness Through Social Networks




The survey data indicated that the workplace, schools, and volunteer organizations that
support community preparedness, safety, or emergency response are effective channels for
preparedness outreach.

Exposure to disaster preparedness through each of the three analyzed social networks
(workplace, schools and response volunteer organizations) had a positive relationship to
preparedness behaviors.

Executive Summary

3

Preparedness Among Sociodemographic Groups




People with low incomes perceived much greater barriers to preparedness (in terms of
time, money, and access to information).

Differences in preparedness across age, income, race, or population density categories were
generally fairly small. Some substantial differences found were:

–

–
–

People in high population density areas were more likely to rely on public transportation
to evacuate the area in the event of a disaster.

Volunteering in disaster preparedness/response was mostly done by people with average
to high incomes.

Retirement-aged people (75+ category) participated in disaster training much less than
people in other age categories.

Next Steps for FEMA






Revise content and framing for preparedness messaging to include:

–
–

–
–

Re-examining preparedness messages;

Validating science base for protective actions;

Incorporating insights from disaster survivors; and

Providing localized risk data.

Tailor implementation by stakeholder and sociodemographic group to include:

–
–
–

–
–

Launching a new community-based campaign, America’s PrepareAthon!SM;

Providing tailored preparedness resources and training;

Supporting workplace preparedness;

Implementing the National Strategy for Youth Preparedness Education; and

Encouraging volunteer opportunities.

Engage the whole community by:

–
–

Expanding partnerships at all levels and with all sectors; and

Supporting Citizen Corps Councils.

Refine evaluation and assessment to include:

–
–
–

Conducting in-depth assessments of whole community preparedness in large urban cities;

Refining national research activities; and

Partnering with National Academies of Science to build on the findings in their report,
Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative.

Preparedness in America

4

We each have a role in ensuring the resilience of our communities, our nation, and our way of
life. Together, we can guarantee that everyone in America has the knowledge, skills, and
resources to respond to the challenges brought by weather, disease, hazardous incidents, and
terrorism.

This guide provides examples of good practices and matters to consider for planning and
implementation purposes. The guidance does not create any requirements beyond those included
in applicable law and regulations, or create any additional rights for any person, entity, or
organization. The information presented in this document generally constitutes informal
guidance and provides examples that may be helpful. The inclusion of certain references does
not imply any endorsement of any documents, products, or approaches. There may be other
resources that may be equally helpful.

5

1 Preparedness Actions

Section Overview: Trend data on recommended preparedness actions is presented, as
well as self-reported preparedness behavior, and barriers to preparing.

Key Findings:






The percentage of surveyed individuals taking recommended preparedness actions
remains largely unchanged since 2007.

Seventy percent of respondents in 2011 lived in homes (rented or owned) where at
least one action was taken to protect the structure; however, of the six mitigation
measures analyzed, only two had been completed by more than a quarter of the
homes.

More than a quarter of respondents in 2011 reported they were contemplating or
preparing to take action to prepare for emergencies and were likely to be receptive to
outreach efforts.

Cost and not knowing how to prepare were each perceived as barriers by one quarter
of those surveyed; preparedness messages and outreach strategies should be
developed to counter or re-frame these perceptions.

Preparedness in America

6

Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)/FEMA has significantly increased the emphasis on educating individuals on how to
prepare for disasters by using the national platform of the Ready campaign, grassroots outreach
through local Citizen Corps Councils, and coordination with states, territories, tribes, local
communities, and other partners across the country.

The Ready.gov website serves as FEMA’s clearinghouse for personal preparedness information
and organizes this information into four categories.2






Be Informed: Know local/community risks and community systems and plans, participate in
preparedness training, and practice response skills by participating in drills.

Make a Plan: Develop a household emergency plan and discuss it with household members.

Build a Kit: Set aside and maintain supplies one may need in disasters.

Get Involved: Find local opportunities to volunteer for community safety and disaster
response and be a part of the community planning process.

In addition, FEMA works with all partners to promote mitigation measures to help reduce the
impact of disasters on individuals and property.

Be Informed

Being informed encompasses risk awareness, the ability to receive notifications, knowledge,
training, and practicing skills, and survey questions address each of these elements. In 2011, just
one in three (32 percent) of the respondents reported being familiar with their local hazards—in
2012, that number rose to 46 percent (Figure 1). Participants also rated their familiarity with
features of their community disaster preparedness and response plans. In 2012, there were sharp
increases in respondents’ familiarity with local hazards and alerts and warning systems, yet a
decrease in any preparedness training in the past 2 years.

To assess knowledge of protective actions for specific hazards, FEMA fielded surveys in 2011
and 2012 that included questions to test respondents’ knowledge of risk and protective actions
for floods, tornadoes, and earthquakes.i,ii,iii Those who believed they were at risk for flooding
were more likely to talk to their insurance agent and take steps to prevent or reduce flooding.
Ninety-five percent or greater correctly identified protective actions for tornadoes to find shelter
and go to a basement or interior windowless room and knew that most deaths and injuries in a
tornado are caused by flying debris. Seventy-two percent, however, incorrectly believed that if
they are in a vehicle, they should find an overpass and stop underneath it until the tornado
passes. When respondents who live in an earthquake risk area were asked six questions on key

2 The first three informational categories have also been used as the Ready campaign’s “three step” tagline since its launch in 2003,
and have been replicated by many state and local entities. FEMA and its partners are in the process of examining how to increase
the effectiveness of preparedness messaging; see Summary Report on Awareness to Action: A Workshop on Motivating the Public
to Prepare http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31359?id=7124 for details and the Next Steps for FEMA section.

1.1 Recommended Preparedness Actions

http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31359?id=7124

Preparedness
Actions 1

7

actions to take during an earthquake, respondents who had received earthquake preparedness
information in the preceding 6 months were significantly more likely to answer the knowledge
questions correctly.

Figure 1: Be Informed

Make a Plan

Since household members may not be together when a disaster strikes, it is important to plan in
advance for how they will get to a safe place and how they will contact one another and reunite.
The FEMA National Household Survey asked respondents about their household plan and
whether or not they had discussed it with members of the household. As shown in Figure 2, 39
percent of participants in 2012 indicated they had a household plan that they had discussed with
their household; this represents a slight decline from a gradual increase in prior years.

Preparedness in America

8

Figure 2: Household Emergency Plans

Build a Kit

In 2012, 52 percent of individuals reported having supplies set aside in their home for use during
a disaster—a decrease from 57 percent in 2009 (Figure 3). In all survey years, only a subset of
those individuals who reported having supplies in their home were able to name three or more
supplies in their home and report that they update them at least once a year.

Figure 3: Disaster Supplies in Homes

Preparedness
Actions 1

9

Packaged food and bottled water were consistently the most frequently cited supplies, followed
by a flashlight, first aid kit, and blankets/clothing/bedding. In 2012, nearly 70 percent of
respondents had packaged food or bottled water while fewer reported having a flashlight (42
percent), first aid kit (32 percent), or blankets/clothing/bedding (18 percent). Although
nationwide, 34 percent of individuals take medications to manage chronic health conditions,iv
only 8 percent of respondents in 2012 mentioned having medications in their emergency supply
kit. Having access to financial, insurance, medical, and other records is crucial for starting the
process of recovery as quickly as possible. When asked about these items in 2011, 34 percent of
the participants reported having stored these items.

Get Involved

FEMA encourages the active participation of trained volunteers to strengthen community safety
and to support emergency responders when an incident occurs. As shown in Figure 4, rates of
volunteerism to emergency response and community preparedness/safety organizations remained
unchanged.

