Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations v

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

FOREWORD l i

OVERVIEW l iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS l v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY l vii

PART I—INTRODUCTION l 1

Purpose l 1

The Capability Assessment for Readiness Process l 1

Structure of the Report l 2

PART II—DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY l 3

General l 3

Level of Detail l 3

Scoring and Basis for Data l 4

Weighting of Scores l 4

Consistency of Self-Assessment l 4

Basis for Analysis of Data l 5

PART III—NATIONAL SUMMARY l 7

General l 7

Emergency Management Function Analysis l 8

Customer Service and Public Expectations l 9

National Emergency Management Strengths l 10

National Emergency Management Areas for Improvement l 11
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

vi Table of Contents

PART IV—ANALYSIS BY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FUNCTION:

EXPANDED DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS l 13

EMF #1–Laws and Authorities l 13

EMF #2–Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment l 20

EMF #3–Hazard Management l 24

EMF #4–Resource Management l 29

EMF #5–Planning l 35

EMF #6–Direction, Control, and Coordination (DCC) l 48

EMF #7–Communications and Warning l 53

EMF #8–Operations and Procedures l 58

EMF #9–Logistics and Facilities l 72

EMF #10–Training l 83

EMF #11–Exercises l 92

EMF #12–Public Education and Information l 98

EMF #13–Finance and Administration l 105

PART V—HAZARD-SPECIFIC ANALYSES l 113

Designated Flood States l 114

Designated Hurricane States l 116

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) l 119

Fire and Emergency Management l 121

Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program l 122

Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) l 125

PART VI—FUTURE DIRECTIONS l 127

The Performance Partnership Agreement/Cooperative Agreement

 as a Framework for Continuous Improvement l 127

The FEMA Strategy and GPRA l 128

Measuring Emergency Management Program Performance l 130

Improving the CAR Process and Instrument l 130
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations i

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

T he emergency management profession is one of the broadest of all career fields,encompassing professionals from many organizations throughout Government at Federal,

State, and local levels; business and industry; non-Governmental organizations; private non-profits;

and individual citizens. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) financial assistance,

through State and local grants, assists these professionals, directly or indirectly, in performing their

respective roles in the emergency management network.

When Senator Christopher Bond, Chairman of the Veterans Affairs,

Housing Urban Development, and Independent Agencies SubCommittee of the United States Senate Committee on

Appropriations, asked me to provide a report on how we at FEMA could ensure that States, as the

primary recipients of FEMA grants, are capable of performing their emergency management

responsibilities, I was struck by the challenge of assessing capability for 56 States, Territories, and

Insular Areas to respond to the full range of hazards that confront them and still recognize their

individual geographical, meteorological, and geophysical peculiarities. This challenge was

compounded by the recognition that no formal standards exist for the complex field of emergency

management. Responding to this challenge through a national self-assessment has brought about a

series of remarkable results that will propel and inspire the emergency management profession into

the 21st century.

First and foremost, the assessment documented that the Nation’s investment in our emergency

management infrastructure has paid preparedness dividends. We have States that are operationally

ready to respond to the diverse threats that confront them, and they are making progress in the

areas of disaster resistance and mitigation as well. Secondly, we have seen that the relationship

between States and their Federal partners has strengthened through new approaches such as the

Federal-State Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs). Thirdly, we have learned that a

partnership approach can provide accountability for Federal grant programs, while allowing the

States the flexibility they need to tailor their programs to their strategic needs. Finally, the

assessment underscores that where strong standards exist for emergency management performance,

such as in the Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program and Chemical Stockpile

Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP), State programs are stronger overall. This underscores

the need for established standards and that Federal grant assistance is a necessary ingredient for

enhancing State capabilities.

Some areas need immediate attention and requisite action. Sound mitigation practices are needed to

address the very critical areas of hazard identification and vulnerability assessment. These areas are

key to State and local level mitigation strategies together with building public and private alliances

and partnerships to support development of disaster resistant communities. The new and growing

threat from terrorism, both foreign and domestic, especially those employing nuclear, chemical, or

biological agents, will require new techniques and technologies for first responders and emergency

managers. Disaster housing was identified as a challenge for State emergency managers as was

coordination between Government and the private sector during disasters. The overall area of

resource management in disasters and the associated logistical challenges also require focused

attention, though we are making progress.

In reviewing the Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR), it is important to keep in mind that

this is the first or baseline year. A national assessment of this type has never been attempted before,

much less completed within such a short timeframe. We are aware that the data collection

instrument requires refinement and are already taking aggressive steps in that direction with our

partners in the States. The fact remains, however, that all our State partners assessed their

Foreword
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

ii

emergency management programs across the full range of hazards using the same tools and scoring

system. Their reports reflect professional integrity and refreshing candor about their strengths and

areas that require increased attention. Many have already begun to fold these results into their

Fiscal Year 1998 performance plans.

The results of State assessments reflect that progress has been made in many areas in recent years.

Our Hazard Mitigation Programs have come of age and are beginning to show results in the way

that people think about disaster preparedness and prevention. I have seen a shift in focus from one

of disaster response to one of collaborative planning to resist disasters. The concept of Disaster

Resistant Communities will soon be piloted and will become the model for the future. We will

realize this vision only through continued cooperation and collaboration with our partners and with

the strong support of Congress through continued funding of State and local assistance grants and

pre-disaster mitigation funds. This investment in the safety and security of the Nation against all of

its threats will pay dividends into the 21st century and build a “disaster resistant America.”

James L. Witt

Director

Federal Emergency Management Agency

December 10, 1997
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations iii

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

S ince 1993, more than 1.4 million Americans have been impacted by disasters that resulted inPresidential declarations, and many thousands more have been impacted by events that were

managed at the State and local levels.

In fact, all of us are affected by the ever-increasing costs of disasters.

From 1989 to 1993, the average annual losses from disasters were

$3.3 billion. During the last 4 years, the average annual losses have

increased to $13 billion. On the Federal side alone, disasters have cost

a total of more than $20 billion in public funds that might otherwise have been used for public

education, job training, and health care—for investments in our children and our Nation’s future.

In cooperation with the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has aggressively worked to reduce disaster costs. The

primary thrust of this effort has been to establish sound preparedness and mitigation practices

throughout the United States in order to reduce the effects of disasters. The vehicle for achieving

this, the Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA) between FEMA Regions and all States,

Territories, and Insular Areas, addresses the strategic objectives of the Federal-State emergency

management partnership.

