U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Multijurisdictional

/

Mutual Aid:

Partnerships for

Meeting Regional

Threats

N

E

W

R

E

A

L

I

T

I

E

S

Law Enforcement in the Post­9 11 Era
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Alberto R. Gonzales

Attorney General

Regina B. Schofield

Assistant Attorney General

Domingo S. Herraiz

Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs

Partnerships for Safer Communities

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

NCJ 210679

Written by Phil Lynn

This document was prepared by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, under cooperative

agreement number 2003–DD–BX–K002, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or

recommendations expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily

represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Mutual Aid:

Multijurisdictional

Partnerships for

Meeting Regional

Threats

September 2005

NCJ 210679
Acknowledgments�

Post–9/11 Policing Project Staff 

The Post­9/11 Policing Project is the work of the

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP),

National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA), National

Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives

(NOBLE), Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA),

and Police Foundation. Jerry Needle, Director of

Programs and Research, IACP, provided overall

project direction.

❋�International Association of Chiefs of Police

Phil Lynn served as IACP’s Project Director,

managed development and publication of the four

Promising Practices Briefs, and authored this

monograph—Mutual Aid: Multijurisdictional

Partnerships for Meeting Regional Threats.

Andrew Morabito coauthored Engaging the

Private Sector To Promote Homeland Security:

Law Enforcement­Private Security Partnerships

and analyzed Post­9/11 survey data. Col. Joel

Leson, Director, IACP Center for Police

Leadership, authored Assessing and Managing

the Terrorism Threat. Walter Tangel served as

initial Project Director. 

Dr. Ellen Scrivner, Deputy Superintendent, Bureau

of Administrative Services, Chicago Police

Department, contributed to all phases of project

design and cofacilitated the Post­9/11 Roundtables

with Jerry Needle. Marilyn Peterson, Management

Specialist–Intelligence, New Jersey Division of

Criminal Justice, authored Intelligence­Led

Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture.

❋�National Sheriffs’ Association

Fred Wilson, Director of Training, directed NSA

project activities, organized and managed 

Post­9/11 Roundtables, and worked closely with

IACP staff throughout the course of the project.

NSA project consultants included Chris Tutko,

Director of NSA’s Neighborhood Watch Project;

John Matthews; and Dr. Jeff Walker, University

of Arkansas, Little Rock.

❋�National Organization of Black Law

Enforcement Executives

Jessie Lee, Executive Director, served as

NOBLE’s Project Director and conducted most

staff work.

❋�Major Cities Chiefs Association

Dr. Phyllis McDonald, Division of Public Safety

Leadership, Johns Hopkins University, directed

the work of the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

The MCCA team included Denis O’Keefe,

Consultant; Corinne Martin, Program

Coordinator; and Shannon Feldpush.

Dr. Sheldon Greenberg, Director of the Division

of Public Safety Leadership, coauthored

Engaging the Private Sector To Promote

Homeland Security: Law Enforcement­Private

Security Partnerships.

❋�The Police Foundation

Edwin Hamilton directed Police Foundation�

project activities and managed Post­9/11 survey�

formatting and analysis, assisted by Rob Davis.�

Foundation consultants included Inspector Garth�

den Heyer of the New Zealand Police and Steve�

Johnson of the Washington State Patrol.�

Promising Practices Reviews

Promising Practices drafts were critiqued and enriched�

by a series of practitioners/content experts, including�

Richard Cashdollar, Executive Director of Public�

Safety, City of Mobile, AL; George Franscell,�

Attorney­at­Law, Franscell, Strickland, Roberts and�

Lawrence, Los Angeles, CA; Mary Beth Michos,�

State Mutual Aid Coordinator, Prince William County,�

VA; David Bostrom, Manager, Community Policing�

Consortium, IACP; John P. Chase, Chief of Staff,�

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection,�

Department of Homeland Security; John M. Clark,�

iii 
Assistant Vice President/Chief of Police, Burlington

Northern Santa Fe Railroad; John A. LeCours,

Director/Intelligence, Transport Canada; Ronald W.

Olin, Chief of Police, Lawrence, KS; Ed Jopeck,

Analyst, Veridian; Jerry Marynik, Administrator, State

Terrorism Threat Assessment Center, California

Department of Justice; and Bart Johnson, Office of

Counter­Terrorism, New York State Police.

Executive Oversight

The Post­9/11 Policing Project was initially

conceptualized by the Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice. Since its inception, the project

has been guided throughout by the chief executive

officers of the partner associations:

❋�Daniel N. Rosenblatt, Executive Director,

International Association of Chiefs of Police

iv 

❋�Thomas N. Faust, Executive Director, National

Sheriffs’ Association

❋�Jessie Lee, Executive Director, National

Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives

❋�Thomas C. Frazier, Executive Director, Major

Cities Chiefs Association

❋�Hubert Williams, President, The Police Foundation

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Guidance

We gratefully acknowledge the technical guidance

and patient cooperation of executives and program

managers who helped fashion project work: James H.

Burch II, Deputy Director; Michelle Shaw, Policy

Advisor; and Steven Edwards, Ph.D., Senior Policy

Advisor for Law Enforcement. 
Contents�

Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

Overview of the Issue  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Addressing the Issue Through Mutual Aid  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Establishing a Mutual Aid Agreement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Terms and Conditions of the Agreement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Predeployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Activation of a Mutual Aid Plan  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25�

Promising Practices in Mutual Aid  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Appendix: Interagency Assistance Sample Mutual Aid Agreement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33�

Endnotes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

v 
Executive Summary�

Amail survey and three facilitated roundtable

sessions with police chiefs and sheriffs identified

several critical areas that could assist law enforcement

leaders in managing the new realities of policing 

since the events of September 11, 2001. One of those

areas was the use of mutual aid agreements and

multijurisdictional partnerships.

I know that there are people here today—and

others that you know and work with—that

rushed to Ground Zero when the planes struck.

You dropped everything. You got there any way

you could to lend a helping hand—and you kept

working for weeks straight. On the evening of

September 12, 2001, several members of a

sheriff’s office in Michigan set out in a semitrailer full of donated flashlights, batteries, and

water hoping to assist with the rescue operations

at Ground Zero. The group received an

invitation to assist with the search for evidence

in the disaster rubble that had been ferried to

Staten Island. For 6 days, these heroes worked

alongside their law enforcement brothers and

sisters from across the country in the ‘bucket

brigade,’looking for crime evidence and victims’

bodies. The work was grim. But the spirit of the

law enforcement community in those dark days

brought further honor to your profession.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales

at the National Sheriffs’ Association Conference, 2005

Traditionally, mutual aid agreements have been used

on a limited basis to organize investigative teams or

task forces. Today, these agreements are being used

regionally to address the threats of international and

domestic terrorism as agencies recognize that a more

collaborative approach is necessary to prevent future

attacks against our communities. Moreover, regional

mutual aid agreements can be tailored to meet specific

needs, address likely threats, and make available the

full range of existing resources that can be brought to

bear quickly in times of emergency.

Although it has not always been the case, prevention is

now considered an integral component of modern

policing. Just as it is more effective to prevent a crime

from occurring than to respond to it after it has

occurred, so is it also more effective to prevent a

terrorist act than it is to respond to one. Although

mutual aid may have been conceived primarily to

respond to disasters and emergencies, it also is 

well suited for preventing such occurrences. The

organizational and collaborative approaches developed

through mutual aid agreements bring together key

decisionmakers who can share information and

intelligence. It is through this sharing from agency to

agency that line officers, investigators, and analysts are

most likely to make the essential connections that can

prevent an attack.

Mutual aid is a key component of the National

Incident Management System (NIMS), which provides

the framework for emergency response. The federal

government now directly supports the establishment of

local mutual aid agreements with federal resources and

has embarked on a National Mutual Aid and Resource

Management Initiative. 

Planning is essential to effective mutual aid. Before

vii 

❋ 

❋ 

needs.

❋ 

❋ Identifying training and funding requirements.

agencies enter into these agreements, they must

consider doing all of the following:

Defining the participation requirements.

Assessing vulnerabilities and potential deployment

Establishing oversight and management authority.

In addition, several obstacles block the creation of

effective collaborative efforts that develop via mutual

aid. Jurisdictions must define the limits of the

agreement. Participating law enforcement agencies and

other involved agencies must overcome the mistrust

that sometimes exists between organizations. The

jurisdictions involved and the policing chief executives

must agree to the plan’s key components, and each

participating jurisdiction’s governing body must

approve the agreement. 
This document highlights a number of efforts by diverse. Agencies should consider studying them if

regions throughout the United States to work in these they are interested in taking a more regional approach

collaborative partnerships across jurisdictions. These to terrorism prevention, preparedness, and response.

initiatives vary in size and scope and are geographically

viii 
Overview of the Issue�

Historically, law enforcement mutual aid agreementshave been employed most often on a limited basis

for the sharing of personnel and resources to establish

multiagency investigative teams and task forces.1

Typically, the enabling agreement between jurisdictions

takes the form of memorandums of understanding.

Such agreements are limited in scope and purpose to

address specific crime problems that cut across

jurisdictional boundaries. Most familiar to law

enforcement agencies are automatic mutual aid

agreements in which units from neighboring

jurisdictions are automatically dispatched to incident

scenes. These are interlocal agreements that are usually

basic contracts or even informal agreements. The

mutual aid agreements discussed in this document are

more formalized than these types of agreements and

are designed to provide a wide range of services and

resources to afflicted jurisdictions over longer periods.

Law enforcement has long recognized that such

multijurisdictional, multiagency operations reap major

benefits in combating broad­based criminal activities

that cut across jurisdictional boundaries. For example,

contiguous jurisdictions have successfully used major

case squads in a variety of contexts for decades. After

September 11, the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) set up Joint Terrorism Task Forces in major cities

nationwide to serve as the primary links for regional

operations among federal, state, and local agencies. 

In any major crime investigation, the special need for

intelligence, specialized personnel and equipment, and

additional resources often can be addressed more fully

and efficiently through a cooperative interjurisdictional

enforcement approach. Some jurisdictions also have

established emergency response teams such as special

weapons and tactics (SWAT) or related units that can

respond to serious criminal incidents with special

equipment and training that none of the independent

jurisdictions could support alone. The concept is

simple, but many law enforcement agencies have

learned that developing an efficient and successful

operating unit requires attention to numerous details

of management, command and control, planning, and

joint training.

In a similar manner, but on a larger scale, mutual aid

agreements were devised to assist townships, cities,

counties, and similar intrastate governmental entities

to more efficiently and effectively exchange services

and resources to meet specific needs that could not be

provided adequately on an individual agency basis.

Mutual aid agreements often are more comprehensive,

formalized, and far reaching than are memorandums

of understanding and are normally intended for

sharing resources and services during periods of

natural or manmade disasters. Sharing resources

during such unusual circumstances has been found to

be far more efficient and cost effective than the

alternative of developing overlapping and duplicative

services in each jurisdiction that may be infrequently

or sparsely used. Resource sharing most often is called

into play during major natural disasters such as floods,

tornados, and hurricanes, but it also has been

employed to contain civil unrest, mass demonstrations,

and other events that are beyond the capabilities of

individual jurisdictions to manage or control. 

In light of these successful interjurisdictional

enterprises, it is not surprising that the same

collaborative approach has been taken in local, state,

and national attempts to address the threats of

international and domestic terrorism. The utility of

these agreements was demonstrated dramatically

during and immediately following the events

surrounding September 11, 2001, when wellorchestrated mutual aid agreements among regional

agencies in New York and interstate agreements

among other adjoining states were activated to deal

with the cataclysmic events and aftermath of that day.

Fire companies, law enforcement officers and other

first responders, and a wide variety of other assistance

were brought from throughout New York State, as well

as from farflung regions of the country. In New York

State, such personnel were activated under regional

mutual aid agreements to assist at the scene. They also

were used to backfill positions of first responders in

jurisdictions surrounding New York City that were

temporarily vacated by those who were directly

engaged in rescue efforts at the World Trade Center so

1 
2 

the flood of donations to command­post operators who

2

Whether mutual aid agreements are interstate or

response agencies remain accustomed to “going it

Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is only

contiguous, county­to­county basis that is closer to

the incident at hand and the resources necessary to

of Governments mutual aid agreement. None of these

actions could have been undertaken as expeditiously

and effectively without mutual aid agreements and

protocols that were established in advance. In fact,

New York State took only 6 days following September

11 to join the Emergency Management Assistance

Compact (EMAC)—an interstate agreement that

streamlines, coordinates, and manages the assistance

one governor can lend another after a natural disaster

or a terrorist attack. Some two dozen governors lent

everything from administrators who helped manage

relieved New York City personnel so that they could

get some sleep. “Every state in the nation came

calling, ‘What can we do to help?’” recalled Dennis

Michalski, an assistant director of New York’s

Emergency Management Office. But orchestrating the

flood of resources, personnel, and materials became an

immense undertaking in itself, so the state joined

EMAC immediately.

intrastate, the utility and wisdom of engaging in them

has been proved time and again. In spite of the

obvious need, many law enforcement and related first

alone.” There are a number of possible explanations

for this approach. In part, many rural and even

suburban communities retain the notion that terrorism

is primarily an urban problem associated particularly

with key cities such as New York and Washington.

September 11 notwithstanding, this notion is

countered by historical precedent. The bombing of the

one example. As noted by President George W. Bush,

. . . regional mutual aid is provided on a horizontal,

address the emergency.

that fire and law enforcement services could continue

unabated in these surrounding jurisdictions. 

Similar actions were witnessed in the Washington,

D.C., metropolitan area as law enforcement, fire,

emergency medical services (EMS), and related

resources were brought to bear on events at the

Pentagon under the Washington Metropolitan Council

Terrorists can strike anytime, anywhere. Crop

dusters, power generating plants, dams and

reservoirs, crops, livestock, trains, and highways

are among the resources that could be targets.

Homeland security in the heartland is just as

important as homeland security in America’s

largest cities.3

Indeed, the ambitions of international terrorists have

included targets in rural America, presumably to

demonstrate the omnipresence of the terrorists’ reach,

their ability to disrupt everyday life, and their desire to

inflict fear on a broad scale. Moreover, many targets of

strategic value that are critical to the health of the

nation’s infrastructure are located in rural America.

Even targets of largely symbolic value that may be

attacked in large urban areas can create a ripple effect

in surrounding suburban and rural areas, as victims

seek refuge from the inner city and local rural

resources are diverted to assist victims.

For these and other reasons, President George W. Bush

launched the National Mutual Aid and Resource

Management Initiative to assist first responders outside

major metropolitan agencies in establishing mutual aid

agreements or in renewing and refining existing

agreements. Regional mutual aid is not intended to

supplant or rival emergency aid provided through the

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

EMAC, or state emergency management agencies.