Figure 4: Be Involved

Protecting the Home

In addition to the personal preparedness actions above, FEMA strongly advocates for individuals
to protect their home from disasters. In 2011, FEMA asked a series of questions to identify the
extent to which individuals were taking actions to mitigate the effects of floods, hurricanes, and
tornadoes on their homes. Overall, 70 percent of respondents lived in homes (rented or owned)
where mitigation measures had been taken, with raising the furnace, water heater, or electric
panel above the floor being the most frequently cited action3 (Figure 5).

3 It is important to note that this is national data only, and does not take into account the specific hazard risks at the survey
respondent’s location.

Preparedness in America

10

Figure 5: Mitigation Actions Completed for Survey Respondents’ Home (2011)

Preparedness
Actions 1

11

1.2 Self-Reported Preparedness Behavior
To understand how individuals self-identify around personal preparedness, FEMA developed a
survey question on the Stages of Change Model developed by Prochaska and DiClemente,v
which describes behavior change as a five-stage process to assess preparedness. This type of
self-assessment provides insight into an individual’s readiness to attempt, make, or sustain
behavior changes (Table 1).4

Table 1: General Stages of Behavior Change

Stage Description

Pre-
Contemplation No intention to change or think about change in the near future.

Contemplation Not prepared to take action at present, but is intending to take action.

Preparation Actively considering changing his or her behavior in the immediate future.

Action Recent overt behavior change, but the changes are not well established.

Maintenance Behavior changed and been maintained for more than 6 months.

FEMA asked respondents to self-
report which description best
captured their level of preparedness.
In 2011, more than a quarter of all
respondents reported that they were
contemplating preparing in the next
6 months (19 percent) or preparing
to take action in the next month (9
percent), 15 percent reported they
had recently begun preparing, and
about one-third of the participants
described themselves in the
maintenance stage (i.e., they had
been prepared for more than 6
months and were maintaining their
preparedness behaviors). Twenty-
one percent indicated they were not
planning to do anything about
preparing, placing them in the pre-
contemplation category (Figure 6).vi

4 The Stages of Change Model is based on the individual’s perception, and is not based on actual or self-reported preparedness
behaviors. The “preparation” stage describes planning to change one’s behavior and should not be confused with disaster
“preparedness.”

Figure 6: Stages of Change (2011)

Preparedness in America

12

1.3 Perceived Barriers to Preparedness
There are a number of reasons that may influence people’s ability to prepare. FEMA asked
respondents to share their perceptions of four commonly cited barriers to preparedness.
Respondents most frequently agreed that preparing was too expensive (26 percent) and that
they did not know how to get prepared (24 percent). Less than 20 percent of respondents
believed that preparing was too hard or that getting information was too hard (Figure 7). By
better understanding the issues that may be affecting motivation, preparedness messages and
outreach strategies should be developed to counter or re-frame these perceived barriers.
Overall, less than one-quarter of respondents in 2011 indicated they did not perceive any
barriers to their ability to prepare.

Figure 7: Perceived Barriers to Preparedness (2011)

13

2 Beliefs About Risk and Efficacy
by Hazard

Section Overview: An examination of individuals’ beliefs about risk, preparedness, and
response for different categories of hazards: natural hazards, hazardous materials
accident, disease outbreak, and terrorism. The beliefs examined were:






Perceived risk—How likely is it that the disaster will happen?

Perceived severity—How severe will the effects of a disaster be to me?

Belief that preparing will help—Will what I do now help me in a disaster? and

Confidence in ability to respond—I will be able to successfully respond to a disaster.

Key Findings:

 The data identified clear differences in how survey respondents perceived risk,
severity, and efficacy by different categories of hazard. Public beliefs about hazards
can be clustered into two groupings:

–
–

Individuals had similar beliefs about natural disasters, including wildfires, floods,
and weather emergencies. Respondents believed they were at risk for these
disasters and that preparing for them would be helpful.

Individuals had similar beliefs about terrorist acts, hazardous materials accidents,
and disease outbreaks. Respondents believed these disasters were less likely and
that preparedness would not be as helpful.

Preparedness in America

14

2.1 Perceived Risk and Severity
Data from several FEMA national household surveys consistently demonstrated that different
categories of hazards were perceived to have different risks. Respondents were asked to rate the
likelihood of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, hazardous material accidents, and highly
contagious disease outbreaks ever happening in their community. Most respondents in 2012
(57 percent) believed they were at risk for experiencing at least one of these events. As illustrated
in Figure 8, nearly half of participants considered it likely that a natural disaster would occur in
their community.5 Respondents considered hazardous materials accidents, disease outbreaks, and
terrorist acts substantially less likely.

Overall, this represents a small but steady increase in people’s risk perception of natural
disasters, possibly due to increased media coverage surrounding several high profile natural
disasters that have occurred in the past few years. Based on data from 2007–2011, people’s
perceived risk of disease outbreaks peaked at 28 percent during the H1N1 outbreak in 2009.vii
Perceived risk of hazardous materials accidents remained constant, while perceived risk of
terrorist acts decreased over that same period.

Figure 8: Perceived Risk

To enhance the understanding of how people think about different categories of disaster, in 2011,
FEMA asked respondents to consider the same four categories of disasters, and then rate how
severe the impact would be to them personally if the event were to occur. For all disaster
categories, more participants perceived higher severity than higher likelihood of a disaster
occurrence (Figure 9). This gap was most pronounced for a terrorist act: while fewer people

5 These surveys were national in scope; all respondents were asked questions on all hazards and were not matched to actual hazard risk
for the respondent’s location.

Beliefs about Risk and
Efficacy by Hazard 2

15

thought they were at risk for a terrorist act, more people thought that if such an act occurred, the
impact to them personally would be severe or very severe.

Figure 9: Perceived Risk and Severity (2011)*

2.2 Perceived Efficacy
To better understand how to motivate the
public to take action, it is important to
understand whether or not people think they
can do anything to prevent or mitigate the
effects of a disaster. Thus, FEMA developed
survey questions to examine respondents’
beliefs related to the following:




Belief That Preparing Will Help: The
belief that preparedness actions will be
useful in the event of a disaster; and

Confidence in Ability to Respond: The
belief that I will be able to successfully
respond to a disaster.

Figure 10 presents these findings for a range of
hazards.

In 2011, 68 percent of respondents believed
that preparing in advance for a natural disaster
would help them during/after the event. When
asked to rate their confidence in knowing how
to respond to different types of disasters,
individuals were more confident in their ability
to react to natural disasters than to terrorist

Figure 10: Perceived Efficacy: Preparing
Helps and I Can Respond (2011)

Preparedness in America

16

acts, hazardous materials accidents, or disease outbreaks. In 2011, two-thirds of individuals
(67 percent) expressed confidence in their ability to respond to a weather emergency like a
snowstorm or hurricane (disasters that tend to occur with advanced warning), while the other half
were confident in their ability to respond to a natural disaster that occurred with no warning,
such as an earthquake/tornado (51 percent). Even fewer individuals expressed confidence in the
case of a disease outbreak (35 percent), hazardous materials accident (25 percent), or a terrorist
act (22 percent).

2.3 Disaster Groups
Individuals’ attitudes toward different hazards may affect their preparedness. To examine
response patterns to the four belief questions across disasters, a factor analysis was performed.
The analysis indicated that disaster types fall into two groupings (Grouping 1: Natural Disasters
and Grouping 2: Terrorism/Hazardous Materials Accident/Disease Outbreak). This means that if
someone has a certain belief towards a hazardous materials accident, he or she is likely to hold
the same belief towards a disease outbreak or a terrorist act but not necessarily towards a natural
disaster.

Figure 11 presents perceived risk, severity, usefulness of preparing, and confidence in ability to
respond for each grouping. Future research to examine disasters from the perspective of notice
versus no-notice events may provide additional findings to inform preparedness messaging.