The PPA was first implemented in 1995 and, since that time, there has been a need to assess

progress towards the goals outlined in the PPA. The Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

process was developed in partnership with the States to answer that need, as well as respond to the

Congressional requests. Through NEMA, the States have given FEMA full support in its

implementation and have reported that their experience with CAR has been positive and

worthwhile. Our mutual experience has been an honest self-assessment of existing State emergency

management capabilities and the operational readiness of the State emergency management

infrastructure. Many States are already experimenting in using and/or adapting the process for local

use with their county and municipal emergency managers.

The capability assessment process will continue to evolve in the coming years and enhance our

programs. Therefore, it represents the firm commitment of both NEMA and FEMA to establish a

system for assessing the capability and readiness of each State, Territory, and Insular Area, as part

of our broader commitment to our sacred mission of saving lives and protecting property.

The highlighting of exemplary emergency management practices will lead us for future generations

and drive the way we plan, train, and exercise our organizations for tomorrow’s challenges, helping

us build Disaster Resistant Communities.

All of these activities, coupled with FEMA’s new “Public/Private Partnership in Emergency

Management” initiative, will help raise awareness among State, local, national, and international

organizations about the growing need to integrate disaster prevention planning and preparedness as

the foundation of emergency management. Many bold new directions in our partnerships for

preparedness will ensue.

Kay C. Goss

Associate Director

Federal Emergency Management Agency

The Preparedness, Training, & Exercises Directorate

Overview
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations vii

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Executive Summary

This report addresses Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiatives to

assess national-level emergency management capabilities and analyzes the results of

the recently completed pilot assessments by States, Territories, and Insular Areas of

their capability and readiness. The report further discusses Federal and State

strategies to improve areas the States

have indicated in their assessments as not

fully meeting their expectations and

requirements.

FEMA was charged by the United States

Senate Committee on Appropriations to (1) develop national-level performance

criteria to measure the capability of the States to perform in the areas of mitigation,

preparedness, response, and recovery; and (2) conduct an assessment of the States’ capabilities to

effectively respond to disasters.

FEMA and the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) jointly

developed the Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) process. In June 1997,

FEMA fielded the assessment after conducting a training session for State and

Regional personnel via a nationwide Emergency Education Network (EENET) satellite television

broadcast. From June to August 1997, the States used the CAR instrument to assess their

capabilities. The objective was to involve other State agencies and local jurisdictions, if feasible. In

most States, this process involved face-to-face FEMA Regional participation. In others, follow-up

meetings with the Regional staff were conducted to discuss the results. Regional assistance in this

process contributed to a partnership approach to emergency management and was welcomed by the

States. A total of 56 States, Territories, and Insular Areas participated in the capability assessment

pilot test, a self-assessment of 13 emergency management functional categories, and a simplified

rating scale, ensuring that all the States assessed their capabilities and reported their strengths and

areas for improvement, based on a common framework.

The development of CAR fulfills the Committee’s requirement for a national set of

performance criteria, all of which have been overwhelmingly accepted by the States

as a baseline. To add emphasis to this point, several State emergency management

directors have declared that they plan to use the results of the assessment in the development of

their State strategic plans and for their local government partners.

The central conclusion of this report, based on the analysis of the data, is that

the States do have the basic capabilities in place to effectively respond to

disasters. In the vast majority of cases, the States can do this without Federal assistance. This

does not mean that all capabilities are as strong as they could be, but overall, the data strongly

supports the contention that a fundamental emergency preparedness and operational capability

exists in the Nation.

The functions that demonstrated program strengths are (1) Laws and Authorities, the legal

authorities for the development and maintenance of an emergency management program;

(2) Exercises, the evaluation of plans and capabilities based on a program of tests and exercises;

(3) Operations and Procedures, the implementation of policies, plans, and procedures in exercises

and disaster events; and (4) Finance and Administration, the financial and administration

procedures in place before, during, and after disaster events.

APPROACH

CONCLUSIONS

PURPOSE

BACKGROUND
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

viii Executive Summary

Specific areas that scored exceptionally well include: radiological incident monitoring in jurisdictions located near nuclear power facilities; preparedness programs in the vicinity of chemical

stockpile disposal sites; military support planning between States and nearby military installations;

and the capability of States to successfully implement programs such as the Individual and Family

Grants, Public Assistance, and the Hazard Mitigation Grants.

The functions requiring greater attention are (1) Resource Management, the availability of critical

human and physical resources required in disaster response; (2) Hazard Identification and Risk

Assessment, the identification of the hazards with the greatest potential to affect lives and property

and an assessment of the likelihood, vulnerability, and magnitude of incidents that could result from

exposure to hazards; and (3) Logistics and Facilities, the essential facilities and services to support

response and recovery operations.

Specific areas that were identified as needing significant improvement are: planning and

equipment for a response to nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorist incidents; disaster housing,

i.e., sites, planning, training, and resources; and coordination between State emergency management agencies and the private sector.

States facing various geophysical risks, such as hurricanes, floods, and areas located near chemical

stockpile disposal sites and nuclear power facilities assessed themselves as having a greater

capability than other States. All of these scored higher than the national average for all States.

The results confirm that the special emphasis placed on mitigation and

preparedness for these hazards by the Federal Government and the States has

contributed to a remarkably higher level of readiness.

FEMA has embraced several strategies, long and short term, to

address the areas needing improvement, as well as to ensure

continued development of areas identified as strengths. These

strategies focus on (1) Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA) reviews with the States during

Fiscal Year (FY) 1998; (2) emphasis on the State annual Cooperative Agreements; (3) improvement

of individual Emergency Management Functions (EMFs) based on State requirements;

(4) refinement of the CAR instrument and review process; and (5) participation in the development

of an accredited process by State and local emergency management organizations that could be

used nationally. These strategies reflect FEMA’s vision to enrich the focus on protecting and

preparing communities from becoming disaster victims.

. . . the special emphasis placed on mitigation and preparedness

for these hazards by the Federal Government and the States has

contributed to a remarkably higher level of readiness.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

The assessment shows a significant increase in capability for those States facing various

geophysical risks, such as hurricanes, floods . . .
I

INTRODUCTION
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 1

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

This report outlines the current status of emergency management capabilities in the

Nation’s States, Territories, and Insular Areas (hereinafter referred to collectively as

“States”). The report is based on results of a nationwide pilot test of the Capability

Assessment for Readiness (CAR) process, which the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) and the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) developed together.