These are vital resources that can be drawn on

whenever and however needed. But in a sense these

are top­down or vertical service providers, whereas

regional mutual aid is provided on a horizontal,

contiguous, county­to­county basis that is closer to the

incident at hand and the resources necessary to address

the emergency. Regional mutual aid agreements also

can be tailored to more easily meet specific needs,

address likely threats, and make available the full

range of resources that can be brought to bear quickly

in times of emergency. Although the roles of FEMA

and EMAC and the coordinating efforts of state

emergency management agencies do overlap to some

degree with regional mutual aid agreements, in a

major disaster—such as a terrorist attack—there would

be plenty of work to go around. 
Addressing the Issue Through Mutual Aid�

Mutual Aid as Critical Incident

Planning and Response 

The Emergency Management Institute (EMI) discusses

mitigation as one of the four phases of emergency

management. EMI defines mitigation as taking

sustained actions to reduce or eliminate long­term risk

to people and property from hazards and their effects.

A critical incident—whether it is a chemical spill,

airplane crash, mass disturbance, flood, terrorist

attack, or other natural or manmade disaster—

necessarily affects and involves other community

agencies and services. To effectively mitigate any

effects, law enforcement must work in advance on

planning and preparation with other local and state

law enforcement and related government agencies.

This preparedness process also must include

cooperation with utility providers, private companies,

and citizen groups in the preplanning of potential

disaster scenarios and the development of response

plans to deal with them. Consider the following factual

incident as a case in point for effective critical incident

management and preplanning.

The morning of April 16, 1947, began as a bright

spring day in Texas City, Texas, a thriving industrial

city on the Gulf Coast. At anchor that morning was the

Grand Camp, a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate

fertilizer (a highly explosive substance that was the

instrument of destruction in the Oklahoma City

bombing). The ship was preparing to set sail when a

fire broke out in the cargo hold. The captain attempted

to deal with the fire by closing hatches to smother it.

Instead, the fire grew more intense and volatile. The

local fire department was called and began to douse

the fire with water—an act that also increased its

volatility and combustibility. 

A little after 9 a.m., the Grand Camp exploded with

such force that it shot a column of fire and smoke more

than 2,000 feet high. An even more violent second

explosion caused the neighboring Monsanto Chemical

Plant to explode in flames. From there the fires spread

to the neighboring refineries and fuel depot. The

immense refining complex burned out of control

through the night as a multitude of emergency aid

workers and equipment converged on the city from

across south Texas. 

The following day, another ship in the harbor laden

with ammonium nitrate that had been burning also

exploded in what was the most violent of all the blasts.

The shock waves destroyed buildings in a large area

and were felt many miles away in Galveston and other

distant towns. Estimates of the death toll were placed

at approximately 600 in the town of only 16,000

people. It took a week to bring the fires under control

and a month to recover those bodies that could be

found.

Many lessons were learned from the Texas City

disaster, including the proper storage of combustible

materials and monitoring their proximate location

to one another. No one had envisioned that such a

disaster was possible, and little to no planning had

been done to deal with the unthinkable. But beyond

the physical cause and aftereffects of the disaster,

issues of logistics and command and control came to

the forefront. Mobilization and command and control

of emergency aid, including fire and ambulance

services, emergency first aid providers, and law

enforcement (and eventually the National Guard to

assist in the effort and protect property and life from

potential opportunists), was nearly nonexistent in the

Texas City incident. For days crews converged on the

scene with little or no understanding of where or how

to deploy or whom to take orders from. The result was

a tragic delay in bringing the incident under control

and the unnecessary loss of additional lives. Although

this incident took place more than 50 years ago, law

enforcement and emergency service providers are still

faced with the potential for many types of critical

incidents and the need to prepare well in advance to

deal with them effectively. The threat of terrorist acts

against chemical plants and many related targets

presents the possibility of an incident similar to if not

far more devastating than that in Texas City. 

3 
Mutual Aid as Intervention and

Prevention

The time for mitigation and preparedness is not after a

disaster like the one in Texas has occurred, a riot has

begun, a tornado has hit, or a terrorist has struck.

These incidents must be addressed in advance. Local

4 

had there been no planning and code enforcement.

Thus, it is for the collective benefit of all participating

jurisdictions in regional mutual aid to work in concert

to hone threat­assessment techniques and combine

threat information. Protection of one jurisdiction

thus helps protect all neighboring jurisdictions.

regulatory agencies have taken similar measures to

prevent the building of homes and commercial

establishments in flood­prone areas, and these

measures have been an effective means of saving lives

and property for many years. These and related

regulations are a means of responsible planning and

preparedness and are actions that can eliminate—and

have eliminated—the operational response concerns

and the recovery issues that might have been required

In the law enforcement arena today, it is an accepted

notion that effective community and problem­oriented

policing can resolve citizen concerns before they

become large­scale problems, civic disruptions, or

criminal problems that require significant law

enforcement response. The same can be said of efforts

to deal with all forms of critical incidents.

In this context, mutual aid agreements may be

regarded as another form of law enforcementcommunity partnership. Mutual aid may have been

conceived primarily to respond to disasters and

emergencies, but it also is well suited for preventing

such occurrences. The organizational and collaborative

approaches developed through mutual aid agreements

bring together key decisionmakers who can share

information that serves their individual and collective

interests on many levels.

Intelligence is a good example. Through shared

intelligence, local law enforcement officials can obtain

a great deal of information about terrorist and other

criminal activity in general and assist in identifying

threats that are of common local or regional concern.

Through mutual aid agreements, channels of

communication are enhanced and local agencies are

better positioned to familiarize their officers with the

state of the terrorist threat to their locality and their

region.4 Where individual agencies do not have the

resources to establish their own internal intelligence

function, one may be established on a regional basis

by agencies participating in the regional agreement.

Sharing officers for this purpose, which is similar to

establishing multijurisdictional investigative teams or

tactical squads, can be both more cost effective and

more productive than individual agency initiatives. In

most cases, emergencies that would likely activate the

regional agreement are more easily detectable in

advance when multiple agencies share their insights,

intelligence, threat assessments, and crime analyses. 

Training received by one agency in the region also

can be shared with officers in partnership with other

agencies in the region through the train­the­trainer

approach or similar means. The costs of training by

outside sources that might be unaffordable by one

agency often can be spread among many personnel in

several agencies in a common geographic area and

made both economical and available to a greater

number of personnel. In efforts to meet the new

demands of homeland security, it is critical that as

many law enforcement officers as possible be

credentialed in such topics and disciplines as incident

command and unified command; response to

biological, chemical, and nuclear threats; evacuations;

policing mass disturbances; intelligence; and mass

quarantine and isolation.

Potential target identification and threat assessment 

are other areas in which regional cooperation and

partnerships serve the common good. Terrorist attacks

in one jurisdiction will usually create a regional

emergency and involve multiple jurisdictions. Thus,

it is for the collective benefit of all participating

jurisdictions in regional mutual aid to work in concert

to hone threat­assessment techniques and combine

threat information. Protection of one jurisdiction thus

helps protect all neighboring jurisdictions. Reducing a

locality’s vulnerability requires, among other things, a

careful analysis of the potential targets. Among these

targets are utilities, including electric power stations,

substations, and transmission lines; gas storage tanks

and pipelines; and water tanks, water treatment plants,

and reservoirs. 

Dispersal of a “dirty” nuclear device, destruction of a

chemical plant or bridge, contamination of a reservoir,

and related scenarios are threats that could have wideranging health and safety implications. Completely

protecting every reservoir, mass transit terminal, large
building, and other likely targets within a jurisdiction

is not possible. But the more difficult it is for terrorists

to identify vulnerabilities in a given area or facility,

the less likely it is that they will attempt an attack.

Mitigation and preparedness are essential terms in the

emergency management field. Law enforcement can

help prevent critical incidents by meeting with

representatives of other disciplines to identify and

resolve problems before they turn into critical

incidents. Interagency communication and planning

also can play important roles in mitigating a critical

incident.

Mutual aid agreements are not just processes and

procedures for responding to disasters or emergencies

once they have happened. Such agreements are an

essential component of deterrence and prevention.

When mutual aid agreements are used as proactive

vehicles, their utility is vastly expanded, and, some

would argue, is even more valuable than their response

capabilities. Local law enforcement agencies that work

closely together to identify regional threats, share

intelligence, and work constructively with private

sector entities and other governmental agencies are

more likely to prevent an emergency or disaster.5

Focusing on prevention rather than recovery should be

a large element of a mutual aid agreement, particularly

when one considers the severity of threats posed by

both domestic and international terrorist organizations.

Contemporary Support for

Mutual Aid 

To mitigate and prepare for disaster, law enforcement

agencies should enter into mutual aid agreements with

nearby public safety agencies and should review any

such agreements frequently. The wisdom of and need

for mutual aid agreements, joint service agreements,

and similar local and regional compacts gained greater

notice following the events of September 11. The U.S.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its

respective offices began laying the foundation of a

national system of local sharing to confront terrorist

attacks, domestic threats, and disasters and further

supported this initiative by providing funds to help

local governments create or improve their collective

response capabilities. DHS placed a new focus on 

state and local mutual aid as a key component of the

nation’s emergency response capabilities in the face 

of terrorist acts and other natural or manmade

emergencies. For example, mutual aid is key to the

National Incident Management System (NIMS), which

provides the framework for emergency response. It

also identifies important requirements that local

governments must fulfill to be eligible for federal

aid—an important issue for local units of government.

Although not a part of funding requirements now,

participation in mutual aid agreements may one day be

5 

“an indispensable tool for the swift and coordinated 6

supports the establishment of local mutual aid

his tenure as head of DHS:

7 

is a hot topic. Mutual aid agreements are a means for

Focusing on prevention rather than recovery should be a

large element of a mutual aid agreement, particularly when

one considers the severity of threats posed by both domestic

and international terrorist organizations.

so classified because NIMS cites such agreements as

response to disasters of all kinds.”

For the first time, the federal government directly

agreements with federal resources and has embarked

on a National Mutual Aid and Resource Management

Initiative. As then­Secretary Tom Ridge noted early in

The approach we will take will enable

communities to build capacity so that cities and

regions are similarly equipped to combat the

widest possible range of terrorist attacks. . . .

And by helping to meet your needs, we hope to

change the old relationship—city­state­local

model—into one based on mutual cooperation,

collaboration, and partnership.

The emphasis on mutual aid and regional cooperation

also is embedded in DHS’s funding requirements. The

DHS Office of Domestic Preparedness grant program

for first responders gives preference to proposals for

regional initiatives. In many locales, the budget deficit

jurisdictions to offset the costs of developing sufficient

emergency response capabilities by coordinating their

purchases of equipment and resources on a regional

basis, avoiding duplication. This is an excellent means

of stretching and leveraging dollars by pooling

resources and sharing services, technology, office

space, and personnel.

The mutual aid initiative undertaken by FEMA is

designed to enhance emergency readiness and response

at all levels of government through a comprehensive
and integrated system that will allow jurisdictions to

augment needed resources to respond to terrorist

incidents and related disasters. The system will allow

emergency management personnel to identify, locate,

request, order, and track outside resources quickly and

effectively, as well as obtain information on specific

resources and their locations, costs, and support

requirements—activities that mirror requirements of

mutual aid at the local level. 

The key concepts of the National Mutual Aid and

Resource Management Initiative, although more

ambitious and complex than those of most intrastate

regional mutual aid agreements, are similar to

components necessary in mutual aid agreements

established by local governments. Key concepts are

the following:

❋�The use of established preincident agreements

(including mutual aid, EMAC, and others) by donor

and requesting jurisdictions.

❋�Protocols for documenting and inventorying

disaster response resources in terms of categories,

kinds, components, metrics, and typing definitions.

❋�A deployment inventory/catalog of preidentified,

credentialed, categorized, and capability­typed

resources.

❋�An automated resource management system to

access and search the inventory/catalog to locate,

request, order, and track resources requested by 

incident management personnel in need of

assistance.8

These general points form the basis for establishing

regional mutual aid agreements. These and numerous

other issues—such as those related to the

establishment of a written agreement, details on the

agreement’s component parts, implementation of the

agreement, training, and related concerns—will be

discussed in greater detail later in this document.

To further assist state and local governments in

developing regional sharing programs, in 2003

FEMA provided funding to the National Emergency

Management Association to develop a Model

Intrastate Mutual Aid Agreement. The project,

undertaken in partnership with national public safety

organizations such as the International Association of

Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association,

the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and other

service providers, solicited copies of existing mutual

aid legislation and agreements, enabling legislation,

and other supporting documents. Responses from 16

states formed the basis for development of a Model

Intrastate Mutual Aid Agreement.9 This document

provides a good starting point for a comprehensive

discussion of mutual aid and includes identification 

of some of the key interest areas and concerns that

agencies should consider in organizing a regional

mutual aid network of participants.

Another reference for establishment of such

agreements was prepared before September 11 in

recognition of the need to foster intrastate mutual aid

among law enforcement agencies and provide them

with specific protocols for the establishment of such

agreements. The document, which was developed 

by a multidisciplinary body of law enforcement

professionals, provides policy positions and direction

on a wide variety of topics related to the establishment

and implementation of mutual aid among law

enforcement agencies.10 This documentation, combined

with recently established multijurisdictional intrastate

protocols from around the county, requirements of the

recently adopted NIMS, and insights from best

practices generated by regional and state agencies

since September 11, forms the basis for the positions

taken and recommendations made in this document. In

all, they provide a consistent, well­founded body of

knowledge that law enforcement executives can feel

comfortable using to establish intrastate agreements of

their own.

The sections that follow address preliminary planning

issues such as determining the need for mutual aid,

defining the requirements, and assessing

vulnerabilities and potential deployment needs, as well

as preparing a written agreement, establishing an

oversight and management authority, and training,

planning, and executing mutual aid plans.

6 
Establishing a Mutual Aid Agreement�

Forms of Mutual Aid

Mutual aid agreements codify an understanding

between two or more entities to provide support in 

a given context. Parties to agreements can include

two, three, or more response agencies, private

organizations, hospitals, public utilities, governments,

and virtually any type of organization that can bring

resources to bear during an emergency. Such

agreements may be as expansive or as limited as the

parties desire. But for purposes of this discussion, it is

important to identify the levels or tiers of mutual aid,

recognizing that not all mutual aid agreements fall

neatly into one category. Hybrid mutual aid agreements

underline the flexibility and utility of mutual aid in

general. This document focuses on mutual aid and

regional mutual aid agreements.

❋�Automatic mutual aid: Units from neighboring

jurisdictions are automatically dispatched to the

scene as part of automatic mutual aid agreements.

These interlocal agreements are usually basic

contracts; some may be informal accords. These

types of agreements are most familiar to law

enforcement agencies.

❋�Mutual aid: Mutual aid agreements are between

neighboring jurisdictions and involve a formal

request for assistance. Mutual aid is activated less

often than automatic mutual aid but covers a larger

geographic area.

❋�Regional mutual aid: Units that are part of a

regional mutual aid agreement can assist local units

that have been on scene for an extended period.

Regional mutual aid agreements exist between

multiple jurisdictions and often are sponsored by a

council of governments or similar regional body.