Figure 11: Belief by Disaster Groups (2011)

17

3 Beliefs and Experiences Related to
Preparedness Behaviors

Section Overview: An analysis of which personal beliefs and experiences have a positive
relationship to preparedness behaviors to determine which beliefs and experiences should
be reinforced and enhanced.

Key Findings:





All examined beliefs related specifically to natural disasters had a positive
relationship with preparedness behaviors. Of the examined beliefs related to terrorist
acts, hazardous materials accidents, and disease outbreaks, only the confidence in
one’s ability to respond had a positive relationship with preparedness behaviors.

Willingness to consider preparing, knowing how to prepare, and having thought about
preparedness are three beliefs that had a positive relationship to preparedness
behaviors.

Referencing a personal disaster experience was likely more effective in motivating
preparedness behavior than referencing disasters in other locations.

Leveraging social networks to provide opportunities to discuss preparedness and to
encourage planning and training should be reinforced and enhanced.

Preparedness in America

18

To identify possible levers to increase preparedness behaviors, FEMA completed two driver
analyses6 to examine the relationship between:




Respondents’ agreement with a belief and their preparedness behaviors; and

Respondents’ personal and social experiences and their preparedness behaviors.

3.1 Relationships With Preparedness Behaviors

The results from this analysis are visually presented in two quadrant maps. The quadrant maps
illustrate (1) the degree to which a percentage of the population agrees with each belief/experience
and (2) the strength of the relationship between the belief/experience and a composite preparedness
behavior measure.7, 8 In addition, pairings or clusters of beliefs/experiences have been highlighted
with ovals and a narrative explanation to help practitioners apply this research to increase
preparedness.

6 Driver analysis is a method of determining which concepts are related to another desired behavior.
7 This composite preparedness behavior measure counted each of the following reported behaviors: knowing about alerts and
warnings systems, participating in trainings and meetings, participating in drills, having a plan and having discussed the plan with
family members, and having supplies and naming three or more updated supplies.
8 Different findings may have resulted if the sample was segmented for this analysis. For example, the analysis was not conducted
separately for those respondents who live in regions at higher risk for terrorism or those with household incomes below the national
average.

Beliefs and Experiences Related to
Preparedness Behaviors 3

19

3.2 Beliefs: Relationship to Preparedness
Behaviors

The 2011 FEMA National Survey contained 16 questions about beliefs, which were analyzed in
terms of their relationship with preparedness behaviors. The results of this analysis are presented
in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Key Findings About Beliefs and Preparedness Behaviors (2011)

Natural Disasters:9 The gray oval (center) highlights that all examined beliefs related to natural
disasters had a positive relationship with preparedness behaviors: confidence in one’s ability to
respond, perceived risk to natural disasters, belief that preparing will help in an event, and belief
that a natural disaster could be severe. This means people who held these beliefs had also taken
preparedness actions. Increasing the number of people who hold these beliefs through messaging
and education may increase preparedness behaviors.

9 Natural disasters were not separately grouped by notice and no-notice events.

Preparedness in America

20

Terrorism, Hazardous Materials, Disease Outbreak: Of the examined beliefs related to terrorist
acts, hazardous materials accidents, and disease outbreaks (the red ovals, upper and lower left),
only the confidence in one’s ability to respond had a positive relationship with preparedness
behaviors. Messages that increase confidence in one’s ability to respond to these types of
disasters should be enhanced and any messages relating to these hazards that address risk or
severity should be paired with information to increase confidence in one’s ability to respond. Of
all the beliefs analyzed, increasing the number of people who had confidence in their ability to
respond to terrorism, hazardous materials, and disease outbreaks had the highest likelihood of
increasing preparedness behaviors.

Beliefs About Preparedness: Willingness to consider preparing, knowing how to prepare, and
having thought about preparedness (the blue oval, upper right) are three beliefs that had a strong
positive relationship with preparedness behaviors. These beliefs are already held by more than
half of the U.S. population, but should continue to be reinforced.

Beliefs With No Positive Relationship to Preparedness Behavior. Several beliefs were widely
held, but did not have a relationship to preparedness behavior. For example, 96 percent of
respondents agreed with the belief “It is my responsibility to take care of my family in a
disaster,” but this belief did not show a positive relationship with preparedness behaviors. Thus,
while emphasizing family responsibility in communications may elicit agreement, it is unlikely
by itself to increase preparedness actions. Emergency managers should consider limiting or
removing emphasis on these factors in their outreach and preparedness message strategies, as
they are not empirically linked to increased preparedness or engagement in preparedness
behaviors. The beliefs without a positive relationship to preparedness behavior are:







Feels responsible for one’s family (responsible for family);

Believes that one has access to preparedness information (access to prep info);

Believes that one has time to prepare (has time to prep);

Believes that training helps (training helps); and

Believes that preparedness is affordable (considers prep affordable).

Beliefs and Experiences Related to
Preparedness Behaviors 3

21

3.3 Experiences: Relationship to Preparedness
Behaviors

The 2011 FEMA National Survey contained eight questions about personal, social, and other
experiences, which were analyzed in terms of their relationship with preparedness behaviors. The
results of this analysis are presented in Figure 13. Ovals and explanatory narrative have again
been used to highlight pairings to help practitioners apply this research.

Figure 13: Key Findings About Experiences and Preparedness Behaviors (2011)

Disaster Experience: Personal disaster experience had a positive relationship with preparedness
behaviors, but disasters occurring in other places did not (dark blue ovals, upper and lower
right).10 Well over half the respondents indicated experience with some type of disaster and
referencing past experiences should be reinforced.

10 This analysis did not explore whether thinking about disasters that happen elsewhere could be related to preparedness if
information about disasters that happen elsewhere were accompanied by information about the effectiveness of preparedness.

Preparedness in America

22

Discussing Preparedness/Encouragement From Social Networks:




Talking about preparedness had a highly positive relationship with preparedness behavior,
yet less than half of the respondents reported doing so in the previous 2 years. Opportunities
for people to discuss preparedness should be enhanced. Simply knowing someone who is
prepared did not have a positive relationship with preparedness behaviors; having the
opportunity to discuss preparedness appears to be crucial (red oval, upper left and lower
right).

Having planning and training encouraged or required at work or school had a positive
relationship with other preparedness behaviors (light blue oval, center). Encouraging
community and faith-based organizations, schools, and workplaces to provide opportunities for
discussing preparedness and organizing opportunities for disaster planning and training should
be reinforced and enhanced.

Volunteerism: Increasing opportunities for people to volunteer to support emergency responder
organizations, organizations that focus on community preparedness and safety, and volunteering
after a disaster may help increase preparedness (gray oval, upper left). Volunteer opportunities
should be enhanced since few people reported having these experiences and volunteering had a
positive relationship to other preparedness behaviors.

23

4 Preparedness Profiles Based on
Beliefs and Experiences

Section Overview: An analysis to segment the survey respondents into different groups
or Preparedness Profiles based on patterns of beliefs and experiences.

Key Findings:



The public can be placed into Preparedness Profiles based on beliefs and experiences.

Emergency managers can use the sociodemographic attributes identified for each
Preparedness Profile to identify channels and outreach methods for each Profile and
to develop tailored messages and outreach.

Preparedness in America

24

4.1 Preparedness Profiles
Building on Section 3: How Beliefs and Experiences Relate to Preparedness Behaviors, FEMA
used a latent class analysis (LCA)11 to develop Preparedness Profiles to identify groups of people
who have similar beliefs and experiences related to preparedness. The LCA segmented 2011
FEMA National Survey respondents into different groups based on similar response patterns:
each survey participant was assigned to a profile based on his/her survey responses.

As a result of the LCA, four different groups or Preparedness Profiles were identified and, for
ease of discussion, a descriptive name was assigned to each profile. The next four pages present
detailed information on the characteristics of each Profile and provide points of comparison to
the other Profiles.