Origin

CAR fulfills a commitment made by FEMA to the United States Senate Committee on

Appropriations that the agency would develop a system of emergency management performance

criteria and measures. Both FEMA and the United States Senate have been concerned that Federal

disaster costs continue to rise and would like to ensure that States achieve greater operational

readiness and capability to manage disasters, with less Federal assistance.

Description

The CAR process examines operational readiness and capabilities of the Federal/State

emergency management partnership to mitigate against, prepare for, respond to, and recover

from, emergencies and disasters. It focuses on the following 13 Emergency Management

Functions (EMFs), which are discussed further in Part IV of this report.

1. Laws and Authorities 8. Operations and Procedures

2. Hazard ID and Risk Assessment 9. Logistics and Facilities

3. Hazard Management 10. Training

4. Resource Management 11. Exercises

5. Planning 12. Public Education and Information

6. Direction, Control, and Coordination 13. Finance and Administration

7. Communications and Warning

PART I

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE

THE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR READINESS PROCESS
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

2 Part 1–Introduction

Utility

CAR is intended first and foremost to support FEMA and the States in development of

(1) Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs), in which FEMA and each State agree to 5-year

strategic goals for the State’s emergency management effort; and (2) annual Cooperative

Agreements (CAs), in which FEMA and States agree on funding and work objectives to move the

State toward achievement of goals described in its PPA. The CAR will allow FEMA and the States

to determine aspects of emergency management that require greater attention.

CAR also will be used as a performance measure under FEMA’s Strategic Plan, Partnership for a

Safer Future. Results of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 pilot test will be used as a baseline for FEMA to

gauge the effectiveness of its efforts with State partners, as part of the agency’s overall compliance

with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993.

Finally, as CAR is refined, it will contribute ultimately to the development of nationally accepted

action agendas for emergency management, complementing the National Fire Protection

Association’s (NFPA’s) current Recommended Practice for Disaster Management (NFPA 1600), as

well as other professional fire and emergency accredited programs.

Part II—Design and Methodology—discusses considerations of CAR design and methodology.

Part III—National Summary—provides a national summary of CAR reports.

Part IV—Analysis by Emergency Management Function: Expanded Discussion of Findings and

Conclusions—presents national strengths, areas for improvement, and areas of basic capability for

each EMF.

Part V—Hazard-Specific Analyses—compares results for States with certain prevalent hazards (e.g.,

States with a high or very high seismic hazard) to national aggregate results and to average scores

for States not subject to the hazard.

Part VI—Future Directions—addresses improving emergency management, based upon the results

of the CAR.

The CAR is a key component of FEMA’s Strategic Plan,

“Partnership for a Safer Future.”

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

II
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 3

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

T he Capability Assessment for Readiness(CAR) process depends on a State selfassessment, although States were encouraged to

conduct the assessment in coordination with the

appropriate Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) Regional Office. Clearance was

obtained from the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) for issuing the CAR assessment

instrument nationwide (OMB Control Number

3067-0272). The complete State Capability

Assessment for Readiness instrument is available

from FEMA upon request. An automated version

of the instrument was provided to reduce the

burden on States, and all but one respondent used

it. Gathering, tabulation, and analysis of data

took place in June, July, and August of 1997.

Each State forwarded its assessment to the FEMA

Regional Office, which in turn forwarded it

(along with any Regional analysis or interpretation) to FEMA Headquarters for incorporation

into this report.

The information presented in this report is the

collective input of the 56 States that participated

in the Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 pilot test of CAR.

Individual States are not singled out for analysis

in this report based upon a prior agreement

between FEMA and the National Emergency

Management Association (NEMA) that individual

States would not be compared with one another.

States will be provided copies of the collective analysis of the reports to see how they

compare to other States in the aggregate;

however, States will not be able to distinguish

one State from another by name. States are

free to share their individual self-assessments

with each other. The complete State

Capability Assessment for Readiness results—

without State identifiers—are also available

from FEMA, upon request.

S tates conducted the self-assessment

based upon 13 Emergency Management

Functions (EMFs) listed previously. Each of

these EMFs is subdivided into individual

attributes and further subdivided into

characteristics. Attributes are broad criteria

by which the emergency management

program’s performance in a particular area

can be assessed. Characteristics are more

detailed criteria that further clarify the area

being assessed. States assessed themselves at

the attribute level as a minimum, but had the

option to rate at the characteristic level,

providing greater data points for subsequent

analysis. As the State examined itself against

these criteria, it gained a “self-profile” on the

strengths and areas of its emergency

management program that need

improvement.

LEVEL OF DETAIL

. . . designed jointly by FEMA and

NEMA

GENERAL

PART II

DESIGN AND

METHODOLOGY
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

4 Part II–Design and Methodology

E ach attribute or characteristic was assessedon a scale of 1 to 3 or Not Applicable (N/A):

3 - Always or consistently meets attribute/

characteristic

2 - Normally meets attribute/characteristic

1 - Needs additional work to meet the

attribute/characteristic

N/A - Not applicable to the State’s situation and

emergency management organization/

program

Flexibility was built into the program by allowing

States the option to evaluate those activities that

apply specifically to their emergency management program. States evaluated as “N/A” those

attributes or characteristics that did not apply to

their emergency management program.

To better understand on what basis States were

making their responses, States also indicated

whether the assessment of an attribute/characteristic was based on the following “Value

Derived From” modifier:

RW - Real-World Experience

EE - Exercise Experience

UT - Untested

This additional scoring helped provide validation

and understanding of the 1 to 3 rating for each

attribute/characteristic and helped highlight areas

where exercises would be useful.

I n the FY 1997 version of CAR, all attributes/characteristics were given equal

weight. In reality, there are some attributes/

characteristics that can be considered Core

Competency performance indicators. These

performance indicators need to be met by the

total State infrastructure. They could be

considered “pass/fail” performance indicators

for the emergency management program.

Due to time constraints, Core Competencies

were not addressed by the joint FEMA/NEMA

working group in developing the pilot version

of CAR.

T o foster consistency in CAR’s

implementation, FEMA conducted a live

Emergency Education Network (EENET)

satellite broadcast to assure uniform training

between State and FEMA Regional staff and

address questions concerning implementation

of the process and the assessment instrument.

