Effectiveness of NIMS ICS Plain Talk Policy in Multi-Agency Response

By

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION1

Background of the Study1

Purpose of the Study4

Problem Statement5

Aims and Objectives6

Research Questions8

Significance of the Study8

Limitations of the Study9

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIW11

Background of NIMS11

NIMS Implementation15

Implementation Behavior22

Policy Characteristics24

Inter-organizational Characteristics25

Emergency Manager Characteristics27

Disaster Characteristics28

Strengths and Weaknesses of NIMS29

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY34

Research Approach34

Research Design35

Participants35

Instrumentation35

Role of the Researcher36

Projected Timetable37

REFERENCES38

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The passage of 1992 California Emergency Services Act forced the state Office of Emergency Services (OES) to establish by regulation the state's Standardized Emergency Management System (Department of Homeland Security). The next step in Department of Homeland Security' formation involved enlisting a statewide advisory committee to direct the development of Department of Homeland Security and its regulations. Appointed by the state Office of Emergency Services, members of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Committee largely reflected the leadership of government agencies anticipated to utilize Department of Homeland Security.

Instrumental in creating Department of Homeland Security' regulations, the committee simultaneously developed a formalized process for the long-term maintenance and operation of Department of Homeland Security. Incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security regulations, this ongoing policy review process is known as Department of Homeland Security Maintenance System. The end product created by the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Committee was a sweeping new state-wide policy for emergency response. The program, California's National Incident Management System (NIMS) has mandated standardization for emergency management and was designed to coordinate state and local response efforts within California. The aspects of emergency management that the measure sought to unify include terminology, procedures, and response efforts for disasters involving multiple agencies and jurisdictions. Wreckage from the East Bay Fire was not due to lack of manpower and resources. Government inquiries determined that aside from the geographic setting and forces of nature, the clearest problems pointed to coordination lapses during preparation efforts (Perry 2002). This shortcoming is not confined to California, and seems to continue to plague other states, as evidenced by response efforts to Hurricane Katrina. While California officials reviewed the 1991 East Bay Fire in Oakland Hills, Congress was investigating the unsatisfactory emergency response to Florida's 1992 Hurricane Andrew. At congressional request, the National Academy of Public Administration (DHS) examined shared governance arrangements for emergency management.

In its report, DHS underscored coordination gaps among fragmented agencies and found intergovernmental units with overlapping and competing jurisdictions. In the view of its authors, however, the most egregious shortcomings derived from federalism. Issues of authority, responsibility, fragmentation, and communication revealed unanswered questions. In the United States, emergency management programs historically have been the responsibility of local governments. The first responders in emergency situations are overwhelmingly from local government emergency services' units (police, fire, and emergency medical personnel); however, the federal government and state governments also have roles in local emergency programs, as do special districts.

Increasingly, the roles of special districts have become pivotal to the process-particularly in California, where special districts proliferate. Special districts are a separate type of local structure of government having defined geographic boundaries of ...