These Preparedness Profiles can be used to tailor preparedness campaigns and help identify key
segments of the population that may be receptive to preparedness messages and opportunities to
discuss preparedness, receive training, participate in exercises, and volunteer.

11 An LCA was conducted. LCA is a modeling technique that classifies individuals based on a set of defined variables. To conduct
LCA, variables that are very highly correlated with each other are combined to create a smaller set of variables before the analysis
takes place. The variables used in the LCA for preparedness profiles were drawn from the factor analysis conducted to understand
how individuals think about disasters across a range of hazards, the stages of change survey question (which correlates strongly
with reported preparedness behaviors), and a composite variable based on responses to a range of potential preparedness barriers.

Preparedness Profiles Based on
Beliefs and Experiences 4

25

Preparedness in America

26

Preparedness Profiles Based on
Beliefs and Experiences 4

27

Preparedness in America

28

29

5 Preparedness Through Social
Networks

Section Overview: An analysis of three key networks of social connection within a
community: the workplace, school, and volunteering in preparedness/safety/disaster-
related organizations.

Key Findings:



The survey data indicated that the workplace, schools, and volunteer organizations
that support community preparedness, safety, or emergency response are effective
channels for preparedness outreach.

Each of the three analyzed social networks represents significant opportunity to
expand and enhance messaging, training, exercises, and volunteer opportunities to
increase individual, household, and organizational preparedness nationwide, such as:

–
–
–

Encouraging or requiring participation in trainings and drills at work had a
positive relationship to preparedness behaviors;

Providing children with materials at school to give their parents may enhance
preparedness; and

Providing and marketing preparedness/safety and disaster response volunteer
opportunities may help increase community preparedness overall.

Preparedness in America

30

5.1 Select Social Networks
Data was collected for three key social
connection networks within a
community: the workplace, school, and
volunteering in preparedness/safety/
disaster-related organizations. Nearly
the entire U.S. population can be
reached through these three channels:
57 percent of Americans age 16 and
older are employed,viii approximately 33
percent of households have at least one
school-aged child,ix and a quarter of the
population (27 percent) covering
individuals from all age groups
volunteered in the Nation in 2010.x
These connections can have a powerful
influence on preparedness behavior, and
may represent an opportunity for local
emergency managers to collaborate with
community members on disaster
preparedness outreach and training.

5.2 The Workplace
The workplace may be one of the most
effective channels through which to
encourage individual and family
preparedness. Survey results indicate a
positive relationship between work
status (full or part time) and emergency
preparedness.

People who were encouraged by their
employer to have a plan or participate in
training were 76 percent and 86 percent
more likely to do so, respectively. In
addition, employed respondents
participated in more home drills than
unemployed participants (Figure 14).
Employed respondents were also more

Figure 14: Preparedness Behaviors by Job Status
(2011)

Preparedness Through
Social Networks 5

31

likely to participate in training than those who were not employed.

Of individuals who work full or part time, 46 percent reported participating in a workplace
evacuation or shelter in place drill—respondents also reported completing both of these drills
more often than not (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Participation in Workplace Drills (2011)

Full-time employees were significantly more confident in their ability to know how to respond to
certain disasters (Figure 16) and were more familiar with a number of community emergency
plans and systems (Table 2).

Preparedness in America

32

Figure 16: Confidence in Ability to Respond by Job Status (2011)

Preparedness Through
Social Networks 5

33

Table 2: Familiarity With Local Community Plans and Systems by Job Status

Familiarity with: Works full time Works part time Not employed

Alert and warning systems 47%* 40%* 43%

Evacuation plan 17% 15% 17%

Sheltering plan 20%* 16%* 20%

Local hazards 35%* 32%* 30%

Emergency transportation
and shelter plans for pets

9% 10% 9%

Responses were measured on a scale of 1 to 5; with 5 being “very familiar” and 1 being “not at all familiar.”
Cells with a * are significantly different from each other at the p<.05 level. Cells with a # are significantly different from both other cells at the p<.05 level.

5.3 School
Schools are also an effective channel to reach both youth and families with preparedness
messages. Households with school children who brought home preparedness materials were
significantly more likely to report preparing than those who did not receive materials: they
were 75 percent more likely to have a household plan they had discussed as a family, and twice
as likely to have participated in a home drill (Figure 17). Interestingly, households with
children who did not bring home materials were less likely to complete several behaviors than
households with no children at all.

Of respondents with at least one child in school, 32 percent reported that they had received
information on the school’s disaster preparedness plan, and 34 percent had received materials
through their child’s school on household preparedness. Respondents who reported that
schoolchildren brought home materials were more likely to believe they knew what to do in case
of several types of disasters than other respondents (Figure 18).

Preparedness in America

34

Figure 17: Preparedness Behaviors by
Household Type (2011)

Figure 18: Confidence in Ability to Respond
by Household Type (2011)

Preparedness Through
Social Networks 5

35

In addition, respondents who reported that schoolchildren brought home materials were more
familiar with their community’s disaster plans and warning systems (Table 3).

Table 3: Familiarity With Local Community Plans and Systems by Household Type

Familiarity with: Households with
schoolchildren—

brought home
materials

Households with
schoolchildren—

did not bring
home materials

Households
without children

in school

Alert and warning systems 56# 37 44

Evacuation plan 29# 12 17

Sheltering plan 34# 13 20

Local hazards 40* 25* 33

Emergency transportation
and shelter plans for pets

11 4* 11*

Responses were measured on a scale of 1 to 5; with 5 being “very familiar” and 1 being “not at all familiar.”
Cells with a * are significantly different from each other at the p<.05 level. Cells with a # are significantly different from both other cells at the p<.05 level.

Impact of School on Adult Students

Adult students who reported being encouraged either at work or at school to have a family
emergency plan were almost three times more likely to have a household plan, 63 percent more
likely to have disaster supplies, and 28 percent more likely to know their local hazards than those
not receiving such encouragement.

Of respondents who attend school, 34 percent reported participating in a school evacuation or
shelter in place drill (Figure 19). With regard to adult students, those who participated in school
drills were 75 percent more likely to participate in drills at home.

Figure 19: Participation in School Drills

Preparedness in America

36

Volunteerism in
5.4

Preparedness/Safety/Disasters
Volunteers play a critical role in
helping communities prepare for
and respond to disasters. The 2011
FEMA National Survey explored
two types of volunteerism:
volunteers who helped in a disaster
and those who volunteered with a
response agency or organization
focused on community safety and
preparedness.12 As described in
Section 3.3, serving as a
preparedness/safety and disaster
response volunteer were
experiences that positively related to
preparedness behaviors.13

Overall, there was a substantive
difference between those who
reported volunteering and those
who did not across all preparedness
behaviors (Figure 20), as well as
across measures of confidence
(Figure 21) and familiarity (Table
4). Volunteers were more than 80
percent more likely to have a
household plan that had been
discussed and to have emergency
supplies at home compared to non-
volunteers. Volunteers also
participated in many more
trainings and drills.

12 Fifty-nine percent of respondents reported volunteering for both preparedness/safety and response. Since preparedness/safety
volunteers and response volunteers provided similar responses, content summarizes both types of volunteers.
13 It should be noted that while the relationship between volunteering and preparedness was a positive one, this analysis does not indicate
causality—it is possible that people who are more aware and knowledgeable about disaster preparedness are also more likely to
volunteer for disasters and/or community safety organizations.

Figure 20: Preparedness Behaviors by Volunteer Status
(2011)

Preparedness Through
Social Networks 5

37

Table 4: Familiarity With Local Community Plans and Systems by Volunteer Status

Familiarity with: Prep/Safety/
Response Volunteer

Not a Prep/Safety/
Response Volunteer

Alert and warning systems 58% 33%
Evacuation 25% 11%
Sheltering 29% 12%
Local hazards 46% 22%
Emergency transportation
and shelter plans for pets

14% 6%

Responses were measured on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very familiar” and 1 being “not at all familiar.”
All differences in this table are significant at the p<.05 level.

