Running head: NIMS: Preparing for Threats 1

NIMS: Preparing For Threats

Byron T. Williams

PSF8634

Public Safety Incident Command Paradigms

619 South Front

Memphis, Tennessee 38103
(901) 859-1911
byrontwilliams@bellsouth.net
George R. Franks Jr. PhD
Running head: NIMS: Preparing for Threats 2

Abstract

Homeland Security Presidential Directive Five (HSPD-5) guides the current U. S.

national response system (NIMS, 2008). HSPD-5 requires the establishment of the National

Response Framework and a National Incident Management System (NIMS) (NIMS, 2008).

Under HSPD-5, the secretary of homeland security is the principal federal officer for domestic

incident management, responsible for drafting, coordinating, and implementing the National

Response Framework and the National Incident Management System and coordinating federal

operations within the United states to prepare, respond, and recover from terrorist attacks, major

disasters, and other emergencies (NIMS, 2008). The role and direction of the National Incident

Management System depends on all users and stakeholders, including various levels of

government and the private sector participation.

619 South Front

Memphis, Tennessee 38103
(901) 859-1911
byrontwilliams@bellsouth.net
George R. Franks Jr. PhD
Running head: NIMS: Preparing for Threats 3

NIMS: Preparing For Threats

Contemporary threats exist in the United States. For example, the September 11, 2001,

terrorist attacks and the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons highlighted the need to focus on

improving emergency management, incident response capabilities, and coordination processes

across the country (NIMS, 2008). A comprehensive national approach, applicable at all

jurisdictional levels and across functional disciplines, improves the effectiveness of emergency

management and response personnel across the full spectrum of potential incidents and hazard

scenarios (but not limited to natural hazards, terrorists activities, and other manmade disasters)

(NIMS, 2008). Such an approach improves coordination and cooperation between public and

private agencies or organizations in a variety of emergency management and incident response

activities, The National Incident Management System (NIMS) framework sets forth the

comprehensive national approach (NIMS, 2008).

To extrapolate the data to further discuss the future trends and directions of the National

Incident Management System, NIMS will be used in surveillance projects. NIMS is a versatile

system with endless heights for the future. For example, the NIMS project was a collaborative

effort between the Public Health Service and states to address the issue of infant mortality

(MMWR, 1989). Two thousand, one hundred and four fewer deaths exist in NIMS than are

predicted by using the synthetic cohort derived from 1980 and 1981 mortality tapes (MMWR,

1989).

The study reflects an estimated underreporting of 4.6%; however, the impact varied

among the states (MMWR, 1989). In seven states, NIMS reported more deaths based on

residence at birth than the synthetic cohort number of deaths based on residence at death
619 South Front
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
(901) 859-1911
byrontwilliams@bellsouth.net
George R. Franks Jr. PhD
Running head: NIMS: Preparing for Threats 4

(MMWR, 1989). Two are exact agreement in two states, and 2,159 fewer deaths are reported in

the NIMS data for 42 states (MMWR, 1989). Eight states reported greater than 10% fewer deaths

as predicted from the synthetic cohort (MMWR, 1989). These eight states included 44.8% of all

estimated unreported deaths but only 15.5% of all deaths in the United States (MMWR, 1989).

This is a major example of the future trends and direction of NIMS.

The federal government’s role in how domestic incidents manage assesses easily. The

National Response Framework and the National Incident Management System creates a detail

mechanism for the delivery of assistance to local and state governments overwhelmed by major

disasters and other emergencies. The Federal Response plan includes an annex for responding to

terrorist attacks. This plan establishes two categories of emergency management.

The crisis management and consequence management are the two emergency

management styles (Sauter & Carafano, 2005). Crisis management includes measures to

anticipate, prevent, or resolve a threat or act of terrorism (Sauter & Carafano, 2005). Crisis

management is predominantly a federal law enforcement responsibility with state and local law

enforcement playing supporting roles. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is

assigned primary responsibilities for crisis management (Sauter & Carafano, 2005).

Consequence management includes measures to protect public health and safety, restore

essential government services, and provide emergency relief for the consequence management of

any threat (Sauter & Carafano, 2005). States have primary responsibilities for consequence

management with the federal government providing assistance. For example, FEMA has the

responsibility for directing federal consequence management.