❋�Statewide mutual aid: Statewide mutual aid

increases the number of on­scene units. These

agreements, often coordinated by the state

emergency management agency, incorporate both

state assets and local assets in an attempt to

increase preparedness statewide. Only about a third

of all states have comprehensive statewide mutual

aid systems.

❋�Interstate agreements: Out­of­state assistance

through the Emergency Management Assistance

Compact supports the response effort toward the end

of the first day and onward into the recovery phase. 

State Authorization

Any realistic discussion about developing a regional

mutual aid alliance requires a determination of the

authority of local governments to engage in such

relationships. The law of the state in which the region

lies must authorize regional agreements for assistance

between law enforcement agencies. If the region

includes agencies in more than one state, the law of all

states involved must authorize the agreement and the

agreement must not violate any applicable federal law.

7 

11

By its constitution or state statute, virtually every state

provides enabling provisions for establishing formal,

local, intergovernmental cooperative agreements. The

language of these provisions varies somewhat and

must be examined closely for particular requirements,

specifications, and restrictions. 

For example, enabling legislation for Arizona states

the following:

. . . if authorized by their legislative or other

governing bodies, two or more public agencies

by direct contract or agreement may contract

for services or jointly exercise any powers

common to the contracting parties and may

enter into agreements with one another for joint

or cooperative action or may form a separate

legal entity, including a nonprofit corporation,

to contract for or perform some or all of the

service specified in the contract or agreement or

exercise those powers jointly held by the

contracting parties.
This Arizona law provides substantial flexibility to

local units of government for both establishing and

managing interagency agreements. As other examples,

the State of Iowa adds in its legislation that “any

public agency of this state may enter into an agreement

with one or more public or private agencies for joint

or cooperative action” (emphasis added) (Iowa Code

28E.4 [2002]). And Oregon makes the all­important

stipulation that such agreements must be in writing:

“[a] unit of local government may enter into a written

agreement with any other unit or units of local

government. . . .” (emphasis added) (Oregon Rev. Stat.

190.010 [1999]).

Establishment of a Mutual Aid

Committee

A wide variety of stakeholders should be involved 

in drafting a mutual aid agreement. The committee

members should negotiate the agreement and approve

it or recommend its approval on behalf of their

respective organizations. Jurisdictions must determine

who needs to be at the negotiating table so that the

agreement will be as inclusive and responsive as

possible. The respective heads of the law enforcement

agencies involved should be included, as well as

potentially the heads of other emergency response

agencies, emergency management agencies, elected

officials, and legal representatives. 

The committee members need not compose the

language of the agreement, but they should provide

input on the agreement’s construction, based on 

their individual needs and the perspectives of their

disciplines, and provide feedback on drafts constructed

to meet those requirements. Legal professionals also

should research and advise the committee on any

existing agreements that might provide a framework

for the new agreement. These checks can eliminate

unnecessary and even confusing duplication and

conflicts between new and old agreements.

A mutual aid committee is a sound means by which 

to bring stakeholders together to negotiate the terms 

of a mutual aid agreement. Once the committee has

completed its work, personnel representatives of key

jurisdictions, along with heads of emergency response

agencies, can remain in place to form a governing

body to oversee the continued assessment and

refinement of the agreement, ensure that periodic

training is conducted, oversee the needs assessment for

the region, and provide oversight for related functions.

The committee can be a freestanding entity or it may

function as a subcomponent of other overarching

committees such as a regional homeland security task

force, a council of governments, or an association of

response agencies.12

Funding 

Traditionally, local law enforcement agencies and

jurisdictions were unable to establish regional

compacts because they could not get funding for the

development of mutual aid agreements. To assist in

this area, DHS secured authorization for the Urban

Area Security Initiative (UASI) in 2003—a follow­on

to monies first appropriated through the Nunn­LugarDomenici Preparedness Program. UASI has been

described as the next wave in the evolution of federal

terrorism preparedness programs. It is intended to

provide resources to key urban areas, with the goal of

reducing vulnerabilities and enhancing prevention

capabilities.

As of mid­2004, the federal government had

distributed more than $8.2 billion in grants to states

and communities to bolster their resource and

preparedness capabilities. About $1.4 billion of that

has been allocated through UASI awards to pay for

specialized equipment and training. Because these

grants are aimed for regional cooperation, boundaries

between cities and neighboring jurisdictions are

erased. 

While suburban areas can benefit from UASI funding

through mutual aid agreements, outlying areas may

not have access to or even require the breadth of

resources targeted by this and related federal

programs. On the other hand, these areas may be

vulnerable to specific types of threats that are not

evident in suburban areas. Such locations may still 

be eligible for funding from DHS or other federal

sources. The 9/11 Commission Report states, though,

that homeland security funding should be based

strictly on an assessment of risk and vulnerabilities, a

position that is consistent with present DHS priorities

(e.g., port security and transit security; radiological

and biological defense). Therefore, requests for funds

by established or developing regional mutual aid

governing officials should be preceded by threat

assessments, the results of which should clearly

identify needs and local shortcomings in resources.13

8 
Because available funding targets a number of

concerns and issues from one or more federal sources,

interested agencies should contact their state

emergency management director, state homeland

security director, and/or central sources for identifying

available federal funding.14 In addition, as will be

discussed later in this document, emergency service

providers who did not adopt the Incident Command

System15—a standardized on­scene emergency

management structure—for their agency and

jurisdiction by October 2004 will not be eligible for

certain federal funds. 

Participation in the Agreement

While not addressed in legislation or statutory

provisions, for practical purposes, whenever possible,

all local jurisdictions in a selected region should

participate in the agreement. Failure to gain the

participation of all agencies in the region may

complicate the application of the mutual assistance

agreement and compromise the plan’s effectiveness. 

Define Boundaries

The first step is to define the jurisdictions that should

be included in the agreement. In many cases, states

have already been divided into regions by the state’s

emergency management authority. Massachusetts, for

example, splits the state into five emergency planning

and response areas based on urban areas, the adequacy

of personnel and equipment in the defined area, and

size so that response times are reasonable. Georgia

follows a similar formula, basing its emergency

response areas around major cities. The groups

heading each region are composed of mayors and

county commissions to ensure participation of all

levels of government. In Arizona, boundaries are

defined by grouping counties together and by

establishing fusion centers for sharing intelligence

across levels of government and with local Joint

Terrorism Task Forces.

Mutual aid agreements normally may be entered into

by law enforcement agencies in coordination with any

state emergency management organizational scheme or

may be overlaid on existing agreements. They may

even incorporate out­of­state jurisdictions, as is the

case in the National Capital Region, which brings

together Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.,

for homeland security planning purposes. In addition,

regional councils of government, regional chambers of

commerce, and regional civic organizations have been

used to assist first providers with coordinating

emergency preparedness activities and support

functions.16 Existing collaborative relationships such as

these, forged by longstanding alliances to meet

community development demands, can now often be

leveraged to establish or assist in mutual aid

agreements to meet terrorist threats and related

emergencies.

Nonparticipation

There are various reasons why jurisdictions or law

enforcement agencies prefer not to engage in mutual

aid agreements. These often are the same reasons that

such agreements sometimes do not work properly.

Lack of trust among governmental levels often

undermines these types of relationships, according to a

panel of public and private sector experts convened by

the National Academy of Public Administration

(NAPA). “Some distrust arises from competition,

previous cooperative experiences, or constitutional and

legal issues, but much of it comes from inexperience

and uncertainty,” said NAPA President C. Morgan

Kinghorn.17 Acknowledging that lack of trust may

exist and identifying its causes and possible solutions

are essential to promoting the inclusiveness of regional

agreements, as well as to help ensure their

effectiveness and continuation. The cooperation of 

all parties is essential. Therefore, any operational,

organizational, or work­culture stumbling blocks need

to be addressed early on in the exploratory process of

preparing such regional agreements.

This is not to say that the plan should be abandoned

because some jurisdictions in the region decline to

participate. It is entirely feasible to have a mutual aid

plan without the participation of all local jurisdictions.

However, if some jurisdictions choose not to

participate, conceptual design, as well as actual

drafting of the plan, should take into account the

complications that may arise if a nonparticipating

jurisdiction is involved in a subsequent emergency and

requires assistance from participating jurisdictions. For

example, participating agencies should resolve how

and under what circumstances requests for assistance

of a nonsignatory should be honored. 

It is difficult to imagine an instance in which a

jurisdiction in critical need of assistance would not 

be provided with assistance by neighboring agencies

even if the requesting agency had elected not to

9 
participate in the mutual aid agreement. Under such

circumstances, though, responding jurisdictions,

without benefit of a written mutual aid agreement,

would provide services and resources at their own risk.

Problems related to liability for wear and tear on,

damage to, or loss of equipment; injured personnel;

civil liability stemming from the actions, inactions, or

omissions of responding officers; and the costs of

services and resources expended by responding

agencies could have negative consequences for both

responding and requesting agencies. Recovery for

damages in such cases would likely result in litigation

that could have long­term negative effects on all

jurisdictions concerned.

Finally, it is not enough that each jurisdiction agrees to

participate in a mutual aid agreement. Each law

enforcement executive should determine whether the

commitment involves potential problem sites in

participating jurisdictions that may not be easily

addressed by the agreement. For example, in some

instances, one or more of the law enforcement

agencies participating in the mutual aid agreement

may have areas or facilities in their jurisdiction that

may present special problems in the event of

emergency. Airports, parks, federal reservations,

historic sites, nuclear power plants, or other locations

could present special law enforcement concerns. These

concerns may include special hazards to the public or

law enforcement personnel and overlapping law

enforcement authority and responsibility with other

local, state, or federal agencies. The problems

presented by such sites may be increased if the agency

responsible for the location is not a party to the mutual

aid agreement. The complications presented by such

special areas of concern in the event of an emergency

should be anticipated and resolved to the degree

possible before the implementation of the mutual aid

agreement.

Initial Agreement on Key Plan

Components

All jurisdictions and law enforcement executives also

should be in basic agreement about the key points of a

mutual aid agreement before they pursue the specifics

of a contractual arrangement. These points address

such issues as the responsibility to reimburse

providing agencies for services, equipment, and

resources on a predetermined schedule and the need to

indemnify officers from providing agencies operating

outside their jurisdiction; reach a general agreement on

common operational protocols and policies,

particularly those relating to the use of force; and

establish an agreement on command and control

structures. All parties involved should accept these and

other basic terms of a mutual aid agreement before a

binding agreement is framed. Much of this work can

and should be accomplished through the mutual aid

committee structure previously identified.

Jurisdictional Approval Process

Normally, before a mutual aid agreement can become

valid and effective, two requirements must be met:

❋�The governing body of each participating

jurisdiction must grant approval of the agreement in

accordance with established procedures of the

jurisdiction concerned for entering into legal

agreements.

❋�The agreement must be signed by the official or

officials authorized by the governing bodies of the

jurisdictions to sign such agreements.

In some jurisdictions, the governing body may have

delegated to a specific official (such as a city manager

or a county executive) the authority to enter into such

agreements without prior approval by the governing

body. In most instances, prior approval of the city

council, board of supervisors, or comparable

governing body of the jurisdiction is required.

Whatever the governing authority, the proper official

or officials must sign the agreement if it is to be valid.

Furthermore, if prior approval of the governing body

is required, the official authorized by the governing

body to enter into the agreement on behalf of the

jurisdiction must sign the agreement after, not before,

the governing body has given its approval.

Even though not necessarily required by law to make

the agreement valid, it is highly desirable that the

chief executives of each law enforcement agency

participating in the mutual aid plan also sign the

agreement. This helps to ensure that the chief

executives concerned are knowledgeable of and fully

aware of the agreement’s details and in accord with

the plan. It also should be remembered that even

though the chiefs of police, sheriffs, or public safety

directors of participating jurisdictions agree to the

terms and conditions of the mutual aid agreement,

10 
such individuals are not normally authorized on their

own to enter into a binding agreement of this type

with another jurisdiction. This holds true for any other

agencies outside the law enforcement community that

may be included in the agreement.

In addition, in some cases, regional mutual aid

agreements for emergency assistance must be

approved and/or coordinated by, or at least be

consistent with, statewide emergency service plans

managed by the state’s emergency management

authority or a similar authority. Depending on a state

EMS authority’s organization, this state requirement

may include, or be limited to coordination with, other

operational emergency service entities under state

auspices. This issue is very important because regional

emergencies, particularly those dealing with terrorist

acts involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD),

will invariably require the response of a broad crosssection of emergency service providers and support

operations. Mutual aid agreements established by

multiple contiguous law enforcement agencies may be

called into play in a variety of enforcement­specific

circumstances, but should the region be affected by a

broader threat, coordination of all emergency

responders is essential for the rapid and efficient use

of manpower and related resources. In these situations,

the state EMS authority, as available, as well as other

state and federal enforcement and assistance agencies,

will invariably be involved. 

Need for a Written Agreement

It is essential that a mutual aid agreement be in

writing. Oral agreements are unacceptable for the

following reasons:

❋�They may not satisfy applicable legal requirements.

❋�They inevitably are not sufficiently detailed to take

into account all of the matters that need to be

addressed in such complex agreements.

❋�They are very likely to result in misunderstandings

between the participating law enforcement

agencies. This in turn may create ill will between

the agencies, possibly compromising the

effectiveness of the plan and leading to other 

interagency problems.

❋�They greatly increase the exposure of the

participating agencies to civil liability arising from

execution of the plan.

❋�Participating agencies would not qualify for disaster

relief from FEMA because FEMA requires local

mutual assistance programs to be in writing and

appropriately authorized.

By contrast, written agreements provide the following:

❋�Form and structure, setting forth common

procedures and expectations.

❋�Awareness of potential problems and concerns,

such as those related to liability and insurance.

❋�Procedures for reimbursement for the costs of all

deployed resources where the parties consent to

such an arrangement.

The mutual aid agreement also may take the form of a

written memorandum of understanding. A sample

mutual aid agreement is provided in the appendix. 

Drafting the Agreement

Careful drafting of the mutual aid agreement is

essential. The mutual aid agreement, whether in the

form of a memorandum of understanding or otherwise,

constitutes a contract between the various jurisdictions,

and it must therefore be carefully worded and fully

understood by all law enforcement agencies and

personnel concerned. If properly structured, the

agreement gives the participating law enforcement

agencies both the authority to engage in mutual aid

and the necessary legal protection. Improper drafting

of the instrument may create significant operational

and legal difficulties for the participating law

enforcement agencies, render it impossible for the

mutual aid program to function properly, and expose

the law enforcement agencies to both public criticism

and civil liability.

For the plan to be valid, details of the actual

agreement must comply with any and all requirements

set forth in applicable laws. Therefore, all appropriate

sources of legal advice should be consulted on, and

participate in, the preparation of the document that

sets forth the terms of the interagency agreement. To

this end, law enforcement agencies that desire to join

11 
advocate should review and approve the agreement

before that jurisdiction becomes a signatory to the

contract.