States and Regional staff were provided all

materials before the broadcast. In addition,

meetings to discuss the CAR process and

assessment were offered by FEMA Regional

Offices to all States for training State staff and

others participating in completion of the

assessment. Some Regions formed CAR

teams to assist States in the process and

assessment. Most States had either face-toface meetings with FEMA Regional

representatives, or telephonic meetings to

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National

Emergency Management Association (NEMA) have joined forces to

develop a prototype readiness and capability assessment process. The

result is the Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR).

SCORING AND BASIS FOR DATA WEIGHTING OF SCORES

CONSISTENCY OF SELF-ASSESSMENT

Core Competencies . . .
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 5

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

discuss the survey and its completion before

initiating work. FEMA Headquarters (HQ) also

provided a telephone contact point and E-mail

address for recommendations on the content or

use of the automated CAR instrument.

Most States completed their CAR with on-site

Regional involvement. This varied from Region

to Region, based upon State preferences as to the

best way to conduct the process and ongoing

disaster response activities. NEMA suggested

that in combination with the self-assessment by

the States, a medium level of review would

provide a more valid perspective on the

emergency management partnership. A medium

level of review was defined as the following

steps: State conducts self-assessment; State/

FEMA Region jointly review (face-to-face

dialogue) and discuss the State assessment and/or

conduct the self-assessment together to provide a

more valid perspective on the status of the

emergency management partnership; emergency

management partners mutually develop actions

that address areas needing improvement in the

assessment and incorporate actions into the

Performance Partnership Agreement/Cooperative

Agreement (PPA/CA).

All respondents to the CAR assessment ratedtheir State’s emergency management

attributes and characteristics on a scale of 1 to 3.

Each attribute score was computed by finding the

average score for all characteristics under that

attribute. Attribute scores are reported in

decimals (e.g., 2.32) because some characteristics

were scored at a 2 level while others at a 1 or 3

level and when averaged, resulted in a decimal.

Using this scale, FEMA analyzed the State CAR

results as follows: a score of 2.5 to 3.0 meant that

the State’s emergency management organization

met the attribute or characteristic consistently and

is represented in blue on the graphical charts in

this report as “Areas of Strength”; a score of 1.5

to 2.5 meant that the organization normally met

the attribute or characteristics reflecting a

basic capability and is represented in green

on the graphical charts in this report as

“Areas Meeting Criteria”; and a score of 1.0

to 1.5 meant that the organization needed

additional work to meet the attribute or

characteristic and is represented in red on the

graphical charts in this report as “Areas

Needing Improvement.” Also, a response of

“Not Applicable” (N/A) was provided for

those attributes or characteristics that did not

apply to a particular State. This scale of 1 to

3 was developed and agreed to by FEMA and

NEMA in close consultation. It was decided

that it would be used in the pilot year and

then reassessed based on the pilot year’s

experiences.

To better understand on what basis States

were making responses, each attribute and

characteristic had to be scored as to whether

the State’s response of 1, 2, or 3 was based

on “Real-World Experience (RW), Exercise

Experience (EE), or Untested (UT).” This

scoring helped to provide validation and

understanding of the 1 to 3 rating for each

attribute or characteristic and highlight in

what areas exercises would be useful.

Each attribute was analyzed by FEMA to

determine national strengths, areas needing

improvement, and areas of basic capability.

Responses of N/A were discounted, and the

percentage of the remaining responses at the

1 level (needs additional work to meet the

criterion of attribute/characteristic), 2 level

(normally meets attribute/characteristic) and

3 level (always or consistently meets attribute/

characteristic) was computed. If 50 percent

or more of these remaining responses were at

the 2.5 to 3 level, the attribute was considered a national strength. If 50 percent or

more were at the 1 to 1.5 level, the attribute

was considered by FEMA as an area needing

improvement.

BASIS FOR ANALYSIS OF DATA
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

6 Part II–Design and Methodology

Note that (1) the base number for computing percentages varied from attribute to attribute,

depending on the number of States that responded N/A; and (2) percentage calculations of

45 percent to 49 percent were rounded up to 50 percent.

There was substantial support by the States and NEMA for establishment and

conduct of the CAR process, as reflected in the 100-percent return rate of the

CAR instrument. Support came from the realization that the CAR assessment process was

critical to the growth of emergency management programs nationwide, both in the next year and in

the years to come. NEMA has pledged its continued support and participation in the further

development of this assessment process with FEMA.

This pilot year’s report on States’ capabilities in emergency management is based on a selfassessment of the State emergency management infrastructure. The assessment involved personal

input from knowledgeable State-level emergency management professionals: representatives from

individual State agencies comprising the State emergency management infrastructure providing

diverse State perspectives; in some cases local officials; and FEMA Regional Offices.

The numerical analysis is carried out to two decimal places (e.g., an assessment value of 2.85). The

analysis provided in this report should be interpreted as providing valuable information concerning

the condition of States’ emergency management as assessed by knowledgeable emergency

management professionals in those States.
III

NATIONAL SUMMARY
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 7

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Under the guidance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the

National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), the States, Territories, and Insular

Areas (hereinafter referred to collectively as “States,”) participated fully in the implementation of the Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) program in the Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 pilot

test. Fifty-six States conducted CAR self-assessments during June to August and submitted formal

reports through their respective FEMA Regions to FEMA Headquarters. States that participated are:

Alabama Florida Massachusetts North Dakota Virginia

Alaska Georgia Michigan Ohio Virgin Islands

American Samoa Guam Minnesota Oklahoma Washington

Arizona Hawaii Mississippi Oregon West Virginia

Arkansas Idaho Missouri Pennsylvania Wisconsin

California Illinois Montana Puerto Rico Wyoming

Colorado Indiana Nebraska Rhode Island

Commonwealth of Iowa Nevada South Carolina

 Northern Mariana Kansas New Hampshire South Dakota

 Islands Kentucky New Jersey Tennessee

Connecticut Louisiana New Mexico Texas

Delaware Maine New York Utah

District of Columbia Maryland North Carolina Vermont

The CAR assessment submissions by the above States serve as the basis for this report. There is a

solid foundation supporting the data submitted by the States, based on several reasons.

1. The information submitted by the States was based, for the most

part, on their experiences gained from real-world disaster

situations, as depicted at the right, rather than on exercise

experience or untested State plans (other scoring options in the

CAR instrument).