There were also substantive differences in
confidence in ability to respond between
volunteers and non-volunteers. As shown
in Figure 21, volunteers were more likely
to report confidence in their knowledge of
what to do across all hazards.

Similarly, volunteers reported
considerably higher levels of familiarity
with community plans and systems (Table
4). They were 74 percent more likely to be
familiar with community alerts and
warning systems and to know their local
hazards, and they were more than twice as
likely to be familiar with plans for
evacuating and sheltering.

Figure 21: Confidence in Ability to Respond
by Volunteer Status (2011)

Preparedness in America

38

5.5 Expectations for Assistance
Social networks are critical both as a preparedness channel and as support for response.
Respondents were asked how much they would expect to rely on others for assistance in the first
72 hours following a disaster. As illustrated in Figure 22, most people (73 percent) reported that
they would rely on household members, similar to prior years. In 2011, the reported expectation
of relying on fire, police, and emergency personnel dropped to just over half of respondents (51
percent), a significant drop from 61 percent in 2009 as the understanding of whole community
preparedness takes hold.

Figure 22: Perceived Reliance (2011)

39

6 Preparedness Among
Sociodemographic Groups

Section Overview: Summary sheets of 2011 FEMA National Survey preparedness data
by four sociodemographic traits asked of each respondent: age, income, population
density, and race/ethnicity.

Key Findings:



People with low incomes perceived much greater barriers to preparedness (in terms of
time, money, and access to information). Practitioners should consider focusing on
people of low-income with opportunities to discuss preparedness and take free training.

Differences in preparedness across age, income, race, or population density categories
are generally fairly small. Some substantial differences found were:

–
–
–
–

People in high population density areas were more likely to rely on public
transportation to evacuate the area in the event of a disaster.

Volunteering in disaster preparedness/response was mostly done by people with
average to high incomes.

Retirement-aged people (75+ category) participated in disaster training much less
than people in other age categories.

People who are Hispanic were half as likely to have signed up for community
alerts and warning systems as people who are White.

40

41
1

42

43
1

44

45
1

46

47
1

Preparedness in America

48

Translating Research Into Action

49
1

Translating Research Into Action
As a Nation, we must prepare, but as a diverse and geographically distributed country, one
preparedness message for all individuals is not effective. Across America, we have different
risks, experiences, beliefs, and personal situations that preparedness strategies must take into
account. Preparedness must be made relevant for the person, the locale, and the disaster.
Stakeholders at all levels and across all sectors are encouraged to use the key findings in this
report to develop more effective communications and outreach on disaster preparedness for their
audiences. FEMA is also committed to providing continued research, tools, training, and other
resources for local implementation. The Next Steps for FEMA section identifies planned and
existing resources.

The following recommendations translate the report’s data, analysis, and findings into actionable
strategies for increasing individual and community preparedness.




Leverage the attitudes and experiences shown to have a positive relationship with
preparedness behaviors. When preparing content for outreach, consider
enhancing/reinforcing these items:

Beliefs

–
–
–

Natural disasters: confidence in one’s ability to prepare, perception of risk, belief that
preparedness helps, perception of severity.

Terrorism, hazardous materials, disease: confidence in ability to respond.

How to prepare and the importance of being willing to prepare and to think about
preparing.

Experiences

–
–
–
–

Talking about preparing

Personal past experience with disasters

Encouragement to plan and get trained at work/school

Volunteer opportunities for preparedness/safety and for disaster response

Provide information and opportunities that increase the recipients’ confidence in their
knowledge and abilities to perform preparedness behaviors. When conducting outreach,
provide:

–
–
–

Information that shows how easy it is to prepare and teaches protective actions and
mitigation;

Opportunities to practice behaviors through drills or training; and

Opportunities to discuss these preparedness behaviors.

Preparedness in America

50






Highlight information that relates to natural disasters. Outreach efforts should:

–
–
–

Provide details on the risk and severity of natural disasters;

Explain and demonstrate how preparing helps in the case of a disaster; and

Enhance people’s confidence in their ability to prepare for and respond to natural
disasters.

Always emphasize building confidence in the ability to respond when messaging or
discussing terrorism, hazardous materials, or disease outbreaks.

Increase collaborative efforts with social networks. Employers, schools, volunteer
organizations, and community- and faith-based organizations are an important social
networks and influencers for preparedness education. Work with these networks in your
community to develop a plan for leveraging their strengths for emergency preparedness.
Work across organizations, so the entire community will be served without duplication of
effort.

Develop outreach efforts for specific populations and be strategic with limited
resources. Use census data to understand the composition of your community and use the
Preparedness Profiles and sociodemographic data in this report to target specific populations.
Examine the data in the “Working On It” Profile and the “On Their Mind” Profile to
determine how to reach these population segments. People in these Profiles represent nearly
40 percent of the U.S. population and are more likely to be receptive to preparedness
outreach. By prioritizing individuals within these Profiles with outreach that emphasizes the
beliefs and experiences discussed above and with training and volunteer opportunities, such
as the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program, you can have a significant
impact on preparedness in your community. In addition, census data can inform local Citizen
Corps Councils to ensure that membership adequately reflects the whole community’s
population.

Next Steps for FEMA

51
1







Next Steps for FEMA

These research findings reinforce the need for a systematic and strategic approach to achieve
greater levels of individual preparedness, including refining preparedness messaging, outreach,
tools for training and drills, and volunteer opportunities to be more effective and more
accessible. The findings also highlight the critical role of whole community collaboration, the
importance of social networks, and potential benefits of targeting specific population segments.
The insights from this report lay the foundation for FEMA’s next steps to fulfill the charge to
build and sustain individual and community preparedness outlined in PPD-8.

Revise Content and Framing for Preparedness Messaging

Re-examine Preparedness Message. In June 2012, FEMA and the American Red Cross co-
hosted a workshop, Awareness to Action: A Workshop on Motivating the Public to Prepare,
with 80 preparedness subject matter experts and practitioners to discuss how to improve
preparedness messaging. Recommendations from the workshop included modifying the
“three- step message”—Be Informed, Make a Plan, Build a Kit;14 exploring the benefits of
audience segmentation and appropriate messengers; defining preparedness; and defining
success.

Validate Science Base for Protective Actions. To ensure recommended hazard-specific
protective actions are effective, FEMA is developing an interagency process to document the
scientific validation for protective actions for a range of hazards and a process for updating
the actions. This research will inform FEMA’s resources for the public, including websites,
publications, and a variety of social media platforms.

Incorporate Insights From Disaster Survivors. FEMA will conduct research on what
disaster survivors identify as the most valuable information, skills, and supplies based on
their experiences in the response and the recovery phases of disasters. These findings will be
incorporated into preparedness messages for different types of disasters.

Provide Localized Risk Data. To address challenges of perceived risk and severity, FEMA
will develop a user-friendly tool to inform the general public about the hazard risks of a
given location in the context of likelihood and consequences. This tool will also enable
improved analysis of household survey data sets in relation to risks of specific geographic
locations.

Explore Motivational Preparedness Messaging. FEMA will conduct qualitative research to
explore preparedness messages that will motivate individuals to take action for different
types of hazards.

14 Using these steps as the messaging for preparedness is distinct from using these steps as way to organize preparedness
information. Many attendees remain supportive of using these steps as an organizing framework but opposed them as for
messaging.

Preparedness in America

52

Tailor Implementation by Stakeholder and Sociodemographic Group







Unveil America’s PrepareAthon! In September 2013, FEMA will unveil a new
community-based campaign emphasizing experiential learning and whole community
participation. America’s PrepareAthon! will provide a national focus for individuals,
organizations, and communities to participate through drills, group discussions, and exercises
to practice for relevant local hazards twice yearly, in the spring and the fall.