. . . each participating jurisdiction’s designated legal

such an agreement should seek the advice and

assistance of local prosecutors; city and county

attorneys; other departmental legal advisors; and,

12 

where appropriate, the office of the state attorney

general to ensure that the agreement complies with

applicable local, state, and federal laws. In the final

analysis, each participating jurisdiction’s designated

legal advocate should review and approve the

agreement before that jurisdiction becomes a signatory

to the contract.
Terms and Conditions of the Agreement �

Amutual aid plan has two components. One is thememorandum of understanding or similar

agreement. The other is a mutual aid implementation

or operational plan. The agreement is the formal

agreement among participating jurisdictions that

establishes the essential terms of resource sharing and

related matters. The implementation plan, discussed in

greater detail under “Activation of a Mutual Aid Plan”

on page 25, provides the implementation protocols

that should be followed if the mutual aid agreement

needs to be activated.

An aid agreement among law enforcement agencies

must cover all essential elements of the plan. It must

therefore be detailed and comprehensive. Among the

matters that should be included in the agreement are

the following:

1. Departmental officials who are authorized to

request assistance from other participating law

enforcement agencies should be clearly identified. 

In the written memorandum or similar instrument of

agreement, this authorization should be stated by title

or position rather than by the individual’s name. In

addition, in the mutual aid plan, a list of the

individuals authorized to request assistance from other

law enforcement agencies, identifying authorized

requesters both by title and by name, should be

prepared and circulated to all participating law

enforcement agencies to minimize the possibility that

a participating law enforcement agency will receive

and respond to an unauthorized request. This list

should be kept current at all times. An employee from

each subscribing agency should be assigned to ensure

that the authorized individual in each jurisdiction has

an up­to­date version.

In the case of officials authorized to request assistance

and those authorized to respond to such requests,

several alternate officials should be designated to

ensure that one or more participating law enforcement

agencies will be on duty or readily available at all

times.

2. The agreement must set forth the circumstances

under which assistance may be granted. 

The designation of circumstances in which the plan

may be activated will vary depending on the region

and the needs of the agencies involved, but the

conditions of assistance should be defined in as much

detail as is feasible. Mutual aid should be reserved for

emergency situations only as defined in the

agreement. This definition may be as broad or as

narrow as the participating jurisdictions desire, but, to

accommodate the range of potential needs, the term

“emergency” should normally cast a broad net of

possibilities. One definition describes “emergency

situation” as “an actual or potential condition . . . that

poses an immediate threat to life or property.”18 This

definition recognizes, as most others do, that some

mutual aid requests can be anticipated. Mass

demonstrations sponsored subsequent to issuance of a

permit, for example, may indicate that the size and

potential risks associated with the gathering require

more personnel than are adequate in the subject

jurisdiction. A pre­event request for mutual aid under

these conditions is not uncommon. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia defines the same term

as “any occurrence, or threat thereof, whether natural,

or caused by man, in war or in peace, which results

or may result in substantial injury or harm to the

population, substantial damage to or loss of property,

or substantial harm to the environment.”19 This

generalized approach is somewhat different from 

that commonly used in the past to address law

enforcement problems, such as the sharing of

personnel and resources to deal with tactical situations

and similar traditional law enforcement problems. In

the context of homeland security, the use of regional

mutual aid agreements may take on a far larger range

of potential problems. These include responses to

chemical, nuclear, or biological attacks and

management of the scope of potential human and

infrastructure­related crises involved in such

scenarios. Under these circumstances, the demands on

law enforcement resources may be expanded beyond

13 
those that are traditionally accepted. As law

enforcement personnel are not equipped or fully

trained to deal with the broad scope of problems

inherent in such circumstances, the mutual aid

agreement should be careful to make the distinction

between law enforcement services that can reasonably

be expected and those services that should normally be

14 

3. The agreement should specify the acceptable

Specifying procedures will reduce response time and

reduce the possibility of response to an unauthorized

either in the assistance agreement or in the operational

through established channels. Other agreements

. . . the mutual aid agreement should be careful to

make the distinction between law enforcement

services that should normally be provided by fire,

local, state, or federal levels.

provided by fire, EMS, and other emergency response

agencies at the local, state, or federal levels.

methods by which requests for assistance may be

transmitted between agencies. 

or improper request. Normally, requests may be made

by telephone or in writing, subject to confirmation.

Law enforcement agencies may wish to spell out,

plan, the methods of confirmation that should be

employed. These include the people who may be

contacted for assistance from an adjoining agency and

the people or ranks that are authorized to request

assistance. 

Some jurisdictions—such as those in Illinois—provide

that any supervisory officer may request assistance

require the designation of specific people within law

enforcement agencies to have the authority to make

such requests as received from members of the law

enforcement agency. Whatever method is selected, the

agreement must define the authorized representatives

of participating jurisdictions who may activate the

mutual aid agreement. If that authority is limited to

select command or executive staff members, the

participating agencies must ensure that such people are

available on a 24­hour, 365­days­a­year basis.

4. The agreement should specify the forms of

assistance that are to be rendered. 

The forms of assistance will vary from region to

region, depending on the needs, desires, and

services that can reasonably be expected and those

EMS, and other emergency response agencies at the

capabilities of the law enforcement agencies involved.

As indicated in item 2 on page 13 of this monograph,

agencies must be realistic and specific with respect to

the scope of services they can reasonably be expected

to provide to requesting agencies. This issue may be

addressed in a general manner in the agreement and

then detailed in the operational plan. The operational

plan should include an inventory of resources (e.g.,

personnel, equipment, materials, and facilities) within

each participating agency that may be available to

requesting agencies in cases of emergency.

5. The agreement should specify the extent and

duration of any assistance rendered between

jurisdictions. 

Regardless of specific details included in this portion

of the agreement, it may be desirable to include a

provision that assistance will be rendered only to the

extent that it will not impair the responding law

enforcement agency’s ability to perform its mission 

in its own jurisdiction. The agreement also should

make clear that assistance will be rendered only in

accordance with the responding law enforcement

agency’s own policies and procedures. It is suggested

that where assistance is to be rendered by specialized

units such as SWAT teams, bomb squads, or canine

teams, the extent and duration of involvement of these

special units be defined to the degree possible.

6. It may be necessary to withdraw assistance under

some circumstances.

During an emergency, it may become necessary for

the responding law enforcement agency to withdraw

part or all of the personnel, equipment, or other

support being provided to the requesting agency.

The agreement should provide that agency assistance

may be withdrawn when circumstances require

redeployment of assets to the providing agency’s

own jurisdiction. The primary responsibility of a

law enforcement agency is to the citizens of its own

jurisdiction. Under certain unusual circumstances,

emergencies may necessitate that support provided to

another jurisdiction be withdrawn in whole or in part

as a result of unforeseen emergencies that have

developed in the lending law enforcement agency’s

own jurisdiction. Financial responsibility should

include coverage of the financial obligations of the

respective law enforcement agencies in the event that

withdrawal of personnel, equipment, and related

resources from the requesting jurisdiction becomes

necessary.
In this context, it also is useful to include backfill

provisions in a mutual aid agreement to help ensure

that vacancies left in a responding agency’s home

jurisdiction can be covered by adjoining jurisdictions

without the need to recall responding personnel and

equipment from the incident scene. Having backfill

provisions in the agreement can help ease potential

concerns over lending mutual aid to another

jurisdiction and depleting local emergency response

capabilities at home.

7. Command and control issues must be addressed in

the mutual aid agreement. 

The mutual aid agreement must be clear about who

shall be in charge at the scene of any emergency and

in other operations related to the emergency. This is

both an operational necessity and a legal

consideration, in view of the possibility that civil

liability may arise from decisions made in this regard.

The Incident Command System requires that the

requesting agency shall have command authority. Each

responding jurisdiction retains control over its own

personnel under the overall command of the incident

commander. The incident commander may be the

individual supervisor who made the initial request—as

is most often the case in dire emergencies—or it may

be another individual who has subsequently been

assigned or assumed command in preemptive mutual

aid requests, such as those involving requests for

assistance in anticipation of an unruly demonstration.

Responding agencies usually use a senior ranking

officer from their agency as the liaison with the

incident commander.

Similar concerns may arise with the use of officers

from specialized interagency units such as SWAT

teams. Normally, the incident commander should

determine if and when a tactical team should be used.

Once a decision has been reached on deployment, the

tactical unit commander should assume authority for

the unit’s deployment even if the tactical team is from

the lending agency. The tactical commander should be

the most experienced and trained officer available at

the time to address the situation at hand. To overcome

potential problems in operational deployment and

tactics among tactical units, personnel from such units

should train together on a periodic basis. Agreement

should be reached on the roles and limitations that will

be placed on the resources of lending agencies under a

variety of common assistance scenarios. 

The mutual aid agreement must be clear about who shall be

in charge at the scene of any emergency and in other

operations related to the emergency.

Furthermore, so that command and control is not

encumbered by significant differences in operational

policies among law enforcement agencies, there must

be some advance review of overall primary policies

between potentially involved agencies. Where serious

discrepancies exist in such areas as use of force, all

parties should address these differences before they

sign any agreement for mutual aid. 

8. Financial responsibility for the provision of

services must be clearly defined. 

It is extremely important that the financial obligations

of the various agencies in cases of mutual aid be

spelled out in detail. Failure to do so may lead to

disputes, ill will, and perhaps even a collapse of the

mutual assistance plan.

Some jurisdictions engaged in mutual aid agreements

take the position that individual law enforcement

agencies are responsible for services provided under

the scope of the agreement to include standard and

overtime wages, pensions, workers’ compensation

benefits, liability insurance, and the costs associated

with resource utilization. However, other law

enforcement agencies or groups of law enforcement

agencies entering into a mutual aid agreement choose

to reimburse assisting law enforcement agencies for

these costs, for indemnification of one law

enforcement agency by another for costs incurred in

the course of providing mutual aid, and for financial

responsibility of the various law enforcement agencies

for damage, injury, death, or other loss sustained by 

an assisting law enforcement agency during the

emergency. 

Agencies that choose to reimburse for providing

services and resources in a mutual aid agreement, as is

recommended in the sample mutual aid agreement

located in the appendix of this document, must spell

out financial responsibilities in great detail. For

example, it is usually desirable to provide specifically

for indemnification of costs to any responding agency

resulting from assistance it provided to a requesting

agency and the costs to any requesting agency

resulting from the actions of personnel supplied by the

15 
responding agency. The operational plan normally

defines the costs associated with the use of all forms

of resources so that informed decisions can be made

on costs incurred with specific resource requests. 

Some jurisdictions require that a request for assistance

be incorporated in an “event agreement” or similar

document that clarifies the scope of resources

requested. An event agreement is a contract between

two member agencies in which the assisting agency

agrees to provide specified resources to the requesting

agency under the terms and conditions specified in

the agreement once mutual aid has been requested.

Such agreements need not delay the deployment of

resources but can follow such deployment after a short

period of time when the basic tenets of the agreement

and reimbursement schedules for resources have

received advance approval.

9. Claims for reimbursement must be established in

the agreement.

Claims for reimbursement must be established in the

agreement but may be adjusted through the event

agreement if both the requesting and assisting agencies

agree. Moreover, some interjurisdictional agreements

provide for no compensation for expenditures for

personnel and related resources, damage, or personal

injury. Local jurisdictions should follow state precepts

on this issue. But even if reimbursement is not sought,

there may be provisions in which reimbursement for

personnel overtime may be possible and prudent,

such as in extended loan of personnel in a major

emergency. In all circumstances, however, regional

agreements should allow for gifts or donations. 

This will allow jurisdictions to bypass automatic

reimbursement and provide aid free of charge. It also

will provide for the free exchange of equipment and

services from any local businesses that may be able to

assist in an emergency without requiring requisitions

or related formalities. 

Normally, day­to­day mutual aid of a short duration

should not be charged. In extended mutual aid

situations, reimbursement often is desirable. Without

means for reimbursement to responding agencies from

state or federal governments,20 mutual aid agreements

risk creating a disproportionate amount of financial

responsibility on individual law enforcement

agencies—often those that are the best equipped

and trained. Under such circumstances, requesting

jurisdictions may be reluctant to expend monies for

resources that can be borrowed in time of emergency

from other local jurisdictions.

Those agencies that opt for reimbursement in their

mutual aid plans should consider costs associated with

the following:

Personnel: During the period of assistance, the

assisting agencies must continue to pay their

employees according to the prevailing ordinances and

regulations governing reimbursement. The requesting

agency will reimburse the assisting agency for all

direct and indirect payroll costs and expenses to

include travel expenses, benefits, and workers’

compensation claims incurred during the period of

assistance.

Equipment: The requesting party reimburses the

assisting agency for the use of its equipment in

accordance with a preestablished local or state hourly

rate or in accordance with the actual replacement,

operation, or maintenance costs incurred during the

period of emergency use. However, each of the

jurisdictions is responsible for maintaining its own

equipment in safe and operational condition to qualify

for reimbursement. The reimbursement for equipment

should be reduced by the costs of any fuel, supplies, or

repairs furnished by the requesting agency, as well as

by the amount of any insurance reimbursement

received by the assisting agency.

Materials and supplies: The assisting party also

should be reimbursed for all materials and supplies

provided during the period of emergency, with the

exception of those not included in the categories

above. As an alternative, the parties may agree to the

replacement of materials and supplies, as well as

equipment, if indicated in the written event agreement

or similar documentation.

Recordkeeping: It is essential that a record be

maintained of all services and resources provided. One

or more people should be assigned by the assisting

agency or agencies to maintain these records. The

event agreement may serve as an appropriate means of

documentation, as it may be updated and revised over

the period of the emergency. Similar recordkeeping

may be used by the receiving agency as a cross­check.

The need for accurate recordkeeping not only is

essential for reimbursement to assisting jurisdictions,

but also is a key component of requirements for

reimbursement for the requesting agency from the

16 
federal government and many state governments.21 To

that end, responsible individual recordkeepers should

file a daily status report in as much detail as possible

for each participating jurisdiction that reflects the

specific assistance being provided, potential requests,

active requests not yet filled, and completed actions.

Claims for reimbursement: Claims for

reimbursement from providing agencies should be

included in an itemized statement as soon as practical

following the event, but normally not more than 60

days after emergency status has been lifted.

In the event of civil liability or other losses incurred

during implementation of a mutual assistance

agreement, the law enforcement agencies involved

may wish to conduct investigations into the causes

of, and responsibility for, such losses. If deemed

appropriate, investigations should be provided for in

the mutual aid agreement. Typically, the requesting

agency will be responsible for conducting this type

of investigation, as the loss also will have occurred in

the requesting agency’s jurisdiction. However, any

responding agency implicated in or affected by the

loss also should have the right to investigate should

it desire to do so. Therefore, mutually acceptable

provisions for all such investigations should be spelled

out in the mutual aid agreement to prevent disputes

should an investigation become necessary. 

10. The agreement should include conditions and

procedures for the withdrawal of a participating

agency.