2. For the most part, the scores for the 209 emergency management

attributes that each State reported on represent “rolled up”

numerical averages of the ratings for the more than 1,014 characteristics in the CAR

instrument that look at emergency management in great detail. As discussed in Part II,

Design and Methodology, States had the option of either scoring

directly at the attribute level, or of scoring the 1,014 characteristics and “rolling them up” to get average values for attribute

scores. The latter method obviously gives a more valid picture,

and is the preferred approach. The chart at left, depicting the

comparison between “rolled up” attribute scores and “set directly”

attribute scores, tells us that the States took a detailed look at the

many components of readiness and capability, rather than just

providing a macro-level subjective appraisal at the attribute level.

GENERAL

PART III

NATIONAL SUMMARY

SCORING BASIS FOR 

NATIONAL AGGREGATE

87%

4%

9%

RW% EE% UT%

SCORES ROLLED-UP VS. SCORES SET

FOR NATIONAL AGGREGATE

71%

29%

%Rolled Up %Directly Scored
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

8 Part III–National Summary

3. Of the 56 participating States, 55 States

scored themselves at the Attribute and

Characteristic level, and 1 State scored

itself at the EMF level.

4. Many of the States involved their local

jurisdictions to provide a grassroots

perspective on the CAR self-assessment

reporting. Further, most States were

assisted by their respective FEMA

Regions, during on-site visits, in

conducting a joint analysis for the State

self-assessment. These partnership

approaches provide a “look up” as well

as a “lookdown” perspective to the State

and lend balance and external review to

the State reports.

Ratings for the 13 Emergency

Management Functions (EMFs), as

depicted in the chart at right, reflect that

States meet the basic operational

capability requirement. While some

functional areas are stronger than others, and

others require improvement, the States have

reported they have the basic readiness and

operational capability required.

While the national CAR results at right show that

States meet the basic capability requirement, the

results also indicate opportunities for improvement in all EMFs. Each State, based on its own

indepth analysis of its CAR results, will have an

opportunity through the Performance Partnership

Agreement/Cooperative Agreement (PPA/CA)

process to re-prioritize or re-allocate resources to

enhance performance in its areas of interest.

As we see positive trends emerging from the

initial tabulation and analysis of the CAR results,

we also discern certain areas needing improvement. These areas of improvement are likely

targets of interest in which to commit effort and

resources. In the long term, the CAR program

aims to encourage improvements in all the

EMFs. In the shorter term, the following

EMFs have emerged as national priority

emphasis areas for improvements: Hazard

Identification and Risk Assessment EMF,

Resource Management EMF, and, Logistics

and Facilities EMF. Rationale is as follows.

l The Hazard Identification and Risk

Assessment EMF is the foundation for

all other EMFs. An improved comprehensive threat/impact analysis for each

State will identify specific mitigation

opportunities, ranked in order of

importance, plus provide details on

preparedness opportunities, and

response and recovery needs.

Strategies for improvements in all the

other EMFs could then be based on a

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

FUNCTION ANALYSIS

AREAS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT

AREAS MEETING CRITERIA

2.21

1.83

2.03

1.73

2.03

2.08

2.09

2.13

1.89

2.10

2.29

2.01

2.38

1.0 Laws & Authority

2.0 Hazard Identification

& Risk Assessment

3.0 Hazard

Management

4.0 Resource

Management

5.0 Planning

6.0 Direction, Control &

Coordination

7.0 Communications &

Warning

8.0 Operations &

Procedures

9.0 Logistics & Facilities

10.0 Training

11.0 Exercises

12.0 Public Education &

Information

13.0 Finance &

Administration

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

National EMF Summary

AREAS OF STRENGTH

National Priorities . . .
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 9

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

solid risk assessment rather than on

speculation. States will gain a better

understanding of their current mitigation,

preparedness, response capabilities, and

of their future needs in order to direct,

control, manage, and coordinate both

mitigation programs and emergency

operations. This will help States make

optimal use of existing resources, and will

be the basis for developing a meaningful

comprehensive plan for both short- and

long-term remediation.

l A future savings of lives, property, and

the environment can be realized by

working closely with the States to improve

the Resource Management EMF, including

donated goods and volunteer services,

and the Logistics and Facilities EMF. A

State that has the capability for a quick

and comprehensive response to a disaster

will maximize the saving of lives and

property, and will minimize the need for

Federal resources. Building a better

capability within the States reduces the

Federal response burden.

We intend to work closely with our State partners

during FY 1998 to assist them in improving

performance and capability in these and other

areas.

T he CAR data also provides insight into the

quality of existing and future “customer

service.” Disaster research and disaster case

studies have identified certain “public expectations,” i.e., “what people generally expect from

Government during emergencies and disasters.”

In general, the public expects Government to

provide an effective emergency management

program. Specifically, our customers (all

potential future disaster victims) expect that

Government will:

l Define the roles and responsibilities of

elected officials (Laws and Authorities

EMF).

l Protect life, property, and the environment, i.e., identify hazards and risks,

and include disaster prevention and

mitigation in the emergency management program (Hazard Identification

and Risk Assessment EMF and Hazard

Management EMF).

l Establish and maintain necessary

plans, procedures, programs, and

facilities necessary for a timely

response based on hazard identification and risk assessment (Resource

Management EMF, Logistics and

Facilities EMF, Training EMF, and

Exercises EMF).

l Monitor for and respond to emergencies and disasters (Direction,

Control, and Coordination EMF;

Communications and Warning EMF;

and Operations and Procedures EMF)

including quick and accurate

assessment of the magnitude of an

emergency; keeping citizens

informed of the situation; evacuating

dangerous areas; relocating citizens to

a safe place; providing rapid restoration of services and infrastructure;

and providing assistance in the form

of recovery services.

l Alert and warn response organizations and general public of pending

and spontaneous disaster events

(Communications and Warning EMF).

l Provide public education and

information to protect lives and

minimize property loss (Public

Education and Information EMF).

l Provide for financing of the

emergency management program and

properly administrate response and

recovery efforts (Finance and

Administration EMF).

Public Expectations . . .

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

10 Part III–National Summary

We are satisfied that customer expectations are

being met, with varying degrees of success, as

discussed below.

