The United States has developed systems and a framework for responding to disasters and emergencies. The framework identifies the responsibilities of various bodies and agencies that are involved in disaster response. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is among the bodies that are charged with the mandate of preparing for and responding to disasters and emergency situations. This agency has developed a broad framework that defines its mission and outlines its core capabilities. In addition to the framework, FEMA also relies on an elaborate national system for managing incidents as and when they occur. This paper focuses on this system and the national response framework that FEMA has adopted.
Core capabilities
There are 14 core capabilities that FEMA seeks to develop. Each of these capabilities is important. However, there are some capabilities that receive greater priority. In the following list, the 14 capabilities are ranked in order of importance and priority:
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Planning
Public Information and Warning
Operational Coordination
Situational Assessment
Operational Communications
Mass Search and Rescue Operations
Fatality Management Services
Mass Care Services
Public Health and Medical Services
On-Scene Security and Protection
Critical Transportation
Public and Private Services and Resources
Environmental Response/Health and Safety
Infrastructure Systems
The ranking above is based primarily on personal assessment of the importance of each capability and the priority that FEMA places on the capabilities. The capabilities have been ranked in the order above based on how critical they are to securing public health and safety. Planning, public information and warning and operational coordination are the most essential capabilities. It is only through effective planning that FEMA can prepare for and respond to disasters. The public information and warning capability allows FEMA to alert the public (Homeland Security a, 2013). This function is important because it allows FEMA to engage with the public and instruct the public to move to safer areas or implement measures that will minimize harm resulting from disasters. This function also allows FEMA to prevent panic which can cause greater damage. The operational coordination function has been ranked third because it is needed for effective and efficient response to disasters. When disaster strikes, FEMA needs to work with other agencies. This can only occur if proper coordination procedures are in place. FEMA identifies the first three capabilities in the list above as being central to its five key missions (Homeland Security a, 2013). This is another factor that was considered when ordering the capabilities.
All-hazards response in key mission areas
It has already been mentioned that the US has developed a robust framework for preparing for and responding to disasters. This framework is composed of five key missions: prevention, protection, mitigation, response and disaster recovery. Executing all these missions can be a daunting challenge. The country has created a system for ensuring that all the five missions are pursued. The country is able to achieve an all-hazards response while conducting the five missions through strategic partnerships (Homeland Security, 2013). Different departments and agencies work together to respond to disasters. Local communities are also invited to take part in disaster response. This allows the US to pool together resources and personnel. Scalability, adaptability and flexibility are other principles that allow the US to execute all the five missions during disaster response (Homeland Security, 2013). The nation has ensured that its capabilities are malleable and flexible. This allows it to respond to different situations based on their scale and scope. Integration is another element of the response procedures that the nation implements (Homeland Security, 2013). Instead of pursuing the different missions independently, the country has integrated them into a single unit. This makes disaster response much easier.
Necessity of Deputy Incident Commander
In most disasters situations, the incident commander takes charge of the response operation. However, there are other instances when the responsibility of coordinating the disaster response falls on the shoulders of the deputy incident commander (IC). It becomes necessary for the deputy IC to take charge when asked to by the IC. The deputy IC may also be required to assume control in an acting capacity (Homeland Security, 2008). For instance, the IC may be unable to perform this function. In this situation, the responsibility of directing the response is given to the deputy IC. Another situation that may necessitate the deputy IC taking over is when there is an agency that desire to be represented in the response (Homeland Security, 2008). For instance, suppose that an agency has jurisdiction and would like to be involved. The deputy IC is then charged with the role of representing this agency.
Tenets of working in chaos
The national incident management system was developed with the aim of facilitating disaster response. While this system has been effective, it is unable to adequately respond to all disaster scenarios. There are clear gaps that the system fails to address. These gaps prompted Cynthia Renaud to develop recommendations that she believes will help responders to better handle chaotic situations. She identified five tenets that are vital for effective disaster response. The first of these tenets is identifying an incident commander who is capable and effective (Renaud, 2012). She advises that individuals with a proven record of handling chaos should be appointed to serve as IC. The second tenet is to understand that procedures and policies do not apply to all situations. There are some situations that demand that one develops unique solutions. Improvisation is the third tenet. Renaud argues that there are certain situations where standard procedures do not apply (Renaud, 2012). There are also situations where the responders find themselves ill-equipped. In such situations, she advises that the responders should work with whatever they have. Identifying leverage points is the fourth tenet. Renaud proposes that those in charge of disaster response should exploit their relationships and other resources to effectively solve a crisis (Renaud, 2012). The fifth tenet is that incident commanders should learn to work with other parties. Instead of issuing instructions, the IC should ask to be briefed by the first responders instead of demanding that ongoing operations be halted.
In conclusion, the United States cannot keep certain disasters from happening. However, the nation can minimize the impact of these disasters. The policies, frameworks and systems that have been put in place will allow the nation to respond swiftly to emergencies. The nation will also be able to minimize the damage caused by these disasters. The national incident management system and the national response framework are clearly integral components of the disaster response plan. As Renaud observes, there are some flaws in this plan. The country needs to adopt the five tenets that she developed if it is to improve how it prepares for and responds to disasters.
References
Homeland Security. (2008). National Incident Management System. Retrieved 27 th May 2017 From https://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/NIMS_core.pdf
Homeland Security a. (2013). National Response Framework.
Retrieved 27 th May 2017 from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1914-25045-1246/final_national_response_framework_20130501.pdf
Homeland Security. (2013). Overview of the National Response Frameworks. Retrieved 27 th May 2017 from https://s3-us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/dam-production/uploads/20130726-1914-25045-2057/final_overview_of_national_planning_frameworks_20130501.pdf
Renaud, C. (2012). The Missing Piece of NIMS: Teaching Incident Commanders how to Function in the Edge of Chaos. Retrieved 27 th May 2017 from http://www.hsaj.org/articles/221