At some point a participating agency may need to

withdraw from the mutual aid agreement. Therefore,

the agreement should include conditions and

procedures for such a withdrawal. The sample

memorandum of understanding set forth in this

document provides that any party to the agreement

may withdraw from the agreement on 30 days’ written

notice to all other participating jurisdictions.

In addition, provision should be made for the total

termination of the agreement in the event that all of

the participating agencies, or a significant number of

them, do not wish to continue the agreement. The

agreement should define the conditions for an

agency’s withdrawal or for termination of the entire

agreement, the procedures to be followed in this

regard, the allocation of any costs incurred, and the

discharge of any outstanding indebtedness attributable

to participation in the agreement.

11. The agreement should identify whether it will be

binding on subsequent agency chief executives. 

One difficulty frequently encountered with

multijurisdictional agreements of any kind occurs

when the agreement is entered into by one agency

chief or jurisdictional official who is then succeeded

by another chief or official who does not feel bound

by the actions of his or her predecessor. The mutual

aid agreement should state that it is binding on the

jurisdictions and all future agency chiefs within those

jurisdictions unless and until the agency withdrawal

provisions of the agreement have been complied with.

A procedure for termination of or withdrawal from the

agreement should be provided for in the agreement.

The termination and withdrawal provisions may be

tailored to local needs, but normally should include, at

a minimum, the following:

❋�The circumstances under which the agreement may

be terminated or under which a jurisdiction may

withdraw from the agreement should be stated. This

may protect the agreement from arbitrary

withdrawal by a jurisdiction at some later date.

❋�Participants in the agreement should normally be

required to give reasonable notice of the intent to

withdraw. This gives the participating law

enforcement agencies an opportunity to adjust to

the changed conditions and reduces the disruption

that such a termination or withdrawal may cause.

❋ A procedure should be specified for withdrawal or

termination. For example, how is notice to be

given? By whom? To whom? In what manner? How

is the withdrawal to be accomplished? Who will

assume the responsibilities no longer fulfilled by

the withdrawing jurisdiction or law enforcement

agency? Providing an orderly procedure in such

circumstances will minimize disruption of the unit’s

functions.

❋ The agreement should provide for the settlement of

all financial obligations attributable to the unit at

the time of withdrawal or termination. Provision

also must be made for the disposition of any

property or other assets possessed or used by the

unit at the time of the withdrawal or termination.

17 
This is particularly important where such property

or assets were purchased or otherwise acquired by

the unit directly, rather than contributed by member

jurisdictions or law enforcement agencies.

12. An agency’s inability to respond to a request

should not form the basis for breach of contract. 

The mutual aid agreement should include a provision

that participation in the mutual aid plan shall not

create any liability or responsibility for failure to

respond to a request for assistance. The sample mutual

aid agreement in the appendix of this document

includes such a clause. 

That document also states that no third party shall

have any right of action under the agreement. To the

extent that this refers to third­party beneficiary

contract claims, this clause may be effective.

Participating law enforcement agencies should be

aware, however, that this provision may or may not be

valid in a particular jurisdiction, and it is doubtful

whether any third party’s tort claim can be precluded

in this manner. 

13. The agreement should not contain provisions for

summoning state or federal aid.

The involvement of state or federal authorities is a

highly complex matter, both operationally and legally,

and requires a thorough understanding of both the law

and the procedures involved. Law enforcement agencies

may wish to deal with this issue in a separate document,

drafted with the assistance of their legal advisors.

14. The agreement should define the responsibilities

of chief executive officers.

Regular meetings of the chiefs, sheriffs, or other chief

executive officers of the participating agencies should

be held. It is strongly recommended that chief

executive officers themselves attend these meetings

whenever possible, rather than delegate this duty. An

exception might include situations in which a law

enforcement agency has a designated emergency

management officer or unit.

Each chief executive officer should personally ensure

that (1) other participating agencies are fully apprised

of the assistance capabilities of his or her department,

(2) other departments provide the chief executive

officer with similar information, and (3) the

aforementioned information is adequately disseminated

to those who will be receiving and evaluating the

assistance requests. Inadequate information, or a

failure to make information available to departmental

decisionmakers, handicaps the mutual assistance effort

and increases civil liability exposure.

Regular meetings of the chiefs, sheriffs, or other chief

executive officers of the participating agencies

should be held.

Appropriate chief executives must constantly review

mutual assistance agreements that affect operations

and policies. Changed conditions in the jurisdictions,

increases or decreases in the capabilities of the

participating agencies, and developments in applicable

law may necessitate changes in internal policies

related to mutual aid agreements. In addition to the

adverse effect on the mutual aid effort that might

result, a failure to modify the agreement to conform to

changed laws or conditions may deprive participating

law enforcement agencies and/or officials of their legal

defense in the event of a civil suit.

15. The agreement should provide for the inclusion

of other public and private entities in prevention,

preparation, and response to regional emergencies.

Coordination of resources is the essence of mutual aid.

Although this document deals primarily with regional

law enforcement agreements, the resources available

through federal and state public entities, as well as

private organizations and businesses, should not

be overlooked. In efforts to prevent, prepare for,

and respond to the terrorist threats and related

emergencies, law enforcement agencies must identify

the local, state, and federal resources concerned and

establish cooperation with those agencies before an

incident occurs.

For example, at a minimum, regional preparation and

response will involve cooperation with the following

local governmental and private agencies:

❋�Fire department.

❋�Rescue and ambulance services, including both fire

or law enforcement units and private ambulance

companies.

18 
❋�Medical facilities, including laboratories and

personnel.

❋�Public health department.

❋�Hazardous material (HAZMAT) units.

❋�Public utility departments.

❋�Social services.

❋�Transit authorities, port authorities, and similar

agencies.

❋�Medical examiners and/or coroners.

❋�Mortuaries and funeral homes.

❋�Local Red Cross offices and other aid

organizations.

❋�Schools and other facilities capable of housing large

numbers of people in an emergency or suitable for

establishing a command post.

❋�Clergy.

States vary widely in the availability of agencies and

services that can render assistance to a municipality in

the event of a terrorist incident. Depending on the

state, some or all of the following agencies, under

various titles, may be available to assist local law

enforcement:

❋�Civil defense or other emergency management

agencies, including state HAZMAT units.

❋�National or state guard units and/or local military

bases.

❋�State law enforcement agencies.

❋�Health services.

❋�Environmental protection agencies and services.

In addition, a number of federal agencies and

subagencies can provide assistance to local authorities

in connection with WMD incidents:

❋�U.S. Department of Defense.

❋�U.S. Department of Energy.

❋�U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

❋�U.S. Department of Justice. 

❋�Army Corps of Engineers.

❋�Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives. 

❋�Environmental Protection Agency.

❋�Federal Bureau of Investigation.

❋�Federal Emergency Management Agency.

❋�Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

❋�Public Health Service.

Private organizations, such as the American Red Cross

and the Salvation Army, and private security

companies also have training and response

capabilities. But one cannot overlook local businesses,

the resources of which may be essential in both

preparing for and responding to major emergencies.

For example, many major corporations that could be

targets of terrorist attacks typically employ their own

security functions—many of which are not simply

19 

corporations include pharmaceutical companies,

preparedness. 

companies in their area that may be called on in an

guard operations but rely on up­to­date security

planning, monitoring, and prevention strategies. These

producers of food products and additives, chemical

manufacturers, and a wide variety of other privatesector corporations that could pose inviting targets for

terrorists. These private­sector firms should be

identified, and law enforcement agencies can invite

them to work with regional mutual aid enterprises to

complete the circle of infrastructure protection and

Finally, as part of their resource inventories, law

enforcement agencies involved in regional mutual aid

agreements should catalog the availability of private

emergency to assist with specialized equipment or

personnel. The use of heavy equipment owned and

operated by private companies and otherwise

unavailable to law enforcement and fire companies

was, for example, instrumental in the search and
recovery efforts at Ground Zero on September 11 in to mutual aid agreements and regional aid enterprises

both New York City and Washington, D.C. that is far more beneficial than law enforcement

mutual aid alone.

Establishing partnerships in advance of a terrorist

attack with another major region will add a dimension

20 
Predeployment Considerations �

Adherence to the Policies of

One’s Own Law Enforcement

Agency

At all times, law enforcement officers should adhere

to the policies and procedures of their own agency. In

addition, loaned personnel should use only weapons

and tactics that they have been trained to use and that

they are qualified to use.

Some problems related to differences in or conflicts

between policies and procedures employed by

individual jurisdictions may be addressed in advance

to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. However,

the basic policies and procedures and the training

based on them cannot and should not be abandoned

because officers are operating in another jurisdiction.

To do so would be to compromise officially

established protocols and guidelines according to

which an agency expects its officers to function and

could have serious negative consequences. Officers

should take commands from supervisors in their own

jurisdiction while responding to overall directives

from the requesting agency’s incident commander.

Individual officers should not use tactics or

procedures that violate their own agency policy,

procedures, rules, or training. 

To ensure that serious differences of operating

procedures are not encountered, each participating

jurisdiction should familiarize itself with the policies

and procedures of the other participating jurisdictions,

particularly as they relate to issues of critical

importance to mutual aid. Among such policies and

procedures are the following:

❋�Use of force.

❋�Arrests, generally, and processing mass arrestees,

in particular.

❋�Policing mass demonstrations.

❋�Riot control.

❋�Bomb threats and searches.

❋�Evacuations.

❋�Hostage and barricade subject incidents.

❋�Crime scene processing.

❋�Deployment of less­lethal weapons (e.g., bean­bag

and rubber­bullet projectiles, taser, pepper spray).

❋�Canine teams.

Powers of Officers Rendering

Mutual Assistance in a

Requesting Jurisdiction

A responding agency’s personnel will normally be

expected to engage in law enforcement functions in

the requesting jurisdiction. Therefore, officers of

responding agencies should have the same law

21 

assistance outside of their appointed jurisdiction must

enforcement powers as do officers in the requesting

jurisdiction. These powers may vary considerably

from state to state and locality to locality. This issue

must be resolved to avoid possible claims that officers

from responding agencies acted without authority

during the emergency.

The agreement itself may set forth powers and

limitations of responding officers as agreed on by the

participating jurisdictions, but no powers can be

granted by agreement that are inconsistent with state

or local laws. Personnel responding to a call for

have those law enforcement powers provided for by

state law.

Where the extrajurisdictional powers of responding

officers are in doubt, are inadequate, or do not exist,

any available steps should be taken to provide that

power. Deputizing officers of the various participating

agencies may be one method of providing the

necessary authority, if allowed by state law.
Civil Liability

It must be recognized that participation in mutual

assistance pacts expands the potential for civil liability.

The agency providing the assistance remains liable

under the law for any injuries suffered while its

personnel are engaged in operations within the

requesting jurisdiction. Similarly, the requesting

22 

for liability should not dissuade agencies from

personnel while assisting other jurisdictions and the

actions of the personnel of other agencies assisting the

assistance agreement should be named as additional

unrelated to the actual incident. Examples of such

training.

22

Liability insurance covering the participating

agencies is essential.

agency is in many instances liable for the actions of

the responding agency personnel under the so­called

“borrowed servant” rule. However, the added potential

participating in mutual assistance agreements, as steps

can be taken to protect all entities concerned. 

Liability insurance covering the participating agencies

is essential. All requesting and responding

jurisdictions and entities should provide insurance

against losses of all types. These insurance policies

and/or their endorsements should specifically extend

the policy’s coverage to include protection against

liability for both the actions of the insured agency’s

insured law enforcement agency during emergencies.

Thus, any insurance policy (and any indemnification

or hold­harmless agreement) should cover (1) failure

or inability to provide assistance when requested to do

so, (2) errors or omissions occurring while such

assistance is being rendered, and (3) withdrawal of

assistance after it has initially been provided. All of

the other agencies participating in the mutual

insureds. The insurance policy’s coverage against loss

should be all­inclusive, as claims may arise for losses

claims involve situations like the known retention of

unfit or incompetent personnel or negligence in

Insurance policies and indemnification agreements

should cover both the costs of legal representation and

the payment of any judgments rendered. In the case of

self­insured jurisdictions, it is important to include in

the agreement specific provisions for indemnification

of the other participating law enforcement agencies by

the self­insured jurisdiction in the event that civil

liability is incurred. A hold­harmless clause may be

sufficient to meet this need.

Equipment Management and

Needs Assessment

Participating law enforcement agencies should be fully

informed about participating law enforcement

agencies’ assistance capabilities. This will enable

requesting agencies to determine what assistance is

available from a particular member law enforcement

agency. Resources include personnel, teams, facilities,

equipment, and supplies. The underlying concepts of

resource management in this context are as follows:

❋�It provides a uniform method of identifying,

acquiring, allocating, and tracking resources.

❋�It uses effective mutual aid and donor assistance

and is enabled by the standardized classification of

kinds and types of resources required to support the

mutual aid agreement.

❋�It uses a credentialing system tied to uniform

training and certification standards to ensure that

requested personnel resources are successfully

integrated into ongoing incident operations.

❋�Its coordination is the responsibility of individual

agencies that share and coordinate resource

inventories with partner agencies and/or

coordinating emergency operations centers in the

mutual aid pact.23

By these means, resources are categorized by size,

capacity, capability, manpower skill and certification

levels, and other characteristics in accordance with a

mutually agreed­on system of resource definitions.

Categorization makes the resource request and

dispatch process within law enforcement agencies,

between law enforcement agencies, and between

governmental and nongovernmental agencies more

efficient and ensures that incident commanders receive

resources appropriate to their needs. The system

should be kept up to date to reflect changes in

resource availabilities and their readiness status.

DHS is in the process of establishing systems for

categorizing resource capabilities to include

performance standards, compatibility, and

interoperability of such resources. 

For most jurisdictions, this process need not be overly

complex, although it should, wherever possible, employ

standard resource typing.

24 The process consists of (1)

identifying, categorizing, and recording those resources

that are most likely to be requested by other
jurisdictions in the event of reasonably identifiable

emergencies and that agencies are prepared to share in

case of emergency; (2) identifying needs for

requisition; (3) entering those resources into a tracking

system maintained by designated personnel in each law

enforcement agency; and (4) ensuring that the resource

inventory is routinely updated and available to all

participating jurisdictions on either a manual or an

electronic basis or both. Such information may be

coordinated through regional emergency response

centers in cases where law enforcement agencies have

established such a coordinating body or have joined an

already established Emergency Operations Center. 

Jurisdictions involved in the mutual aid agreement

must perform a needs assessment by reviewing

response requirements, inventorying capabilities, and

identifying shortfalls. In fact, a needs assessment is

one of the requirements for qualifying for federal

funding under some federal grant programs.

Personnel Management and

Personal Protective Equipment 

Effective use of the mutual aid agreement requires

that personnel be thoroughly trained in carrying out

mutual aid functions and be properly equipped with

personal protective equipment (PPE) suitable for the

emergency at hand. 

In preactivation preparatory undertakings,

participating agencies must collectively identify those

primary event situations in which mutual aid may be

requested and match the personnel needs involved

with those available within their agency. For example,

a critical issue related to homeland security is

response to events involving chemical, biological, and

nuclear weapons. Following the September 11 attacks,

incidents of anthrax contamination were reported

throughout the nation. First responders, whether law

enforcement, fire, or EMS personnel, need to be

prepared to deal with such substances. 