T he States have reported strengths that show robust performance in several attribute areas thatcomprise individual EMFs. Depicted below are strengths based on attributes that stand out

above the rest. These strengths, along with others also reported by the States, are discussed in detail

in Part IV, Analysis By Emergency Management Function: Expanded Discussion of Findings and

Conclusions. They are flagged here just to provide a general understanding of the national

emergency management profile.

l Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program.

l Consistent participation in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction, Hazard

Mitigation Assistance, Flood Plain Management, and Dam Safety Programs.

l Development and maintenance of State emergency management plans complete with

functional and hazard-specific annexes.

l State Military Support planning and the capability to activate personnel and equipment

in an emergency.

l Individual and Family Grant and Public Assistance Programs.

l Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP).

l The delivery of emergency management training courses, including a cadre of

qualified instructors and delivery of training using a variety of methodologies.

l The completion by the States of a program of functional and full-scale exercises to test

emergency plans and procedures.

l A demonstrated ability of the States to activate the Emergency Operations Center to

coordinate operations in the event of a disaster or emergency.

l Strong grants/cooperative agreements, administrative pre-award policies, and

accounting systems to track and document costs.

l Presidential Disaster Declaration process coordination when State resources are

exceeded during an emergency/disaster.

In general, the public expects

Government to provide an

effective emergency

management program.

NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STRENGTHS

National Emergency Management Strengths
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 11

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

T he States have reported several areas of emergency management that require improvement inperformance. Depicted below are areas of improvement that stand out among the rest. These

areas, along with others reported by the States, are discussed in detail in Part IV, Analysis By

Emergency Management Function: Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions. They are

flagged here just to provide a general understanding of the national emergency management

profile. Strategies to address areas for improvement will be discussed in Part VI, Future Directions.

l Activities related to Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Terrorism that require greater

emphasis on planning and resources.

l Disaster housing program activities such as designation of sites, housing resources,

training, and planning.

l Enhanced operational capabilities for donated goods and volunteer services, including

inventories, donation teams in place, and coordination issues.

l Program planning for animal control in disasters, including: emergency veterinary

services; public information; disease prevention; and animal disposal procedures.

l Improved private sector coordination between the State emergency management

agencies and private sector groups on issues such as roles and responsibilities, mutual

aid agreements, and regular meetings.

l Trust fund legislation to identify pre- and post-disaster resources.

l Community disaster education, i.e., public education and information on hazards

awareness.

l Improved computer-based communications systems with shared mapping, such as

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Information Management Systems.

l Logistics plans and procedures, involving the development of standard operating

procedures, position descriptions, and checklists.

l Greater attention to the development of family emergency preparedness plans for

emergency responders and Emergency Operating Center personnel.

National Emergency Management Areas for Improvement

NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

“First and foremost, the assessment pointed out that the

Nation’s investment in our emergency management

infrastructure has paid dividends.”

 --James L. Witt
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

12 Part III–National Summary
IV ANALYSIS BY

EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT FUNCTION:

EXPANDED DISCUSSION

OF FINDINGS AND

CONCLUSIONS
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 13

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

This part of the report offers a definition of each Emergency Management Function (EMF).

Strengths and weaknesses are highlighted and discussed at the attribute level. The attribute analysis

is based upon 55 of 56 States that reported at the attribute and characteristic level.

NOTE: At the end of each EMF section is a series of charts that depict scoring for the EMF by

attributes and by States.

EMF #1–LAWS AND AUTHORITIES EMF #1–LAWS AND AUTHORITIES

THE IMPORTANCE OF LAWS AND AUTHORITIES

When disasters threaten or strike a jurisdiction, people expect elected leaders to take immediate

action to deal with the problem. The Government is expected to marshal its resources, channel the

efforts of voluntary agencies and private enterprise in the community, and solicit assistance from

outside of the jurisdiction if State and local resources are

insufficient.

In all States and localities, that popular expectation is given

force by statute or ordinance. Congress also recognizes State

and local emergency management responsibility in the

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance

Act, as amended. The elected leadership in each State and

locality is legally responsible for ensuring that necessary and

appropriate actions are taken to protect people and property

from the consequences of

emergencies and disasters.

Whatever the basis, it should be sufficient to support mitigation,

preparedness, response, and recovery activities.

There must be authorities for the Governor to organize, select key

staff, and operate the State emergency management organization. In addition, there may be a

requirement for extraordinary powers that a Governor may need to invoke in order to meet the

diverse challenges of any emergency. Each State has unique operational requirements, based upon

The National Average

is 2.21, making it the

third highest rated

functional area.

DEFINITION: Federal, State, and local :

statutes and any implementing regulations that establish legal authority for

development and maintenance of the

emergency management program and

organization, and define the emergency

powers, authorities, and responsibilities

of the chief executive official and the

emergency management coordinator.

PART IV

ANALYSIS BY EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT FUNCTION:

EXPANDED DISCUSSION OF

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

14 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

risks and hazard vulnerability, which should be supported by individual State emergency

management authorities stemming from executive orders, reorganization plans, interagency

agreements, and administrative requirements. The statutory basis for the emergency management

program should include pre-delegation of emergency authorities, i.e., enabling measures sufficient

to ensure that emergency-related legal authorities can be exercised by the elected or appointed

leadership or their designated successor. There must be a significant degree of interface between

Federal and State authorities before States can fully utilize resources of the Federal Government for

emergency management.

Five of 12 attributes for Laws and Authorities are

considered strengths nationally: Individual and

Family Grant (IFG) Program Capability; IFG

Program State Cost Share; Public Assistance Program Capability; Function of Continuity of

Government (COG) Established and Maintained as a State Emergency Plan Annex or Emergency

Support Function (ESF); and State Supports the Satisfaction of the National Historic Preservation

Act (NHPA) Requirements. Overall, it appears that most States have the basic laws and authorities

to carry out day-to-day programs of emergency management and to respond effectively to disasters.

Attribute 1.6–IFG Program State Cost Share

Contingency plan to fund State cost share of 25 percent (Stafford Act, Section 411, (b) cost

sharing).

32 States report that they always or consistently meet this attribute.

Attribute 1.7–Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program Capability

This is defined by the following characteristics: readiness established for IFG Program

administration (Stafford Act, Section 411, (e) Administration through Governor); program

implementation; program administration; program closeout; and current State Administrative Plan

(44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 206.131), including price list for eligible categories,

approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

37 States report that they always or consistently meet this attribute.

Attribute 1.8–Public Assistance Program Capability

This is defined by the following characteristics: Public Assistance Program established; program

implementation; program administration; program closeout; and State serves as the grantee to

administer the Public Assistance Program.

