National Preparedness 

System 

November 2011

National Preparedness System

 i 

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

National Preparedness System Components............................................................. 1

Identifying and Assessing Risk ...............................................................................................2

Estimating Capability Requirements .....................................................................................2

Building and Sustaining Capabilities .....................................................................................3

Planning to Deliver Capabilities .............................................................................................4

Validating Capabilities ............................................................................................................5

Reviewing and Updating .........................................................................................................6

Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 6
National Preparedness System

ii

This page intentionally left blank. 
National Preparedness System

 1 

Introduction

Our Nation faces a wide range of threats and hazards, including acts of terrorism, cyber attacks, 

pandemics, and catastrophic natural disasters. Communities can address the risks these threats and 

hazards pose by working together using a systematic approach that builds on proven preparedness 

activities. The National Preparedness System builds on these activities and enables the Nation to 

meet the National Preparedness Goal. This document summarizes the components of the National 

Preparedness System, which include: identifying and assessing risk, estimating the level of 

capabilities needed to address those risks, building or sustaining the required levels of capability, 

developing and implementing plans to deliver those capabilities, validating and monitoring progress, 

and reviewing and updating efforts to promote continuous improvement. 

Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8) describes the Nation’s approach to national preparedness. 

The National Preparedness Goal is the cornerstone for the implementation of PPD-8; identified 

within it are the Nation’s core capabilities across five mission areas: Prevention, Protection, 

Mitigation, Response, and Recovery.1 The National Preparedness System is the instrument the 

Nation will employ to build, sustain, and deliver those core capabilities in order to achieve the goal 

of a secure and resilient Nation. The guidance, programs, processes, and systems that support each 

component of the National Preparedness System enable a collaborative, whole community approach 

to national preparedness that engages individuals, families, communities, private and nonprofit 

sectors, faith-based organizations, and all levels of government. 

The National Preparedness System builds on current efforts, many of which are established in the 

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and other statutes. Through the implementation of 

the National Preparedness System, these efforts will be integrated to be more efficient and effective, 

supporting our Nation’s ability to confront any threat or hazard. Where needed, new tools and 

processes will be developed to meet the challenges of each mission area. Implementing the National 

Preparedness System will be a multi-year effort requiring contributions from the entire Nation. 

National Preparedness System Components

Capabilities are the means to accomplish a mission, function, or 

objective based on the performance of related tasks, under 

specified conditions, to target levels of performance. The most 

essential of these capabilities are the core capabilities identified in 

the National Preparedness Goal. Complex and far-reaching threats 

and hazards require the whole community to integrate 

preparedness efforts in order to build, sustain, and deliver the core 

capabilities and achieve the desired outcomes identified in the 

National Preparedness Goal. The components of the National 

Preparedness System provide a consistent and reliable approach to 

support decision making, resource allocation, and measure 

progress toward these outcomes. The maturation and use of the 

National Incident Management System (NIMS) will aid in 

ensuring a unified approach across all mission areas as the National 

Preparedness System is implemented.

 

1 Detailed information on the mission areas can be found in the National Preparedness Goal.

Figure 1: Mission Area 

Components of the National 

Preparedness System
National Preparedness System

2 

While each of the components of the National Preparedness System is essential, to achieve 

preparedness, it is critical that the components be understood and used in the context of each other. 

Ultimately, this integrated approach becomes a means to achieve the National Preparedness Goal in a 

consistent and measurable way. 

Identifying and Assessing Risk

Developing and maintaining an understanding of the variety of risks faced by communities and the 

Nation, and how this information can be used to build and sustain preparedness, are essential 

components of the National Preparedness System. Risk varies across the Nation—for example, a 

municipal risk assessment will reflect a subset of the threats and hazards contained in a state or 

Federal risk assessment.

A risk assessment collects information regarding the threats and hazards, including the projected 

consequences or impacts. The Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) 

guidance currently under development will provide a common, consistent approach for identifying 

and assessing risks and associated impacts. The THIRA guidance will expand on existing state, 

territorial, tribal, and local hazard identification and risk assessments. Using the THIRA process will 

enable better integration of threat into the risk assessment process. To be effective, the THIRA 

process requires the participation of the whole community to share information, account for 

population-specific factors, and understand the initial and cascading effects of a threat or hazard. 