For example, first responding officers should attempt

to aid people who are in need of medical attention to

the extent that it does not unnecessarily risk their own

safety and their subsequent ability to administer

further assistance. In a situation involving biological

contamination or a chemical attack, it is necessary for

first responders to delay entry into the threat area until

proper equipment (i.e., biological­ and chemical­rated

gas masks, waterproof clothing, raincoats, boots,

protective goggles, and rubber gloves) or properly

qualified personnel have arrived on the scene.25

Although it may be difficult psychologically for

officers to delay assistance to victims, a first

responder who is incapacitated by the biological

threat cannot be of assistance to others. This also is

critical should the law enforcement agency have to

deal with a larger threat that may follow during the

course of the emergency. In most instances, the

responding officers should render emergency first aid

to people who have been injured in the incident where

it may be necessary to move injured victims to safety.

Movement of injured people should be performed

only in accordance with proper emergency procedures

to avoid further injury in the process. If people in the

threat area are contaminated with a biological agent,

EMS personnel should be notified that these

individuals need urgent medical attention.

On the basis of the above scenario and response

requirements, agencies need to ensure that their

personnel are properly outfitted with PPE and have

received response training essential for lending

needed assistance if requested. Without such training

and equipment, agencies should not lend officers to

other jurisdictions as qualified responders to such

incidents.

23 

A study from the RAND Corporation and the

Health26

❋ 

❋ 

❋ 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and

proposes making the health and safety of

emergency responders—including law enforcement,

firefighters, and ambulance crews—a key priority in

coordinating the overall response to terrorist attacks

and major disasters. The study found a need for better

planning, training, coordination, and management

procedures to protect these responders. The

recommendations include the following:

Incorporating safety and health issues more

realistically into joint disaster exercises and

training.

Preparing, in advance, the types of expertise and

other assets needed to protect responder safety.

Developing common standards and guidelines for

responder training, hazard assessment, responder

credentialing, and protective equipment.
The report emphasizes the need for integrated

leadership from the state, local, and federal levels to

make the necessary changes and implement standards.27

Training 

The same principles outlined above hold true with

respect to training needs of personnel to address critical

incidents, whether they involve biological or chemical

threats, or more traditional law enforcement needs such

as the deployment of special tactical units, riot control

officers, hostage negotiators, crime scene processors, or

other personnel. This process, generally referred to as

credentialing, helps to ensure that personnel

representing various jurisdictions and functional

disciplines possess a minimum common level of

training, currency, experience, physical and medical

fitness, and capability for incident management or

emergency responder positions they are tasked to fill.

From a more general standpoint, training is vital for

the success of mutual aid programs. NIMS states:

Incident management organizations and

personnel at all levels of government and within

the private sector and nongovernmental

organizations must be appropriately trained to

improve all­hazards incident management

capability nationwide. Incident management

organizations and personnel also must

participate in realistic exercises—including

multidisciplinary and multijurisdictional events

and private­sector and nongovernmental

organization interaction—to improve integration

and interoperability. Training involving standard

courses on incident command and management,

incident management structure, operational

coordination processes and systems—together

with courses focused on discipline­ and agencyspecific subject matter expertise—helps ensure

that personnel at all jurisdictional levels and

across disciplines can function effectively

together during an incident. 28

Such training is essential to ensure the readiness of

the law enforcement agency and all personnel to

request mutual assistance and to respond to such

requests from other law enforcement agencies. It also

is important because not training personnel properly is

a major source of civil liability. Therefore, an

inadequate training program will substantially

increase the law enforcement agency’s exposure to

civil liability for activities under the mutual assistance

agreement. The fact that agency personnel are acting

in accordance with the mutual assistance agreement

under the direction of another agency will not protect

the law enforcement agency from liability for failure

to train its personnel properly. It is preferable that such

training include actual exercises held jointly by two or

more participating law enforcement agencies,

employing practical problems and simulations of an

actual emergency.

Inadequately trained personnel cannot respond

properly or safely to a terrorist attack or other type of

major emergency. Training a few supervisors or even

special squads or tactical teams will not be sufficient

because the personnel most likely to be the first

responders will be the law enforcement agency’s

patrol officers.

Fortunately, training courses designed to prepare local

law enforcement personnel to deal with WMD, other

types of attacks, and emergencies are now available

through FEMA and numerous other federal and private

agencies. However, usually it is not possible to send

every member of a law enforcement agency to such

courses. Consequently, local law enforcement agencies

should develop their own training goals and capabilities

in the mutual aid agreement so that each member of the

law enforcement agency will be able to respond properly

if confronted with a terrorist or other emergency

incident. Those individuals who receive training from

outside agencies can return with the requisite knowledge

to develop their agency’s own internal training program.

In addition, numerous online courses are available

through FEMA that can substantially assist local

agencies in gaining necessary training.

A mutual aid agreement should be accompanied by a

detailed exercise plan that improves response through

the use of after­action reports and lessons learned.

Mutual aid steering committees should ensure that

their mutual aid handbooks include provisions for

regular joint exercises between disciplines and

jurisdictions. Included in these scenarios should be

public information officers, elected officials,

dispatchers, and the array of personnel who play key

roles in emergencies. The importance of establishing

personal relationships during these exercises cannot be

overlooked because they can foster communication

outside of basic working relationships.29

24 
Activation of a Mutual Aid Plan�

Each participating law enforcement agency in themutual aid plan should prepare an emergency

mutual aid implementation plan and accompanying

agency policy containing information and procedures

on the following. 

Notification and Request for

Assistance

Normally, a request for assistance begins at the line

level when a supervisor becomes aware of a situation

that may require assistance from a participating law

enforcement agency. All such communications must

receive approval of the chief law enforcement officer

of the agency or a designated officer who has been

delegated authority to make such decisions in the

absence or on behalf of the chief executive officer. All

initial requests should be sent through the law

enforcement agency’s communications center and

routed to the authorized officer in a timely manner. 

To support a requesting agency’s timely decision, the

supervisor who makes the initial request must provide

sufficient information, including the location and type

of the emergency, the current and potential threat to

life and property, the urgency of the request and when

the assistance is needed, an initial assessment of

personnel and related resources deemed necessary to

bring the situation under control, and a proposed

staging area at which such resources could be

assembled and assigned. Before activating a mutual

aid agreement, local agencies are required to use all

resources available to them without unreasonably

jeopardizing ongoing operations and/or drawing down

personnel and related resources to a point where an

unreasonable risk to life and/or property within their

jurisdictions is created. If the request is subsequently

authorized, the requesting agency’s communications

center should contact the designated emergency

response authority in the proposed assisting agency

by telephone, radio, fax, or other means deemed the

most efficient and effective.30

25 

resources of participating jurisdictions.

without undue risk in their jurisdictions. Or the

Each participating law enforcement agency in the mutual

aid plan should prepare an emergency mutual aid

implementation plan. . . .

Once the need for assistance has been verified and the

specific resource requirements identified, these should

be communicated to the proposed assisting agency’s

authorized representative. A decision on which law

enforcement agency to contact for assistance depends

on a number of factors, including the proximity of the

agency to the emergency site, the ability of the

proposed responding agency to respond in an

appropriate period of time, and whether the resources

available in a specific law enforcement agency meet

those required by the requesting agency to adequately

confront the emergency in question. An initial

determination of available resources can be made by

comparing the nature and severity of the threat and

resources required with the inventory of known

After a request is filed, a decision to provide

assistance must be made by the law enforcement

agency contacted for assistance. Agencies that

participate in the plan are not legally obligated to

provide assistance if doing so would unreasonably

diminish the safety and welfare of their community.

For example, agencies that are engaged in a similar

crisis or an emergency that has spilled over from the

requesting agency’s jurisdiction may not be in a

position to commit resources to the requesting agency

assisting agency may find that it can honor only a

portion of the requests that are made in the emergency

request for assistance. In either event, there is no

liability or other penalty involved to law enforcement

agencies that cannot fully or partially honor a law

enforcement agency’s request under mutual aid. By

the same token, should events in the responding

agency’s jurisdiction necessitate the withdrawal of

resources once they have been deployed to another

law enforcement agency, it may be done without

liability or recourse for action from the requesting

agency. 
Once a decision has been made on deployment,

personnel or units should be dispatched through the

emergency communications center. Dispatchers

should prohibit on­ or off­duty units who are listening

in from self­dispatching to the incident scene. This

can be a common practice in emergency situations,

but it is unacceptable. Self­dispatch can create chaos

at an incident scene.31

Developing an Event Agreement

After approval to provide assistance to an agency has

been gained and required resources have been

identified, the respective law enforcement agencies

may establish an event agreement. An event

agreement simply identifies the precise resources that

are requested, resources that will be provided to the

requesting agency, and the terms of compensation for

those resources if compensation is provided for in the

mutual aid agreement. Some agencies use an

assistance request form and an assistance

confirmation form to accomplish the same

objectives.32 An event agreement is valuable for

several reasons:

❋�It provides participating law enforcement agencies

with a firm understanding of what is needed and a

record of what will be provided by assisting

agencies.

❋�It establishes the costs (if any) associated with the

delivery of resources and services so that there are

no misunderstandings about potential costs, thus

avoiding some disagreements at later dates

surrounding costs incurred. 

❋�It assists in development of a paper trail of costs

incurred by assisting and requesting agencies,

which is required for reimbursement requests to

state or federal emergency management agencies.

❋�It assists in documenting actions taken during the

emergency. The event form not only consummates

an agreement on needs and associated costs, but

also identifies staging areas and estimated times of

arrival and departure.

An event agreement is a living document that is

modified as resource requests are made and as

requests are modified and resources drawn down to

meet evolving escalations or de­escalations in the

emergency. Administrators need not delay requests for

assistance or acceptance of aid because an event

agreement can be easily produced using established

forms and protocols and required approvals can be

granted. However, the ability to accomplish this

efficiently and effectively is greatly enhanced by the

establishment of resource inventories by each law

enforcement agency, as previously discussed, and the

designation of costs associated with resource

utilization.33

Mobilizing of Personnel and

Resources

The incident commander is responsible for making

initial and ongoing assessments of the personnel and

resource requirements necessary to adequately address

and control the emergency. Incident personnel begin

mobilizing when notified through established

channels in their parent jurisdiction and pull out, if

needed, through established recall procedures. At the

time of notification, they are given the date, time, and

place of departure; mode of transportation to take to

the incident; estimated date and time of arrival;

reporting location (address, contact name, and phone

number); anticipated incident assignment; anticipated

duration of deployment; and resource order number,

incident number, and applicable cost and funding

codes (if applicable). Personnel are provided with the

types of PPE appropriate for their assignment and

training and given a preliminary briefing.

The incident commander is responsible for making initial

and ongoing assessments of the personnel and resource

requirements necessary to adequately address and

control the emergency.

Staging of Personnel and

Resources

The staging area identified in the event agreement or

other instrument is essential to the effective

mobilization and briefing of personnel and the

assignment of resources. More than one staging area

may be required for specific types of resources, based

on the type and breadth of an emergency. Typically,

however, all such resources should be organized at a

central location, generally in proximity to or in easy

communication with the command post. 

26 
All assisting agency personnel must formally check in

when they arrive on the scene. This starts the on­scene

in­processing and validates the order requirements.

These personnel will thereafter receive instructions

and assignments from the incident commander of the

requesting agency. 

There are two deployment options for taking control

of the resources converging into the area of an

incident: deploy them directly to assignments or route

them through staging areas before assignments.

Direct deployment is done either by personal

instruction at a location away from a staging area or

via the dispatcher. In most cases, direct deployment

immediately applies resources to an incident’s

perimeter—securing the scene, routing traffic, and the

like. The advantage of this method is that the

assignments can be given out faster. This method

appears to help to quickly take control of the

perimeter, but it has some serious disadvantages at the

scene. For example:

❋�Information concerning the threat to personnel may

be nonexistent, limited, or even flawed.

❋�The person assigning personnel may lose track of

who or what teams are assigned to various

locations.

❋�Personnel taking positions may not have proper

equipment, and valuable airtime is consumed if

deployment is performed via a central

communications system.

In deployment via staging, incident personnel and

equipment are assigned/collected on an immediately

available status. Personnel and equipment are held at

the staging area until called for or until their portion of

a mission requires departure. Deployment via staging

occurs when all personnel, unless otherwise directed,

are instructed to report to the staging area, where they

are briefed and their equipment needs addressed. They

are then sent to their assignments. The advantages of

deployment via staging should be better informed,

more effective personnel who face a reduced threat

because they understand the nature, location, and

description of the threat. This method has one major

disadvantage: it takes more time.34

Incident Command/Unified

Command System

The Incident Command/Unified Command System35 is

the combination of facilities, equipment, personnel,

procedures, and communications operating within a

common organizational structure that is designed to be

adjustable to meet most domestic incident

management activities. It is usually organized around

five major functional areas: command, operations,

planning, logistics, and finance and administration.

Intelligence is an additional functional area that can be

employed according to requirements of the emergency.

Typically, the incident commander is the senior officer

or tactical specialist of the requesting agency, but as

the incident evolves, the incident commander may

change hands several times. The initial officer on the

scene who reports circumstances, events, and activities

that constitute the initial phases of the emergency may

serve for some time as the incident commander until

relieved by a higher ranking or more experienced

officer. The first supervisory officer who arrived at the

scene of the Pentagon attack on September 11 was a

sergeant who assumed the position of incident

commander, developing initial plans and directing

responses. Officers in similar situations normally turn

this responsibility over to other more experienced and

sometimes higher ranking personnel. However, an

officer should not automatically relinquish this

authority to a senior officer solely on the basis of rank

27 

unless commanded to do so. In some cases, an officer

who is tactically trained or who has extensive

experience in a specific field of enforcement may

continue to serve in this capacity.

In some instances, these incident command

responsibilities may be transferred to another authority

as an incident progresses. For example, a mass

demonstration may result in a significant manmade

fire, the control of which might take precedence over

the need for crowd control, protection of property, or

similar enforcement actions. At this juncture, a

command officer in the fire department may assume

responsibility as incident commander.

The following is a list of command staff and general

staff responsibilities that the incident commander of

any emergency response should perform or assign to

appropriate members of the command and general staff:
❋�Direct the response.

❋�Coordinate effective communication.

❋�Coordinate resources.

❋�Establish incident priorities.

❋�Develop mutually agreed­on incident objectives and

approve response strategies.

❋�Assign objectives to the response structure.

❋�Review and approve incident action plans.

❋�Ensure integration of response organizations into

the incident command system.

❋�Establish protocols.

28 

❋�Ensure worker and public health and safety.

❋�Inform the media.

A complete treatment of the Incident Command

System is not within the scope or intent of this

document, but the system is a significant element in

the response to any emergency, whether it is related to

terrorist acts, natural disasters, or manmade situations.