619 South Front

Memphis, Tennessee 38103
(901) 859-1911
byrontwilliams@bellsouth.net
George R. Franks Jr. PhD
Running head: NIMS: Preparing for Threats 5

The future of national domestic incident management lies in the hands if the National

Incident Management Systems. The establishment of NIMS provides the framework for

establishing an integrated national system for responding to terrorist attacks and other national

disasters. The future of the National Incident Management System and the role NIMS must play

in the long-range plans of public safety and governmental administrations are the advancements

of ICS and the development of incident action plans.

For example, the implementation if the Incident Command System concept offers case in

point. A key element of homeland security planning is the development of the Incident command

system (ICS) (Cole & Smith, 2007). The principles of ICS are developing to help multiple

agencies coordinate their efforts in addressing large wildfires in western states (Cole & Smith,

2007). ICS strategies include planning to determine what individual will take charge of

managing resources and operations in response to a critical incident (Cole & Smith, 2007).

The National Incident Management System also include the development of an Incident

Action Plan that coordinates the resources, activities, and responsibilities of various agencies and

individuals involved in responding to an emergency (Cole & Smith, 2007). By using ICS,

agencies are not taken by surprise when emergencies arise and public safety and government

administrations can spring into action with well-coordinated efforts to maintain order, address

primary threats such as fires or bombings, evacuate endangered people, and provide medical aid

(Cole & Smith, 2007). The awareness of the National Incident Management System has

encouraged law enforcement agencies to work closely with state officials, firefighters, public

health officials, hospitals, and others to develop local and regional NIMS long range plans (Cole

& Smith, 2007).

619 South Front
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
(901) 859-1911
byrontwilliams@bellsouth.net
George R. Franks Jr. PhD
Running head: NIMS: Preparing for Threats 6

The fundamental role of preparedness in emergency management and incident response

is a universal concept incorporated in both NIMS and the NRF. The role of the principal federal

officer (PFO) and the developing supporting technologies are factors that could prompt the

government to re-evaluate the effectiveness of NIMS and NRF to determine their priority and

level of influence.

An issue in the NIMS and NRF are the role of the principal federal officer (PFO), who is

to take charge of national assets at the scene of an incident (Sauter & Carafano, 2005). For

example, questions about the extent of the PFO’s authority at the site, particularly in relation to

the role of the FEMA regional director, traditionally has served as the senior federal official at

the scene of a major disaster (Sauter & Carafano, 2005).

The state of supporting technologies within the National Incident Management System

and the National Response Framework is also a major concern. The lack of interoperable

communications both between emergency responders and across different government

jurisdictions remains a cause of concern (National Task Force, 2003). Although NIMS and NRF

requires interoperable communications standards, neither the standards nor the supporting

equipment are available.

The National Incident Management System provides a framework for ensuring

interoperability among federal, state, and local assets. NIMS establishes procedures for

managing operations, conducting training, and setting requirements, standard terminology, and

common procedures. The role and direction of the National Incident Management System

depends on all users and stakeholders, including various levels of government and the private

sector participation.
619 South Front
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
(901) 859-1911
byrontwilliams@bellsouth.net
George R. Franks Jr. PhD
Running head: NIMS: Preparing for Threats 7

References

Cole, G. F. & Smith, C.E. (2007). The American System of Criminal Justice

(11thEd.).Thomson-Wadsworth: Canada.

National Incident Management Systems. (2008). Homeland Security

National Infant Mortality Surveillance (NIMS) 1980. Retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001551.htm

National Task Force on Interoperability, “Why Can’t We talk: working together to Bridge the

Communications Gap to Save Lives, A guide to Public Officials” (February 2003).

Retrieved from

www.safecomprogram.gov/files/PSCI_Statement_of_Requirements_v1_0.pdf.

Sauter, M. A. & Carafano, J. J. (2005). “Homeland Security, A Complete Guide to

Understanding, Preventing, and Surviving Terrorism,” McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

U.S.A.

619 South Front

Memphis, Tennessee 38103
(901) 859-1911
byrontwilliams@bellsouth.net
George R. Franks Jr. PhD