Analysis of the THIRA results will guide future preparedness efforts across all mission areas. The 

analysis can also be used to educate individuals, families, businesses, organizations, and executive 

leaders on the risks facing a community and on their roles in preparedness. 

At the national level, the Strategic National Risk Assessment (SNRA) analyzes the greatest risks to 

the Nation. This analysis contributes to our shared understanding of the full range of threats, hazards, 

and challenges facing our Nation as well as greater visibility of long-term risk trends. The SNRA will 

continue to be refined and will integrate information from across the whole community. The results 

of the SNRA will be used to prioritize preparedness activities at the national level and inform risk 

assessment efforts at every level of government.

THIRAs, the SNRA, and specialized risk assessments, taken together, will provide an integrated 

picture of the risks facing our Nation. This picture will cover the range of threats and hazards, from 

those our communities face daily to those infrequent events that would stress the core capabilities of 

the entire Nation. Coupled with the desired outcomes established by a community, this combined 

perspective is crucial to enabling all levels of government to effectively estimate the level of 

capabilities required to address their risks. 

Estimating Capability Requirements

To fully understand capability requirements, each community, organization, and level of government 

must consider single threats or hazards as well as the full range of risks they may face. Using the 

results from a risk assessment in the context of the desired outcome(s) for each mission area, the 

required types and levels of capability can be estimated.

This estimation process begins with developing a set of planning factors. Planning factors can be 

developed for any mission area. The planning factors are based on assessments of risk and the 

desired outcome(s) to be achieved. For example, if a desired outcome is to prevent an imminent 

terrorist attack, then a set of planning factors that help to define the adversary or modes of attack will 

aid in identifying the level of capability required to prevent the attack. Planning factors can be 
National Preparedness System

 3 

changed in size and scope to accommodate impacts from larger and more complex incidents that 

involve multiple jurisdictions, states, regions, or the entire Nation. 

These planning factors help inform decisions about the capability level required and the resources 

needed to achieve it. Communities can then examine current capability levels through the lenses of 

real-world incidents, assessments, and exercises to determine whether changes to current capability 

levels are warranted. This process of comparing current and required capability levels will identify 

gaps and shortfalls the community may choose to address. 

Regardless of the level of government, this capability estimate process uses the planning factors to 

establish target levels for the related capabilities. This aids in identifying the resources required to 

achieve those targets. By helping to identify these requirements, this process helps users focus on 

how they will build and sustain the desired level of capability. 

Example of Planning Factors and Estimating Capability

Planning factors help users of the National Preparedness System make informed decisions about 

capability requirements. For example, a jurisdiction may identify a response-related planning factor that 

focuses on the projected number of people injured or exposed across different threats and hazards. After 

analyzing the risk, the jurisdiction determines that it needs the ability to treat 500 injured or exposed 

people in the first eight hours after an incident instead of the 400 it can currently treat. The jurisdiction 

must then decide what measures it will take, which might include engaging the private sector to acquire 

the capability to treat an additional 100 injured or exposed people in the required timeframe. This 

approach can also be used at other levels of government. The planning factor would change in scope and 

size at the state level, for example, and may be even larger at the Federal level. An initial set of 

adjustable targets can be found in the National Preparedness Goal.

Building and Sustaining Capabilities

After completing the estimation process, existing and needed capabilities can be analyzed and gaps 

identified. These gaps can be prioritized based on a combination of the desired outcomes, risk 

assessments, and the potential effects of not addressing the gaps. 

Working together, planners, government officials, and elected leaders can develop strategies to 

allocate resources effectively, as well as leverage available assistance to reduce risk. These strategies 

consider both how to sustain current levels of capability and address gaps in order to achieve the 

National Preparedness Goal. Not all capabilities can be addressed in a given funding cycle; officials 

must prioritize the capabilities to most effectively ensure security and resilience while understanding 

the effects of not addressing identified gaps. Building and sustaining capabilities will include a 

combination of organizational resources, equipment, training, and education. Grants and technical 

assistance may also be available to support building and sustaining capabilities. Consideration must 

also be given to finding, connecting to, and strengthening community resources by leveraging the 

expertise and capacity of individuals, communities, private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based 

organizations, and all levels of government. Jurisdictions may also choose to use mutual aid 

agreements to fill gaps or work with partners to develop regional capabilities. Ultimately, a 

jurisdiction may need to rely on other levels of government to address a gap in capability. This 

expectation should be communicated before capabilities are needed. 