Law enforcement agencies that are preparing to

implement a mutual aid agreement in response to

emergency situations should use the Incident

Command System and the response protocols outlined

in NIMS.36 Effective October 2004, jurisdictions that

did not adopt the Incident Command System are not

eligible for certain federal funding.
Promising Practices in Mutual Aid37

As the need for interjurisdictional approaches toemergency preparedness has grown, so has the

involvement of public, private, and civic organizations.

Public, private, and civic regional organizations in

almost every area are engaged in a wide range of

emergency preparedness activities. Some are planning

coordinated responses to natural disasters and terrorist

threats, from coordinating mutual aid agreements

to developing regional strategies and plans. Some

are carrying out emergency preparedness activities

that benefit from regional cooperation, including

conducting joint training programs and mock disaster

drills for first providers, developing maps and

gathering information for disaster responses, designing

interjurisdictional communications systems and public

education programs, and preparing regional stockpiles

of equipment and supplies.

This section provides information on a range of the

most promising practices. The examples include

practices from regions that have addressed preparations

for terrorism threats as well as natural disasters. First,

it provides examples of the origins of emergency

preparedness activities being implemented by regional

organizations. Then it provides examples of

organizations that now provide a range of activities and

are becoming models for regional approaches to

emergency preparedness.

Sometimes emergency preparedness activities have

emerged from the monthly meetings of regional

caucuses of police chiefs, fire chiefs, mayors/county

commissioners, city/county managers, and other

groups staffed by regional councils of governments

and other interjurisdictional organizations.

❋�The Regional EMS Advisory Council in the

Raleigh/Durham/High Point, North Carolina,

region has developed a strategic plan and work

program with a growing focus on disaster response

and mutual aid, public education/public support,

technician skills, retention and recruitment, and

changes in the Medicare law. It is composed of

29 

❋ The Capital Region Public Safety Council in the

comprises 

Management Plan in May 2002.) Its Public Safety

❋ 

training on the Incident Command System,

Regional communications systems are critical for

coordinating the activities of first providers and others 

during disasters.

representatives of EMS and rescue departments,

hospital personnel, local governments, and

consumers, and it is staffed by the Triangle J 

Council of Governments. The Triangle J Council of

Governments has also established a critical incident

stress­management team to help first responders

deal with reactions to traumatic events

(www.tjcog.dst.nc.us).

Hartford, Connecticut, region

members from the 29 municipalities and 10 towns

participating in the Capital Region Council of

Governments. Its programs include the CAPTAIN

Mobile Data Communications System, which

provides laptop computers to the police

departments to link them to local, state, and

national criminal information files. (Its Capital

Region Emergency Planning Committee prepared a

comprehensive Greater Hartford Disaster

Answering Point group is conducting a dispatching

consolidation study.

The Metro Mayor’s Caucus in the Denver region

is exploring the regional implications of emergency

preparedness. It is focusing on developing a

regional resource inventory, providing regional

consolidating emergency management and

preparedness initiative efforts, and creating a

regionwide training and exercise program.

Sometimes emergency preparedness activities

have grown out of long­established programs for

jointly testing first­provider job applicants and

providing regionwide 911 services and distributing

radio frequencies to first providers. Regional
communications systems are critical for coordinating

the activities of first providers and others during

disasters. They are also becoming more critical for

facilitating joint decisionmaking between first

responders and other public, private, and civic

decisionmakers and communicating consistent

messages to public, private, and civic interests

regionwide.

❋�The Fire Fighter Interregional Recruitment and

Employment program in the Denver region is a

cooperative testing program that allows an applicant

to make a single application and take a single entrylevel exam to be eligible for hiring by 17 metro fire

districts. A parallel program, the Centralized

Organization for Police Protection program, offers

the same cooperative service for entry­level law

enforcement officer applicants in 25 cities. Both

programs are staffed by the Denver Regional

Council of Governments (www.drcog.org).

❋�The Regional Police Academy in the Dallas­Ft.

Worth region presents training programs of current

and future interest to the law enforcement

profession. It is staffed by the North Central Texas

Council of Governments. Similarly, Texas A&M

University and the Alamo Area Council of

Governments coordinate training for first providers

and local officials regionwide (www.aacog.dst.tx.us).

❋ Central Oklahoma 911, a regionwide 911 system

in the Oklahoma City region, came online in 1989

following a citizen vote to finance the program. It

includes a 911 ACOG Call­Taker Institute that uses

local call takers to train others in basic

telecommunications and publishes the 911

Dispatch, a quarterly publication for first providers.

It is administered by the Association of Central 

Oklahoma Governments (www.acogok.org).

❋ The Houston­Galveston Area Council 911

System, a regionwide 911 system, was upgraded

to Enhanced 911 in 1999. Its ongoing activities

include providing basic and specialized call­taker

training classes, maintenance of a selective

routing database, collection of 911 service fees

and payment of telephone bills, and distribution

of public education materials. It is administered

by the Houston­Galveston Area Council

(www.hgac.cog.tx.us).

30 

❋�The Public Safety Radio Communications

system in the Dallas­Ft. Worth region develops

and implements a plan for the effective distribution

and use of radio frequencies for both mobile and

base­station communications. It covers 42 counties

in 4 planning regions and is administered by the

North Central Texas Council of Governments

(www.nctcog.dst.tx.us).

Promising Practices in�

Pennsylvania�

In 1998, 12 Pennsylvania counties and the

City of Pittsburgh became the first group in

the state to try a regional approach to

terrorism preparedness. Today, their mutual

aid and regional coordination system has

been recognized by the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) and the National

Association of Counties as a model

approach for intergovernmental cooperation

in terrorism and all­hazards preparedness.

While attending a Pennsylvania emergency

management conference in 1998, a number

of county emergency managers began to

discuss threats of terrorism and the

resources needed to respond effectively

should a weapons of mass destruction

(WMD) incident occur in their region. In

searching for a way to pool their resources,

they created the Pennsylvania Region 13

Working Group. 

Since it formalized the mutual aid and

intergovernmental agreements, the Region

13 Working Group has established an

Incident Command System for response

operations; created a Metropolitan Medical

Response System; and developed plans

and procedures for surveillance and

notifications, mass immunization, and

fatality management. It has organized major

training exercises such as Mall Strike 2001,

a simulated nerve agent and radiological

incident; a simulated gas attack exercise in

the Pittsburgh subway system; and a fullscale exercise testing the ability of 27

hospitals in 3 of the 13 counties to

decontaminate victims of a chemical attack. 

(continued on next page)
When United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in

rural Somerset County on September 11,

2001, the chair of the working group was

immediately in touch with other members of

the group and emergency teams were swiftly

deployed to the site. The group’s 4 years of

working together and preparing for terrorist

events allowed it to develop and train teams

that could work efficiently together during an

event of this magnitude. 

Meanwhile, work is going forward on

the 800 MHz project, an interoperable

communications system for emergency

response agencies in Region 13 and the rest

of Western Pennsylvania. Allegheny County

has approved the floating of a bond issue

for $25 million to build the system

infrastructure, and other counties in Region

13 are already using 800 MHz with great

success. Other projects include a specialized

equipment resource pool specific to WMD

responses and specialized WMD training for

emergency services personnel and support

agencies. 

Members of the group include 13 county

emergency managers (the 13th county joined

the group in 1999), the City of Pittsburgh,

the Pittsburgh office of the FBI, and the

Pennsylvania Emergency Management

Agency. The Allegheny County emergency

manager serves as chair of the working

group, which meets every month at the

Allegheny County Emergency Operations

Center. Committees focus on communications,

training, law enforcement, fire and hazardous

materials, and medical issues. Various

emergency services personnel regularly

participate in the meetings, including police,

fire, emergency management services, bomb

units, public works, and health and hazardous

materials units.

Source: “National Mutual Aid and Resource

Management Initiative,” Preparedness,

FEMA, available at www.fema.gov/

preparedness/mutual_aid.shtm. Accessed

August 20, 2004.

Sometimes emergency preparedness activities have

grown out of the data­gathering and mapping

programs of regional councils of government and

other regional organizations. Almost every region

has a database/information center providing critical

information and maps for emergency preparedness

activities. Maintaining accurate data on the response

resources; supporting facilities, infrastructure

(transportation, water and sewer, telephone, radio,

television, shortwave communications, and media),

at­risk populations (elderly, infirm, disabled, children,

etc.), and hazardous materials (chemical plants, gas

stations, munitions/explosives, etc.); and making the

data readily available during disasters are critical.

Having these data available in electronic formats is

critical to planning evacuation routes or designing

strategies for accessing supplies and equipment as

part of emergency preparedness plans.

❋�The Metropolitan Service District in the

Portland region provides an example of the

benefits of a sophisticated geographic information

system for disaster planning and response. The

Metro Area Disaster Geographic Information

System (MAD GIS) offers software that contains

hazard and risk data that allow even nontechnical

users to create maps for natural hazards mitigation,

response, recovery, and preparedness planning.

As a result, MAD GIS has been used to identify

earthquake hazards in land­use planning and�

building­permit administration and to designate�

emergency routes to be used in major disasters.�

MAD GIS is a program of the METRO Council�

(ww.metro­region.org).�

Finally, some of these emergency preparedness

activities are emerging from private regional

organizations.

❋�The East West Corporate Corridor Association

(EWCCA), a business association in the DuPage

County part of the Chicago region, has focused on

developing emergency preparedness manuals for

businesses. Seven years ago, EWCCA prepared an

Integrated Disaster Plan and Recovery manual in

collaboration with the major research laboratories

in the county, such as Argonne National Labs. The

manual was distributed to all research laboratories

and businesses and used to develop customized

safety manuals. Now, EWCCA is working with

public agencies, including the Northeastern Illinois

Planning Commission, to update the manual to

31 
apply to terrorism threats. The EWCCA has

established task forces to address warehousing/

logistics, communications, health and welfare,

finance, insurance, and mutual aid. As part of the

preparation process, the EWCCA conducted a mock

disaster drill in February 2004 (www.ewcca.org).

Some regional organizations have begun to put all

these activities together and provide the planning and

coordination support needed to develop regional

emergency preparedness compacts.38

❋�The National Capital Region Metropolitan

Washington Council of Governments

(Washington, D.C.): Developing a New Model for

Regional Emergency Preparedness Cooperation

(www.mwcog.org)

❋�The Columbus Region: Developing a New Model

for Regional Emergency Preparedness

Cooperation (www.morpc.org)

These new models focus on developing regional

compacts that support the activities of first

providers; give terrorist threats priority attention;

engage the public, private, and civic sectors; and

ensure effective communication and

decisionmaking processes in disasters. Both

started with summits and are being guided by

task forces of public, private, and civic

representatives.

❋�The Kansas City Region: An Interstate Region

With a History of Interstate Regional

Emergency Preparedness Cooperation

The Mid­America Regional Council in the

Kansas City interstate region has been building a

base of regional approaches to emergency

preparedness for more than half a century�

(www.marc.org).�

❋�The Hampton Roads Region: Using the Federal

Metropolitan Medical Response System Program

for Regional Emergency Preparedness

Cooperation

Similar regional approaches to developing�

Metropolitan Medical Response System plans�

have been developed in the Pittsburgh,�

Minneapolis/St. Paul, Denver/Aurora,�

Phoenix/Mesa/Glendale, and Los Angeles�

regions (www.hrpdc.org).�

❋�The Coastal Georgia Region: Using the Federal

Project Impact Program for Regional

Emergency Preparedness Cooperation 

The regional councils of governments in the

Hampton Roads and Coastal Georgia regions

successfully used federal programs to initiate

regional approaches to emergency preparedness

in urban and rural regions, respectively

(www.coastalgeorgiardc.org).

❋�Regions in the State of Florida: State­Supported

Regional Emergency Preparedness Cooperation

❋�Regions in the State of Vermont: StateSupported Regional Emergency Preparedness

Cooperation

The states of Florida and Vermont foster regional

approaches to emergency preparedness through

all their regional planning commissions. Other

states, such as New Hampshire and Texas, also

support regional approaches to emergency

preparedness. 

32 
Appendix: Interagency Assistance Sample

Mutual Aid Agreement

This Mutual Aid Agreement made and entered into by and between (Parties to Agreement) Witnesseth

Whereas, the law of the State of ________________ provides that each public entity within the State of

________________ is empowered to make and enter into Mutual Aid Agreements with other contiguous public

entities within the State to more effectively allocate law enforcement and other public safety services during

emergency situations; 

Whereas, the undersigned public entities that are parties to this Mutual Aid Agreement must confront numerous

threats to public health and safety, including but not limited to natural or manmade disasters; 

Whereas, none of the law enforcement agencies party to this Agreement possess all of the necessary resources to

cope with every possible law enforcement emergency or disaster by themselves, and an efficient, effective

response can best be achieved by the application and leveraging of the collective resources of these law

enforcement agencies; 

Whereas, the parties to this Agreement have determined that it is in their collective best interest to develop and

implement comprehensive preparedness plans and conduct joint exercises in advance of a sudden and immediate

need to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their response to any emergency or disaster;

Whereas, it is desirable that each of the parties hereto should voluntarily aid and assist each other in the event

that an emergency situation should occur by the interchange of law enforcement services; and

Whereas, it is necessary and desirable that a Mutual Aid Agreement be executed for the interchange of such

mutual assistance on a local, county, and/or regional basis;

Now, therefore, it is hereby agreed by and between each and all of the parties hereto as follows:

Article I: Definitions

Assisting Agency: A law enforcement agency providing law enforcement manpower, equipment, and resources to

a law enforcement agency from another jurisdiction that has requested assistance to confront an emergency.

Requesting Agency: A law enforcement agency under an emergency condition that has requested assistance from

a law enforcement agency participating in the regional Mutual Aid Agreement.

Emergency: Any occurrence, or threat thereof, whether natural or caused by man, in war or in peace, which

results or may result in substantial injury or harm to the population, substantial damage to or loss of property, or

substantial harm to the environment and is beyond the capacity of an individual agency to effectively control.

Mutual Aid: A prearranged written agreement and plan whereby assistance is requested and provided between

two or more jurisdictions during a designated emergency under terms of the Agreement.

Staging Area: A location identified outside the immediate emergency area where law enforcement equipment and

personnel assemble for briefing, assignment, and related matters.

Authorized Representative: The chief executive officer of a participating law enforcement agency, or his or her

designee, who has authorization to request, offer, or provide assistance under the terms of this Agreement. 33 
Period of Assistance: The period of time beginning with the departure of any personnel and/or equipment of the

assisting party from any point for the purpose of traveling to provide assistance exclusively to the requesting

agency, and ending on the return of all of the assisting party’s personnel and equipment to their regular place of

work or assignment, or otherwise terminated through written or verbal notice of the designated agency official by

the designated official of the assisting party.

Article II: Terms of the Agreement

1. Each party agrees that in the event of an emergency situation, each other party to this Mutual Aid Agreement

will furnish such personnel, equipment, facilities, or services as are available, provided that such actions would

not unreasonably diminish its capacity to provide basic law enforcement services to its own jurisdiction.