Provide Tailored Preparedness Resources and Training. Ready.gov provides
downloadable guides and templates for personal preparedness. FEMA’s Community
Preparedness: Implementing Simple Activities for Everyone provides a modular training
program for community leaders to teach preparedness, available at
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/courseOverview.aspx?code=is-909.

Support for Workplace Preparedness. FEMA will continue to develop and disseminate
educational materials that advise employers on ways to prepare their businesses and staff
(available at http://www.fema.gov/private-sector), and in 2013 will release new workplace
CERT guidance and management resources.

Implement the National Strategy for Youth Preparedness Education. Following the
release of the National Strategy for Youth Preparedness Education in the fall of 2013, FEMA
and sponsoring partners—the American Red Cross and the Department of Education—will
work with partners across all levels of government and other sectors to support youth
preparedness. FEMA also hosted the second Youth Preparedness Council in July 2013 and
launched a new Ready Kids webpage at http://www.ready.gov/youth-preparedness. FEMA
will continue to expand Teen CERT and will launch new guidance and management
resources for Campus CERT in 2013.

Encourage Volunteer Opportunities. FEMA continues to support local volunteer
opportunities with emergency response organizations through the Citizen Corps Partner
Programs: CERT, Fire Corps, Medical Reserve Corps, Neighborhood Watch, Volunteers in
Police Service, and numerous other organizations that support volunteer service in
community safety and disaster response. In March 2012, FEMA and the Corporation for
National and Community Service established a FEMA-devoted unit of 1,600 service
members called FEMA Corps within AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps solely
devoted to disaster preparedness, response, and recovery.

Engage the Whole Community

 Expanding Partnerships at All Levels and With All Sectors. FEMA is committed to
expanding formalized relationships with partners at all levels and all sectors to encourage the
participation of representatives of the whole community. The sociodemographic analysis
provides insights to identify particularly important partners to reach specific population
segments. FEMA’s National Preparedness Community, listed at
http://community.fema.gov/connect.ti/readynpm/grouphome, reflects the range of

http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/courseOverview.aspx?code=is-909

http://www.fema.gov/private-sector

http://www.ready.gov/youth-preparedness

http://community.fema.gov/connect.ti/readynpm/grouphome

Next Steps for FEMA

53
1

partnerships engaged in community preparedness and supports outreach during the National
Preparedness Month in September.

 Supporting Citizen Corps Councils. FEMA advocates for collaborative whole community
planning and the integration of non-governmental resources in government plans and
exercises through local Citizen Corps Councils. In September 2013, FEMA released the
fiscal year (FY) 2012 registration and profile data on the 1,175 Councils registered as of
October 15, 2012. Sixty percent of the registered Councils include representation from all
three sectors: the public sector, the private sector, and the volunteer/community sector.
FEMA partnerships with Local Emergency Planning Committees, local Voluntary
Organizations Active in Disasters, and local Hazard Mitigation Planning Committees also
promote whole community collaboration. In FY 2014, FEMA will release two independent
study courses and a classroom-based course on whole community preparedness.

Refine Evaluation and Assessment





Conduct In-Depth Assessment of Whole Community Preparedness in Large Urban
Cities. FEMA will partner with six test site locations in large urban areas to track outcome-
based measures around local preparedness and resilience interventions. Assessments will be
conducted every 6 months to track the impact of community efforts on individual knowledge,
beliefs, and behaviors over time and to pinpoint cause and effect of specific local initiatives
more precisely. The identified social networks, Preparedness Profiles, and sociodemographic
data in this report will inform the outreach and training strategies to be tested.

Refine National Research. FEMA will refine data collection from national household
surveys to track the impact of America’s PrepareAthon! on individual and organizational
preparedness and will include oversampling studies to assess knowledge of risk and
protective actions by people in specific hazard areas. Assessments will measure success by
evaluating the relationship of campaign initiatives to outcomes by population segments and
delivery channels. A process and outcome evaluation will also be conducted to assess the
results of America’s PrepareAthon!

Disseminate Research Findings. In FY2014, FEMA will partner with the National
Academies of Science to build on the findings in their Disaster Resilience: A National
Imperative report to study hazard and disaster data, to communicate and manage risk, to
measure resilience, and to build coalitions and partnerships.

Twelve years have passed since September 11, 2001. These 12 years have been a time for
heightened focus on community resilience and personal preparedness, a focus that must endure,
evolve, and grow. Continuing to achieve progress depends on leadership throughout America
from the local to Federal levels, in government, community organizations, and private industry.
Progress also depends on individuals and their social and community connections. We each have
a role in ensuring the resilience of our communities, our Nation, and our way of life. Together,
we can ensure that everyone in America has the knowledge, skills, and resources to respond to
the challenges brought by weather, disease, hazardous incidents, and terrorism.

Preparedness in America

54

55
1

Appendices

Summaries of the 2007–2011 FEMA National Survey methodology and survey questions
reported in Preparedness in America can be found in Appendices A and B.

Preparedness in America

56

Appendix A:
Methodology

57
1

Appendix A: Methodology
Survey Administration

The 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2012 FEMA National Survey were administered by an applied
research and consulting firm using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system. Spanish-
speaking interviewers were provided as an option for Spanish-speaking respondents. As 30
percent of households nationwide are cellular phone only (i.e., have no traditional landline
residential phone),xi the 2011 and 2012 survey methodologies used a dual-frame sample, with
cellular and landline surveys. The samples were selected via random digit dialing (RDD) from a
list-assisted sampling frame. The RDD sampling technique provided a probability sample of
respondents in which every person with a telephone (either landline or cellular telephone) had a
known probability of being selected for the study. The RDD sampling frame represents the non-
institutionalized U.S. adult population residing in households equipped with landline or cellular
telephones. The frame excludes adults in penal, mental, or other institutions; adults living in
other group quarters such as dormitories, barracks, convents, or boarding houses (with 10 or
more unrelated residents); adults living in a household without a telephone; and/or adults who
did not speak English or Spanish well enough to be interviewed in either language.

Weighting and Representative Sample

Each telephone number in the national sample had an equal chance of selection. Operational
aspects associated with RDD surveys, such as nonresponse, however, may produce response
patterns that over-represent or under-represent certain population segments. Weighting the data
according to geography, age, gender, and race/ethnicity accounted for potential biases and adjusted
the sample’s demographic distributions to match the distribution in the American Community
Survey (ACS).

Statistical significance is reported to identify differences between compared groups that can be said
to be “real” with 95 percent certainty (i.e., only five times out of 100 would the specific result
occur by chance). The word “significant” is only used in this report to denote statistical
significance.

2007 FEMA National Survey

The 2007 survey sample included responses from 2,462 U.S. households. The landline sample
represents 96.5 percent of U.S. households, providing overall results at +/-2 percent sampling
error (at a 95 percent confidence level).

2009 FEMA National Survey

The 2009 survey sample included responses from 4,461 U.S. households. The landline sample
represents 96.5 percent of U.S. households, providing overall results at +/-3.27 percent sampling
error (at a 95 percent confidence level).

Preparedness in America

58

2011 FEMA National Survey

The 2011 survey sample included responses from 2,759 U.S. households. The combined landline
and cell phone sample represents 98 percent of U.S. households, providing overall results at +/-
2.7 percent sampling error (at a 95 percent confidence level).

The national sample was designed for 270 completed surveys for each of the 10 FEMA regions.
The landline sample was stratified by FEMA region; the cell phone sample was national.

2012 FEMA National Survey

In 2012, the survey sample included responses of 2,013 U.S. households. The combined landline
and cell phone sample represents 98 percent of U.S. households, providing overall results at +/-
3.02 sampling error (at a 95 percent confidence level).