36 States report that they always or consistently meet this attribute.

39 States report that they always or consistently serve as the grantee to administer the Public

Assistance Program.

37 States report that they have a Public Assistance Program.

Strengths By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 15

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 1.9–Function of Continuity of Government (COG) established;

maintained as a State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This is defined by the following characteristics: list of designated successors to heads of

Departments or agencies; regular training developed for officials, heads of Departments/

agencies, and successors; and COG authority defined.

32 States report that they always or consistently meet this attribute.

27 States report that they are clearly able to define COG.

Attribute 1.10–State Supports the Satisfaction of National Historic Preservation

Act (NHPA) Requirements

This is defined by three characteristics that should be satisfied prior to a disaster: identifying a

FEMA point of contact in the State Historic Preservation Office; providing a list of historic facilities

and archeological sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or

local lists; and reviewing and signing Model State Programmatic Agreements to facilitate Section

106 review under NHPA.

27 States report that they always or consistently meet this attribute.

35 States report having identified a point of contact for a Historic Preservation Office.

When disasters threaten or strike a jurisdiction,

people expect elected leaders to take immediate

action to deal with the problem.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

16 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Two of 12 attributes

need improvement:

Trust Fund Legislation

and Disaster Housing Resource Capability. The development of Trust Fund Legislation is an

important initiative for FEMA and the States. It generates supplementary funding for emergency

management through a series of surcharges on homeowners and business insurance policies or

alternative funding mechanisms including lotteries, user fees, and private sources. This legislation

provides for supplemental monies to focus on pre-disaster planning, mitigation projects, and

response to and recovery from emergencies and disasters. Disaster Housing Resource Capability is

weak in this function, as it is in other functional areas. It is a relatively new activity for the States to

manage, and it is clear from the data that much remains to be accomplished.

Attribute 1.3–Trust Fund Legislation

State identified resources for pre- and post-disaster mitigation; State created a mitigation trust

fund; and Supplemental funding for State Emergency Management Program established.

27 States report that they need additional work in this area.

33 States report that they lack an adequate capability

for a mitigation trust fund.

The national average for this attribute is 1.52. Fortyfive (45) States indicated that this attribute was

applicable to their State. Twenty-seven (27) indicated

that this attribute needs improvement (<1.5).

Fourteen (14) States indicated that they meet portions

of the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Four (4) States

indicated that the attribute always or consistently

meets the criteria (>2.5). Ten (10) States did not

consider this attribute as being applicable.

Attribute 1.12–Disaster Housing Resource Capability

Identification of authorities and lead agency to manage and coordinate State aspects of disaster

housing resource mission.

21 States report that they need improvement in this area.

The national average for this attribute is 1.76. Forty-two

(42) States indicated that this attribute was applicable to

their State. Twenty-one (21) States indicated that this

attribute needs improvement (<1.5). Ten (10) States

indicated that they normally meet the basic criteria (>1.5

and <2.5). Eleven (11) States indicated that the attribute

always or consistently meets the criteria (>2.5). Thirteen

(13) States indicated that this attribute is not applicable to

their State.

Areas For Improvement By Attribute

1.3 - Trust Fund Legislation

50%

25%

7%

18%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

1.12 - Disaster Housing 

Resource Capability

38%

18%

20%

24%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 17

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 1.1–A Requirement Analysis for this function has been done and is the

basis for the assessment

A Requirements Analysis involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all the

emergency management aspects for the Laws and Authorities function.

Attribute 1.2–Legal Aspects of Analysis

This attribute examines the legal foundation on which the States’ emergency management

system is built as well as the scope to which the States have legislated and clarified their litigation

risk.

Attribute 1.4–Building and Fire Codes

The State has provided technical assistance to local jurisdictions so that they may be able to

create, update, and enforce building and fire codes to ensure the safety of the public.

Attribute 1.5–Land Use Ordinances

The State has passed enabling legislation to allow local jurisdictions to adopt/enforce land use

ordinances; discourage development in hazardous areas; encourage hazard avoidance; have an

emergency permit process to facilitate immediate mitigation efforts.

Attribute 1.11–National Environmental Policy Act

The State supports the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through education, hazard

identification, and data collection on a local and Statewide level.

Basic Capability By Attribute
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

18 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 19

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

1.0 Laws & Authority

Attribute Breakout

18%

40%

42%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5

1.0 Laws & Authority

EMF Breakout By States

4%

80%

16%

Note: Reflects percentages of States.National Average: 2.21

Note: Reflects percentage of attributes.National Average: 2.21
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

20 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

EMF #2–HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND

RISK ASSESSMENT RISK ASSESSMENT

THE IMPORTANCE OF HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT

Successful completion of the hazard identification and risk

assessment processes lay the foundation for successful

emergency management and building disaster resistant

communities. Research into identification of the actual

hazards and risks a State faces and the likelihood that these

hazards will occur is required before adequate and costeffective plans and procedures can be developed for

mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. By

creating and applying scenarios to specific hazards in areas of

risk, as well as using historical analysis, a complete Hazard

Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) can be developed to include

types of hazards, predictability, cause, speed of onset, duration, and destructive potential. This

assessment provides a solid framework upon which to build mitigation priorities at the State and

local level.

This EMF is the central foundation for all other

EMFs. The Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA)

has emerged as an area of national focus.

There were no indicated strengths by attribute.

No particular areas for improvement are indicated by the selection criteria for this EMF.

DEFINITION: The process of identifying :

situations or conditions that have the

potential of causing injury to people,

damage to property, or damage to the

environment and the assessment of the

likelihood, vulnerability, and magnitude

of incidents that could result from

exposure to hazards.

The National Average is 1.83, indicating that

this EMF is currently at the acceptable level

within the CAR’s three-level assessment system

(“normally meets the respective attribute/

characteristic”). This EMF is the key to sound

emergency management mitigation,

preparedness, and response.

Strengths By Attribute

Areas For Improvement By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 21

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Hazard Vulnerability Assessment is the central foundation

for all other EMFs.

Basic Capability By Attribute

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 2.1–A Requirements Analysis for this function has been done and is

the basis for the assessment

A Requirements Analysis involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all the

emergency management aspects for the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment function.