2. Each party shall designate the appropriate official within its jurisdiction who has the legal authority to bind its

jurisdiction to this Agreement and who shall sign this Agreement. 

3. To invoke assistance under the provisions of this Agreement, the designated official from the requesting party

shall be required to contact the designated official of the responding party by telephone, in writing, or e­mail. The

responding party may request such information from the requesting party as is necessary to confirm the

emergency situation and to assess the types and amounts of assistance that shall be provided.

4. During an emergency situation, all personnel from responding agencies shall report to and work under the

direction of the designated incident commander. Personnel from either the requesting or the assisting agency may

receive supervision from any command personnel from the combined participating localities if authorized by the

incident commander or his or her designee in the incident command structure, depending on identified needs and

available resources deemed most qualified to meet mission goals and objectives. Tactical teams (e.g., bomb

disposal, canine teams, special weapons and tactics units) shall operate under the direction of their tactical

commander once they are authorized to undertake assignments.

5. Personnel responding to a call for assistance outside their appointed jurisdiction shall have those law

enforcement powers provided for by state law.

6. In any emergency situation where the Mutual Aid Agreement has been invoked, radio communications should

be established between all of the parties, where possible, through the use of the local public mutual aid radio

system or other shared communication system.

7. The agencies agree to reimburse assisting agencies for the costs of personnel, equipment, facilities, and related

resources used during the period of assistance on the basis of mutually accepted costs associated with these

resources.

8. Workers’ Compensation, Liability, Property Damage

a.�Workers’ Compensation Coverage: Each public entity will be responsible for its own actions and those of

its employees and is responsible for complying with the State of __________ Workers’ Compensation Act.

Coverage under this Act may be obtained (1) by a policy with an insurance company licensed to do business

in the State of ___________, (2) by being a qualified self­insured, or (3) by being a member of a group selfinsurance association. Each public entity should understand that workers’ compensation coverage does not

automatically extend to volunteers. Each public entity may obtain accident insurance for any volunteer at

the locality’s discretion. Workers’ compensation coverage for certain volunteers (e.g., volunteer firefighters,

volunteer lifesaving or volunteer rescue squad members, volunteer law enforcement chaplains, auxiliary or

reserve law enforcement officers, auxiliary or reserve deputy sheriffs, volunteer emergency medical

technicians, and members of volunteer search and rescue organizations) may be obtained by adding this

exposure to the locality’s workers’ compensation coverage. As an alternative, the individual volunteer

company may obtain workers’ compensation insurance coverage for this exposure.

34 
b.�Automobile Liability Coverage: Each public entity is responsible for its own actions and is responsible for�

complying with the State of __________  motor vehicle financial responsibility laws. Coverage under these�

laws may be obtained (1) by a policy with an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of�

__________, (2) by being a qualified self­insured, or (3) by being a member of a group self­insurance�

association. Each public entity agrees to obtain automobile liability coverage with at least a $__________�

combined single limit and coverage extended to owned, nonowned, and hired vehicles. It is understood that�

the public entity may include in the emergency response volunteer companies that have motor vehicles titled�

in the name of the volunteer company. It is the responsibility of the public entity to determine if the�

volunteer company has automobile liability coverage as outlined in this section. This provision is met by�

being a qualified self­insured or by being a member of a group self­insurance association.�

c.�General Liability, Public Officials Liability, and Law Enforcement Liability: To the extent permitted by�

law and without waiving sovereign immunity, each party to this Agreement will be responsible for any and�

all claims, demands, suits, actions, damages, and causes for action related to or arising out of or in any way�

connected with its own actions and the actions of its personnel in providing mutual aid assistance rendered�

or performed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Each public entity agrees to obtain�

general liability with at least a $__________  combined single limit. Each public entity agrees to obtain�

public official liability coverage and law enforcement liability coverage with at least a $__________�

combined single limit. These coverages may be obtained (1) by a policy with an insurance company�

licensed to do business in the State of __________ , (2) by being a qualified self­insured, (3) by being a�

member of a group self­insurance association, or (4) by any insurance plan administered through the�

Department of General Services Division of Risk Management.�

d. Should there be a dispute as to the nature and extent of any provision, these issues shall be submitted to�

binding arbitration with the American Arbitration Association or any other arbitration association�

unanimously agreed to by the parties.�

9. Each party shall develop and update on a regular basis a plan providing for the effective mobilization of its

resources and facilities.

10. Interagency assistance plans shall be developed and updated on a regular basis by the parties hereto and are

operative between the parties in accordance with the provisions of such plans.

11. The parties agree to meet on a regular basis to review all interagency assistance plans and the provisions of

this Agreement.

12. This Agreement shall become effective as to each party’s public entity when approved and executed by that

public entity. The Agreement shall remain in effect as between each and every party until participation in this

Agreement is terminated by the party in writing. Termination of participation in this Agreement by a party shall

not affect the continued operation of this Agreement as between the remaining parties. Any party to this

Agreement may terminate participation in this Agreement upon 30 days’ written notice addressed to the

designated public official of each of the other signatory public entities that are parties to this Agreement.

13. The execution of this Agreement shall not give rise to any liability or responsibility for failure to respond to

any request for assistance made pursuant to this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be construed as or deemed

to be an Agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties, and no third party or parties shall have any right

of action whatsoever hereunder for any cause whatsoever.

In witness whereof, this Agreement has been executed and approved and is effective and operative as to each of

the parties as herein provided.

Signature & Title_______________________________________________Date__________________________

Signature & Title_______________________________________________Date__________________________ 35 
Endnotes �

1 See, for example, the actions of the Montgomery

County, Maryland, Sniper Task Force, awarded the

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

ChoicePoint Award for Excellence in Criminal

Investigation for 2003. Also, see Three Weeks in

October: The Manhunt for the Serial Sniper, the

biography and recounting of the Washington, D.C.

sniper investigation by Charles Moose and Charles

Fleming, Dutton Books, 2004.

2 Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., “No Disaster This Compact

Can’t Handle,” National Journal, April 6, 2002, p.

1002.

3 “Mutual Aid Agreements: Support for First

Responders Outside Major Metropolitan Areas,” press

release, The White House, March 27, 2002.

4 For a complete treatment of the local and regional

intelligence function, see the Bureau of Justice

Assistance (BJA) monograph, Intelligence­Led

Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture, available

at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pubs/index.html. 

5 Readers are encouraged to refer to the BJA

monograph, Assessing and Managing the Terrorism

Threat, available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pubs/

index.html.

6 This text is quoted from Amy Hughes, Senior Policy

Analyst, National Emergency Management

Association, untitled, State Government News

Magazine, March 2004.

7 Remarks of then­DHS Director Tom Ridge to the

U.S. Conference of Mayors, press release, U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, January 23, 2002,

Washington, D.C.

8 FEMA, “National Mutual Aid and Resource

Management Initiative.” Accessed at

www.fema.gov/preparedness/mutual_aid.shtm on

August 22, 2004. 

9 National Emergency Management Association,

Model Intrastate Mutual Aid Legislation (Lexington,

KY: Author). For a complete copy of the model plan,

see www.emacweb.org?76. Accessed August 22, 2004.

10 International Association of Chiefs of Police

National Law Enforcement Policy Center,

Memorandum of Understanding: Interagency

Agreement, July 2001 (Alexandria, VA: Author).

11 Ariz. Rev. Stat. 11­952(A) (2001). Arizona has been

singled out as one of the leaders in regionally focused

security planning. Governor Janet Napolitano released

a comprehensive security agenda in April 2003 that

included a call for the establishment of formal

protocols to support multiagency coordination to

address critical incidents. As a result, Arizona

developed a statewide mutual aid agreement for

firefighters. See Senator Tom Carper, “Mutual Aid,”

Blueprint Magazine, March 23, 2004. Available at

www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=137&subid=900014

&contentid=252473. Accessed August 15, 2004.

37 

12

13

14

territories (and possessions) of the United States;

cfda.html.

See, for example, Virginia Statewide Mutual Aid

Committee, available at www.vaemergency.com/

library/mutualaid/committeemembers.htm.

See the BJA monograph, Assessing and Managing

the Terrorism Threat, available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

BJA/pubs/index.html. 

See, for example, the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance, which provides access to a database of all

federal programs available to state and local

governments (including the District of Columbia);

federally recognized Indian tribal governments;

domestic public, quasi­public, and private profit and

nonprofit organizations and institutions; specialized

groups; and individuals, at http://12.46.245.173/cfda/
15 The Incident Command System (ICS) is a

“standardized on­scene emergency management

construct specifically designed to provide for the

adoption of an integrated organizational structure that

reflects the complexity and demands of single or

multiple incidents, without being hindered by

jurisdictional boundaries.” See www.dhs.gov/interweb/

assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf for more information on

the National Response Plan and ICS.

16 For examples, refer to “Promising Practices in

Mutual Aid” on page 29 of this document.

17 Comments made during a hearing of the House

Government Reform Committee by National Academy

of Public Administration President C. Morgan

Kinghorn, August 2004. Reported by Diane Frank,

“Collaboration Makes Good Neighbors: Economics,

Homeland Security Compel States, Cities and

Counties to Work Together,” Federal Computer Week,

April 26, 2004. Available at www.fcw.com/fcw/

articles/2004/0426/feat­collab­04­26­04. Accessed

August 25, 2004.

18 IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center,

Model Policy: Memorandum of Understanding

(Alexandria, VA: Author, July 2001).

19 See the Commonwealth of Virginia Statewide

Mutual Aid for Emergency Management’s Model

Authorizing Resolution and Statewide Mutual Aid

Guidebook, available at www.vdem.state.va.us/library/

mutualaid/StateMAid.cfm. Accessed August 18, 2004.

20 Although reimbursement cannot be conditioned on

the declaration of federal disaster, it can be conditioned

on the declaration of a local or state disaster—an

approach that enables reimbursement for large­scale

incidents. FEMA will reimburse mutual aid agreement

costs provided that all of the following conditions are

met: (1) The assistance requested by the applicant is

directly related to the disaster. (2) The mutual aid

agreement is in written form and signed by authorized

officials of involved parties. (3) The mutual aid

agreement applies uniformly in emergency situations.

The agreement must not be contingent on declaration

of a major disaster or emergency by the federal

government or on receiving federal funds. 

(4) The providing entity does not request or receive

grant funds directly. Only the eligible applicant

receiving the aid may request grant assistance. (5) The

request for services, as well as services received and

costs incurred, are documented and furnished to

FEMA on request. (6) The mutual aid agreement is

between governments or agencies in separate areas.

FEMA will not recognize mutual aid agreements

between agencies, departments, or entities of the same

town, county, or state government.

21 Participating jurisdictions should be familiar with

the requirements for reimbursement from FEMA

specified in 44 CFR 206.228. See also “Mutual Aid

Agreements for Public Assistance: Response Recovery

Policy Number 9523.6,” available at www.fema.gov/

rrr/pa/9523_6.shtm.

22  See, for example, Oregon’s mutual aid agreement,

available at www.sfm.state.or. Accessed August 15,

2004.

23 National Incident Management System, U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.,

March 1, 2004.

24 See, for example, FEMA’s National Mutual Aid and

Resource Management Initiative, available at

www.fema.gov/doc/preparedness/glossaryterms.doc.

For more information on overall resource

management, see FEMA’s Introduction to State and

Local EOP Planning Guidance, available at

www.fema.gov/preparedness/introstate.shtm#inventory.

25 As a result of responses to major emergencies,

equipment often is conjoined, misplaced, lost, or

otherwise moved and not returned to its original owner

or location. All equipment should be clearly marked

by jurisdiction, organization, and/or unit identity to

avoid unnecessary confusion over ownership and rapid

return of equipment. See “After Action Report of the

September 11 Attack on the Pentagon,” available at

www.co.arlington.va.us/fire/edu/about/docs/aar.htm.

26 The study, “Protecting Emergency Responders:

Safety Management in Disaster and Terrorism

Response,” is available online at www.rand.org/pubs/

monographs/2004/RAND_MG176.pdf.

27 See Jennifer Peyrot, National Governors Association

Center for Best Practices, Homeland Security and

Technology Division, “Study Recommends More

Protection for Responders,” June 24, 2004. Available

at www.nga.org/center/frontAndCenter/1,1188,

C_FRONT_CENTER^D_6985,00.html.

38 
28 National Incident Management System, U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, March 1, 2004,

p. 37.

29 See, for example, articles on mutual aid training at

www.9­1­1magazine.com/magazine/1997/0397/

features/smith.html.

30 The important role played by communications

personnel must be recognized, and appropriate training

of such people must be ensured.

31 See, for example, the after­action report on the

September attack on the Pentagon, available at

www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf.

32 See the Michigan Emergency Management

Assistance Compact, available at www.michigan.gov/

msp/0,1607,7­123­1593_3507­9460—,00.html.

Accessed August 23, 2004.

33 For an example of an event agreement, see the

“Commonwealth of Virginia Statewide Mutual Aid for

Emergency Management Guidebook, Statewide

Mutual Aid Event Agreement: Part I Request for

Assistance and Part II Assistance to Be Provided,”

available at www.vdem.state.va.us/library/mutualaid/

guidebook.pdf.

34 Project Response: The Oklahoma City Tragedy

(Alexandria, VA: IACP), 1995, p. 6.

35 NIMS and the Report of the 9­11 Commission

recommend that all emergency response agencies

nationwide adopt the Incident Command/Unified

Command System.

36 The Incident Command System and Unified

Command System are available in online training

modules, together with copies of NIMS, through

http://training.fema.gov.

37 This chapter was prepared by William R. Dodge

with the assistance of Doug Henton and Chi Nguyen,

members of the Alliance for Regional Stewardship,

National Academy of Public Administration and the

National Association of Regional Councils, March

2002, as “Regional Emergency Preparedness

Compacts: Safeguarding the Nation’s Communities.”

Reprinted with permission.

38 Each of these is described in more detail in the

monograph Regional Emergency Preparedness

Compacts: Safeguarding the Nation’s Future, at

www.regionalstewardship.org.

39 
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Information

BJA’s mission is to provide leadership and services in grant administration and

criminal justice policy to support local, state, and tribal justice strategies to

achieve safer communities. For more indepth information about BJA, its

programs, and its funding opportunities, contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

202–616–6500

Fax: 202–305–1367

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

E­mail: AskBJA@usdoj.gov

The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference

Service, shares BJA program information with federal, state, local, and tribal

agencies and community groups across the country. Information specialists

provide reference and referral services, publication distribution, participation and

support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The

clearinghouse can be contacted at:

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

1–800–851–3420

Fax: 301–519–5212

www.ncjrs.gov

Send questions or comments to http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/ContactUs.aspx.

Clearinghouse staff are available Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

eastern time. Ask to be placed on the BJA mailing list.

To subscribe to the electronic newsletter JUSTINFO and become a registered

NCJRS user, visit http://ncjrs.gov/subreg.html.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJA

Permit No. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance *NCJ~210679* 

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300