Organizational resources, like personnel and equipment, provide the basic tools for building and 

sustaining capabilities. Using expanded resource typing, credentialing (such as the National Incident 

Management System Guideline for the Credentialing of Personnel), and resource inventories that 

encompass all mission areas will help facilitate these efforts by providing a “common language” for 
National Preparedness System

4 

understanding the resources that comprise the core capabilities and define needs. Additionally, the 

use of voluntary, consensus-based standards will improve interoperability across the Nation. 

As capabilities are built, training and education are used to develop and strengthen the specific 

knowledge, skills, and abilities required to meet each capability’s target. The National Training & 

Education System (NTES) will support the National Preparedness System by enabling the whole 

community to access needed training and education in support of preparedness. The NTES will work 

with existing government training facilities, academic institutions, private organizations, and other 

entities that provide specialized training and education. It will also include, as appropriate, training 

courses provided by community colleges; state, territorial, tribal, and local public safety academies; 

and other facilities.

Planning to Deliver Capabilities

The whole community contributes to reducing the Nation’s risks. Planning for low-probability, highconsequence risks—such as a terrorist attack with nuclear or biological weapons or a catastrophic 

earthquake affecting multiple jurisdictions—will be a complex undertaking and involve many 

partners. Federal efforts, therefore, must complement planning at other levels of government, which 

is often focused on more likely risks. These shared planning efforts form a National Planning System 

by which the whole community can think through potential crises, determine capability requirements, 

and address the collective risk identified during the risk assessment process. 

Using a common approach and terminology based on existing guidance documents,2 the National 

Planning System will support the delivery of the core capabilities identified in the National 

Preparedness Goal. First, a set of coordinated National Frameworks will be collaboratively 

developed that focus on how the whole community prepares to deliver capabilities in each of the five 

mission areas. Each Framework will describe the coordinating structures and alignment of key roles 

and responsibilities for the whole community and will be integrated to ensure interoperability across 

all mission areas.

At the Federal level, each of these Frameworks will be supported by a Federal Interagency 

Operational Plan. These plans will provide a detailed concept of operations; a description of critical 

tasks and responsibilities; detailed resource, personnel, and sourcing requirements; and specific 

provisions for the delivery of capabilities under each Framework by the Federal Government. They 

will also address how the Federal Government will support state, territorial, tribal, and local plans. 

Where needed, each Federal executive department and agency will develop and maintain departmentlevel operational plans to deliver capabilities to fulfill responsibilities under the Frameworks and 

interagency plans. This will be determined by the respective department or agency and may be based 

on existing plans, protocols, or standard operating procedures/standard operating guides. These plans 

will be updated as needed. 

The process for the development and the ongoing maintenance of the Frameworks and operational 

plans will be captured in a National Planning System guide. This guide will complement and build 

upon existing guidance and doctrine and will support the integration of planning activities. 

Additionally, in support of planning across the whole community, a set of comprehensive 

preparedness guides will be developed to provide guidance in support of the five mission areas. 

These guides will provide flexible decision aids, tools, and templates that can be used to assist with 

the development and integration of plans. This guidance will support state, territorial, tribal, and local 

 

2 Plans should be developed in a manner compatible with the process identified in Comprehensive Preparedness 

Guide 101 or a similar planning structure relevant to the planning requirement.
National Preparedness System

 5 

governments and address the inclusion of individuals, communities, and businesses into planning 

efforts.

Using an integrated approach to planning, risks can be systemically managed by effectively using 

capabilities to prevent, protect, mitigate, respond to, and recover from any threat or hazard. This 

integration comes from implementing a National Planning System that promotes a consistent 

planning process and a unified coordinating structure to deliver the capabilities and establish the 

critical links that span the five mission areas. This integration will help ensure planning accounts for 

relationships and dependencies among the core capabilities both within and across mission areas. 

An integrated approach to planning also helps ensure that plans are synchronized (i.e., in purpose, 

place, and time). This approach also ensures the whole community participates and understands its

roles and the desired outcomes across all mission areas. This aids in establishing mutual 

expectations, highlighting potential points of friction and key decision points, identifying potential 

resource shortfalls, and developing the means to bridge those shortfalls. These include the 

administrative, financial, legal, and logistical barriers to communication, cooperation, and rapid 

employment of capabilities. These barriers must be identified, examined, and, where possible, 

removed or minimized. Additionally, identifying and coordinating the statutory authorities that can 

be used to deliver capabilities during an emergency or imminent threat is important to success. 