The national sample was designed for 200 completed surveys for each of the 10 FEMA regions.
The landline sample was stratified by FEMA region; the cell phone sample was national.

Authority

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approved a multiyear collection on July 19, 2010. The OMB Control Number for this survey is
1660-0105.

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the consulting firm that conducted these surveys
determined that these surveys comply with the requirements of 45 CFR 46 (Protection of Human
Subjects).

Appendix B: Survey Questions Reported in
Preparedness in America

59

Appendix B: Survey Questions Reported
in Preparedness in America

2007
FEMA
Survey

2009
FEMA
Survey

2011
FEMA
Survey

2012
FEMA
Survey

Perceived Risk
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very likely” and 1 being “not likely at all,” how likely do you think…?

Some type of natural disaster will ever occur in your community?

X X X X

Some type of terrorism will ever occur in your community? X X X Some type of hazardous materials accident will ever occur in your
community?

X X X

Some type of disease outbreak will ever occur in your community? X X X

Perceived Severity If a [fill in from below] were to happen in your community how severe do you think the impact would be to you?
Please use a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very severe” and 1 being “not severe at all.”

A natural disaster, such as an earthquake, a hurricane, a flood, a
tornado, or wildfires X X
An act of terrorism, such as biological , chemical, radiological, or
explosive attack X X
A hazardous materials accident, such as a transportation accident or a
power plant accident X X
A highly contagious disease outbreak, such as a H1N1 flu epidemic (In
2009, text was changed from “bird flu epidemic” to “H1N1” during
fielding due to the H1N1 outbreak)

X X
Motivators/Barriers

Disaster preparedness includes buying disaster kits and making specific plans, but it also includes participating in
training or drills and learning what to do in a disaster. For the next questions, please tell me the extent to which
you agree with each. (5 – Strongly agree, 4 – Somewhat agree, 3 – Neither agree nor disagree, 2 – Somewhat
disagree, 1 – Strongly disagree)

Getting information about what to do in an emergency is too hard

X

I don’t know how to get prepared
X

I don’t have time to prepare
X Preparing is too expensive
X I don’t want to think about preparing for disasters
X

I have just never thought about preparing for disasters
X

If there were a disaster, the police and fire department would take care
of my needs. X
I don’t need training to know how to react in an emergency

X
My job or school encourages me to have a family disaster plan.

X
My job, school or community service encourages or requires me to
take training to prepare for emergencies. X
People I know have taken steps to get prepared.

X Disasters in other places make me think about getting prepared
Disasters I have experienced make me think about getting prepared.
X

Preparedness in America

60

2007
FEMA
Survey
2009
FEMA
Survey
2011
FEMA
Survey
2012
FEMA
Survey

During the first 72 hours of a disaster, I feel it is my responsibility to
take care of my family in a disaster. X

Able to Respond
How confident are you in your ability to know what to do [fill in from below]? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, with 5

being “very confident” and 1 being “not at all confident.”
In the first five minutes of a terrorist act such as an explosion of a
radiological or dirty bomb? (2007 text: An explosion of a radiological or
dirty bomb?)

X X X
In the first five minutes of a hazardous materials accident such as the
release of a chemical agent? (2007 text: The release of a chemical
agent?)

X X X
In the first five minutes of a sudden natural disaster such as an
earthquake or tornado that occurs without warning? (2007 text: A
sudden natural disaster such as an earthquake or tornado?)

X X X
In a highly contagious disease outbreak such as H1N1?

X
In a weather emergency such as a hurricane or major snowstorm?

X
In a wildfire?

X
In a flood?

X
Preparing Helps

How much do you think preparing for a [fill in from below] will make a difference in how you handle the
situation? By handle the situation I mean: know what to do, have supplies on hand and have a plan in place?
Please use a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being “very much” and 1 being “not much at all.”

A terrorist act such as an explosion of a radiological or dirty bomb?
X X A hazardous materials accident such as the release of a chemical

agent? X X
A highly contagious disease outbreak such as h1n1 flu?

X X
A natural disaster?

X X
A weather emergency such as a hurricane or major snowstorm?

X
A wildfire?

X
A flood?

X
Stages of Change

In thinking about preparing yourself for a major disaster, which best represents your preparedness?
I have not yet prepared but I intend to in the next 6 months

X X X
I have not yet prepared but I intend to in the next month
I just recently began preparing
I have been prepared for at least the past 6 months
I am not planning to do anything about preparing Reliance

In the first 72 hours following a disaster, please indicate how much you would expect to rely on the following for
assistance. Please use a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “expect to rely on a great deal” and 1 being “do not expect to
rely on at all.”

Household members X X X People in my neighborhood X X X Non-profit organizations, such as the American Red Cross or the
Salvation Army X X X

Appendix B: Survey Questions Reported in
Preparedness in America

61

2007
FEMA
Survey
2009
FEMA
Survey
2011
FEMA
Survey
2012
FEMA
Survey

My faith community, such as a congregation X X X
Fire, police, emergency personnel X X X
State and Federal Government agencies, including FEMA X X X

In the event of a disaster that required you to leave the area, would you
need to rely on public transportation or the government for transportation?
(2007 Text: In the event of a disaster, would you expect to need help to
evacuate or get to a shelter?) (2009 Text: In the event of a disaster, would
you expect to need help to evacuate from the area?)

X X X

Children
In the past 12 months, other than fire safety have your children brought

home any materials or talked about preparing your family for a disaster? X
Did they receive that information from… School

X A program outside of school
X Somewhere else
X

Training In the past 2 years, have you done any of the following? Have you…
Attended a meeting on how to be better prepared for a disaster X X X X
Attended CPR training X X X X
Attended first aid skills training X X X X
Attended training as part of a Community Emergency Response Team
or CERT X X X X
Talked about getting prepared with others in your community

X X X
Supplies

Do you have supplies set aside in your home to be used only in the case of
a disaster? X X X X
Could you tell me the disaster supplies you have in your home? X X X X
How often do you update these supplies? Would you say…

Never

X X X X Less than once a year Once a year
More than once a year

Do you have supplies set aside in your car to be used only in the case of a
disaster? X X X
Do you have supplies set aside in your workplace to be used only in the
case of a disaster? X X X
Mitigation Have you taken any of the following steps to protect your home, its structure and furnishings…?

Purchased flood insurance?
X

Raised the furnace, water heater, or electric panel above the floor?
X

Sealed the walls in your basement with waterproofing compounds?
X

Installed storm shutters?
X Installed roof straps or clips to protect your roof from strong winds?
X Built a space in your home specifically to provide shelter in an
X

Preparedness in America

62

2007
FEMA
Survey
2009
FEMA
Survey
2011
FEMA
Survey
2012
FEMA
Survey

emergency?
Household Plan Does your household have an emergency plan that includes instructions
for household members about where to go and what to do in the event of a
disaster?

X X X X

Have you discussed this plan with other members in your household? X X X X
Do you have copies of important identity and financial documents located
with a trusted out-of-state friend or relative or in a password protected
electronic form you can access by computer to help you recover after a
disaster? IF NECESSARY: These documents include identity
documents like your social security card and drivers license and financial
documents like your insurance policies.
IF NECESSARY: Accessible by computer could be a computer drive, a
USB drive, which is also known as a thumb drive, your portable music
player or phone or a web-based back up or file storage system.

X

Does your household have a pet or service animal? X X
Community Plans Using a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being “very familiar” and 1 being “not at all
familiar,” how familiar are you with…

Alert and warning systems in your community? X X X X
Your community’s plans for evacuation?

X
Your community’s plans for sheltering?

X
Information on what your local hazards are? (2012 Survey language:
What your local hazards are? X X X
[Ask if have pet or service animal] Your community’s emergency
transportation and shelter plans for household pets and service
animals?