Validating Capabilities

Measuring progress toward achieving the National Preparedness Goal will provide the means to 

decide how and where to allocate scarce resources and prioritize preparedness. This can be done 

through exercises, remedial action management programs, and assessments. 

Exercises are conducted to test and validate plans and capabilities. An effective and comprehensive 

exercise program that includes active collaboration with the whole community is essential to the 

success of the National Preparedness System. By highlighting strengths and revealing gaps, exercises 

facilitate the Nation’s ability to validate capabilities and evaluate progress toward meeting the 

National Preparedness Goal. The National Exercise Program (NEP) serves as the principal exercise 

mechanism for examining national preparedness and measuring readiness. Additionally, numerous 

exercises are conducted outside of the NEP and serve to assess and validate the capabilities of 

organizations, agencies, and jurisdictions. For example, businesses test their ability to maintain 

supply chains during emergencies, and governments test their ability to protect facilities or conduct 

fire and rescue operations. Guidance and tools are provided through the Homeland Security Exercise 

and Evaluation Program for the design, implementation, and evaluation of exercises. 

In addition to exercises, training and real-world events also provide essential information on testing 

and validating a community’s progress toward achieving its desired capabilities. A remedial action 

management program (RAMP) uses this information to identify and share lessons learned, afteraction reports, and best practices from events and exercises when and where appropriate.3 The 

RAMP process assists in validating which capabilities are effective and identifying the actions to 

improve, replace, or eliminate the elements of capabilities that are ineffective.

Ongoing monitoring ensures core capabilities are built to achieve the National Preparedness Goal and 

that current capabilities are sustained. A comprehensive assessment system (CAS) is used to measure 

and monitor progress on behalf of the whole community. The purpose of CAS is to: 

 Identify capability targets and performance metrics

 

3 Due to the sensitive nature of certain real-world events, the timing and extent of reporting will be driven by law 

enforcement and intelligence requirements.
National Preparedness System

6 

 Systemically collect and analyze data about capabilities

 Report progress on building and sustaining the required levels of capability.

Exercises, RAMP, and CAS provide the means to evaluate and validate current capabilities at all 

levels of government and to actively monitor and report progress on building, sustaining, and 

delivering capabilities. This analysis and reporting, with the National Preparedness Report as the 

principal product, will aid resource allocation and identify planning requirements to support national 

preparedness. 

Reviewing and Updating

The Nation’s security and resilience will be strengthened as it employs the components of the 

National Preparedness System. Changes in a community’s exposure and sensitivity can and do occur, 

however, whether from evolving threats and hazards, aging infrastructure, shifts in population, or 

changes in the natural environment. On a recurring basis, capabilities, resources, and plans should be 

reviewed to determine if they remain relevant or need to be updated. This review should be based on 

a current risk assessment and utilize information gathered during the validation process. As a part of 

these efforts, periodic senior-level reviews of national preparedness will be conducted with joint 

participation from Federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local decision makers. These reviews will 

provide a means to examine preparedness analyses; determine priorities; direct preparedness actions; 

calibrate goals and objectives; and closely monitor major programs that impact national 

preparedness. 

Conclusion

This document provides a description of the National Preparedness System’s components and how 

they interact to build, sustain, and deliver the core capabilities in order to achieve the National 

Preparedness Goal. These components help us understand risk, inform current and future budget year 

planning and decisions, inform resource allocation plans, and aid in understanding the progress of the 

Nation. 

While the National Preparedness System builds on a number of proven processes, it will evolve to 

capitalize on new opportunities and meet emerging challenges. Many of the programs and processes 

that support the components of the National Preparedness System exist and are currently in use; 

others will need to be updated or developed. As the remaining PPD-8 deliverables are developed, 

further details will be provided on how the National Preparedness System will be implemented 

across the five mission areas in order to achieve the National Preparedness Goal.

This document describes a collaborative environment and living system whose components will be 

routinely evaluated and updated to ensure their continued effectiveness. This environment will be 

supported through collaboration and cooperation with international partners, including working 

closely with our neighbors Canada and Mexico, with whom we share common borders. In the end, 

the National Preparedness System’s strength relies on ensuring the whole community has the 

opportunity to contribute to its implementation to achieve the goal of a secure and resilient Nation.