X
Does your community have a system where you can sign up to receive
alerts and information in an emergency? X
Have you signed up for your community’s alerts and warnings system?

X Have you received information from your child(ren)’s school about its
disaster preparedness plan including evacuation and shelter plans? X
Drills

Aside from a fire drill, in the past 12 months, have you participated in any of the following?
A home evacuation drill X X X

A home shelter in place drill X X X
[Ask if work full or part time] A workplace evacuation drill X X X [Ask if work full or part time] A workplace shelter in place drill X X X [Ask if go to school or children go to school] A school evacuation drill X X X [Ask if go to school or children go to school] A school shelter in place

drill X X X
Volunteerism

During the past 12 months, have you given any time to help support
emergency responder organizations or an organization that focuses on
community preparedness and safety?

X X X
Have you ever volunteered to help in a disaster? X X X

Appendix B: Survey Questions Reported in
Preparedness in America

2007
FEMA
Survey
2009
FEMA
Survey
2011
FEMA
Survey
2012
FEMA
Survey

63

Demographics
Are there children under the age of 18 living in your residence? X X X X

Does at least one of the children currently attend a school outside of your
home, including day care or part-time kindergarten? X X X X
Which best describes your job status?

Work full-time

X X X X

Work part-time
Student
Unemployed
Retired
Other

Is your home owned or rented? Owned
X Rented Live there without paying rent
What is the highest level of education that you attained? Would it be…?

Less than 12th Grade (No Diploma)

X X X X

High School Graduate or GED
Some College but No Degree
Associate Degree in College
Bachelor’s Degree
Masters Degree
Doctorate Degree

Do you have a disability or a health condition that might affect your
capacity to prepare for an emergency situation? IF NECESSARY: A
mobility, hearing, vision, cognitive, or intellectual disability or physical,
mental or health condition.

X X

Do you have a disability or a health condition that might affect your
capacity to respond to an emergency situation? IF NECESSARY: A
mobility, hearing, vision, cognitive, or intellectual disability or physical,
mental or health condition

X X X X

Do you currently live with or have primary responsibility for assisting
someone with a disability who requires assistance? X X X X
Which of the following best describes your race? Would you consider yourself to be…?

White
Black or African American

X X X X American Indian or Alaska Native Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Something Else (Specify)

Are you of Hispanic or Latino or Spanish origin? X X X X
In what year were you born? X X X X

Which of the following income ranges represents your annual household income in 2010? Feel free to stop me at
the correct range. Was your household income…?

Preparedness in America

64

Less than $25,000

X X X X $25,000 to less than $50,000 $50,000 to less than $75,000
$75,000 or more

What state do you live in? _ _ X X X X
What is your zip code? _ _ _ _ _ X X X X
Record gender

Male X X X X Female

End Notes

65

End Notes
i Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2011). 2011 FEMA Central States Disaster and

Earthquake Preparedness Survey Report. Retrieved August 28, 2013 from
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6403.

ii Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2011). FEMA 2011 Public Survey on Flood Risk.
Retrieved August 28, 2013 from http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6259.

iii Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2013). Personal Preparedness in America:
Findings from the 2012 FEMA National Survey.

iv Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of Disability Integration and Coordination
(ODIC). (2011). Planning for the Whole Community: Integrating and Coordinating the
Access and Functional Needs of Children and Adults with Disabilities in Preparedness,
Response, Recovery and Mitigation. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/odic/all_hands_0411 .

v Prochaska, J. O., & C. C., DiClementi. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more
integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 161–173.
Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pst/19/3/276/.

vi The question on Stages of Change originated from and was used with the permission of the
National Center for Disaster Preparedness (NCDP). (2007). The American Preparedness
Project: Where the US Public Stands in 2007 on Terrorism, Security, and Disaster
Preparedness. New York, NY: NCDP. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:126170.

vii Centers for Disease Control and Preventions. (2010). 2009 H1N1 Flu. Retrieved August 28,
2013 from http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/.

viii 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Selected Economic Characteristics.
Retrieved August 28, 2013, from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_
1YR_DP03&prodType=table.

ix 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Selected Economic Characteristics.
Retrieved August 28, 2013, from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_
1YR_DP03&prodType=table.

x Corporation for National and Community Service. (Web page). Volunteering and Civic Life in
America. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/national.

xi Blumberg, S.J., & Luke, J.V. Wireless substitution: Early release of estimates from the
National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2010. National Center for Health
Statistics. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201106.htm.

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6403

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6259

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/odic/all_hands_0411

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pst/19/3/276/

http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:126170

http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_DP03&prodType=table

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_DP03&prodType=table

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_DP03&prodType=table

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_DP03&prodType=table

http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/national

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201106.htm

Preparedness in America
Executive Summary
1 Preparedness Actions
1.1 Recommended Preparedness Actions
1.2 Self-Reported Preparedness Behavior
1.3 Perceived Barriers to Preparedness
2 Beliefs About Risk and Efficacy by Hazard
2.1 Perceived Risk and Severity
2.2 Perceived Efficacy
2.3 Disaster Groups
3 Beliefs and Experiences Related to Preparedness Behaviors
3.1 Relationships With Preparedness Behaviors
3.2 Beliefs: Relationship to Preparedness Behaviors
3.3 Experiences: Relationship to Preparedness Behaviors
4 Preparedness Profiles Based on Beliefs and Experiences
4.1 Preparedness Profiles
5 Preparedness Through Social Networks
5.1 Select Social Networks
5.2 The Workplace
5.3 School
5.4 Volunteerism in 5.4 Preparedness/Safety/Disasters
5.5 Expectations for Assistance
6 Preparedness Among Sociodemographic Groups
Translating Research Into Action
Next Steps for FEMA
Appendices
Appendix A: Methodology
Appendix B: Survey Questions Reported in Preparedness in America

Students will be required to develop and write their own approximately 500 word response(2 pgs.)

 

1. Involving stakeholders in the planning process is extremely important and this includes the citizens if the whole community concept is to be applied. Just looking at your community’s plan and website for emergency management, does it appear that the community has been involved in the process, why or why not?

In order to complete this assignment you must watch both videos linked provide below and Read all the attached files. 4 files are attached Answer must be related to the material provided:

Video:

https://youtu.be/Ui-eBiMBkXY

 

 

Community Resources & Preparedness

 

The National Preparedness System outlines an organized process for the whole community to move forward with their preparedness activities and achieve the National Preparedness Goal. The National Preparedness System integrates efforts across the five preparedness mission areas—Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery—in order to achieve the goal of a secure and resilient Nation. The National Response Framework (NRF), part of the National Preparedness System, sets the strategy and doctrine for how the whole community builds, sustains, and delivers the Response core capabilities identified in the National Preparedness Goal in an integrated manner with the other mission areas. This third edition of the NRF reflects the insights and lessons learned from real-world incidents and the implementation of the National Preparedness System.

Although not formally part of emergency management operations, individuals, families, and households play an important role in emergency preparedness and response. By reducing hazards in and around their homes by efforts such as raising utilities above flood level or securing unanchored objects against the threat of high winds, individuals reduce potential emergency response requirements. Individuals, families, and households should also prepare emergency supply kits and emergency plans, so they can take care of themselves and their neighbors until assistance arrives. (FEMA, 2013)

Engaging the whole community and empowering local action will better position stakeholders to plan for and meet the actual needs of a community and strengthen the local capacity to deal with the consequences of all threats and hazards. This requires all members of the community to be part of the emergency management team, which should include diverse community members, social and community service groups and institutions, faith-based and disability groups, academia, professional associations, and the private and nonprofit sectors, while including government agencies who may not traditionally have been directly involved in emergency management. When the community is engaged in an authentic dialogue, it becomes empowered to identify its needs and the existing resources that may be used to address them. (FEMA, 2013)