Attribute 2.2–Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA)

The State has completed a Statewide hazard identification to include: State’s hazard history; fully

developed risk management strategy; update and publication cycle; inventory of special needs

groups; hazard descriptions; mapping of hazard areas and environmentally and archeologically

sensitive areas; and HVA distribution.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

22 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 23

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

2.0 Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment

EMF Breakout By States

24%

61%

15%

Note: Reflects percentages of States.National Average: 1.83

2.0 Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment

Attribute Breakout

31%

53%

16%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5

Note: Reflects percentage of attributes.National Average: 1.83
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

24 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

EMF #3–HAZARD MANAGEMENT EMF #3–HAZARD MANAGEMENT

THE IMPORTANCE OF HAZARD MANAGEMENT

Once hazards have been identified and risks assessed, eliminating these hazards where possible, or

reducing their effects, is the next step in effective and cost-efficient emergency management. The

intent of hazard management is to target resources and prioritize mitigation activities to ensure that

fewer citizens, communities, businesses, and industries are

impacted by these hazards, or if impacted, are to a lesser

extent. In addition, money spent on mitigation will

significantly reduce the funds required for response and

recovery when disaster strikes.

States utilize FEMA funded programs in their

hazard management programs. Specific

programs oriented towards specific hazards or technical assistance are easily applicable and

attractive to the majority of States having those hazards. In particular, States reported that they

consistently utilize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, National Hurricane

Program, Mitigation Assistance Program, Flood Plain Management Program, Dam Safety Program,

and Technical Assistance Contracts.

Attribute 3.2–Mitigation Grants/Programs

This attribute asked about participation in the following FEMA funded programs: National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program; National Hurricane Program; Mitigation Assistance

Program; Flood Plain Management Program; Dam Safety Program; and Technical Assistance

Contracts.

34 States report that they consistently use one or more of the mitigation grants

and programs listed.

22 States consistently participate in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.

32 States consistently participate in the Mitigation Assistance Program.

29 States consistently participate in the Flood Plain Management Program.

24 States consistently participate in the Dam Safety Program.

Definition: Definition: Definition: Systematic management

approach to eliminate hazards that constitute a significant threat to the

jurisdiction or to reduce the effects of

hazards that cannot be eliminated

through a program of hazard mitigation.

The National Average

is 2.03.

Strengths By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 25

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Specific program

weaknesses are indicated

by States responding to

this attribute. Particularly needing additional work are programs in post-disaster building and fire

inspection and State insurance on public facilities and equipment. Also, additional coordination is

needed between the State’s Hazard Mitigation Plan and its Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in the

post-disaster restoration of electrical transmission and distribution systems in remote areas.

Attribute 3.4–Building and Fire Inspection Program

This attribute refers to developing and maintaining plans for a building and fire inspection

program related to response and recovery after a disaster. It includes having a plan for handling

the surge in building permit requests after a disaster, a plan for post-disaster inspections of

structures, developing a process for tagging damaged structures once inspected, and for

developing an enforcement program.

24 States report that they need additional work to develop and/or

maintain building and fire inspection programs related to

response and recovery after a disaster.

The national average for this attribute is 1.63. Forty-six (46)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Four (4) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Eighteen (18) States normally meet the

criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-four (24) States indicated that

additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Nine (9) States

indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Attribute 3.6–Status of Insurance Coverage on Public Facilities and Equipment

This attribute refers to having identified specific coverages and exclusions, as well as deductible

limitations on public facilities and equipment.

22 States report that they needed additional work to know the status of insurance coverage on their

public facilities and equipment.

The national average for this attribute is 1.70. Forty-five (45)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Eight (8) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Fifteen (15) States normally meet the

criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-two (22) States indicated that

additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Ten (10) States

indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Hazard Management is a National area for improvement.

3.4 - Building and 

Fire Inspection Program

44%

33%

7%

16%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

3.6 - Insurance Coverage on 

Public Facilities, Equipment

40%

27%

15%

18%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

Areas For Improvement By Attribute
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

26 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 3.8–The State Hazard Mitigation Plan is coordinated with the State

Emergency Plan to Consider All Alternatives for Permanent Restoration of

Electrical Transmission and Distribution Systems in Remote Areas

This attribute refers to the coordination of the State’s Hazard Mitigation Plan with the State’s

Emergency Operations Plan concerning alternatives for permanent restoration of electrical

transmission and distributions systems in remote areas.

23 States report that they need additional work in

coordinating their Hazard Mitigation Plan with their

Emergency Operations Plan concerning restoration of

electrical transmission and distribution systems in remote

areas.

The national average for this attribute is 1.50. Thirty-six

(36) States indicated that this attribute was applicable to

their State. Five (5) States indicated that the attribute

always or consistently met the criteria (>2.5). Eight (8) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and

<2.5). Twenty-three (23) States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5).

Nineteen (19) States indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 3.1–A Requirements Analysis for this function has been done and is

the basis for the assessment

A Requirements Analysis involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all the

emergency management aspects for the Hazard Management function.

Attribute 3.3–Mitigation Concepts

The State has identified, coordinated, and monitored the resources and policies that are

beneficial to their mitigation effort, including: executive and legislative support; cooperation

among State agencies; building and awareness of mitigation opportunities and techniques;

involving the private sector and other jurisdictions; developing wild land fire mitigation strategies;

and utilizing Federal resources.

Attribute 3.5–Mitigation Coordination

The State has in place the necessary committees and advisory councils, e.g., SERC, LEPC, and

working groups to aid the mitigation effort.

Attribute 3.7–Identification of Lead Agency as Risk/Hazard Monitor and

Coordinator

The State has established a lead agency that has been assigned the duties of monitoring for

hazards and risks and serves to motivate, coordinate, and monitor mitigation efforts.

3.8 - Coordination Regarding Electrical 

Systems in Remote Areas

41%

15%

9%

35%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

Basic Capability By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 27

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

28 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions 3.0 Hazard Management EMF Breakout By States 9% 78% 13% Note: Reflects percentages of States. National Average: 2.03 3.0 Hazard Management Attribute Breakout 27% 47% 26% =<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 Note: Reflects percentage of attributes. National Average: 2.03
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 29

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

EMF #4–RESOURCE MANAGEMENT EMF #4–RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

THE IMPORTANCE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Emergency response agencies and organizations manage personnel, facilities, and supplies and

equipment to accomplish their assignments. However, disasters often require more specialized

resources than the responding agencies have available.

Resource Management is a process that ranges from

determining needs to finding and staging resources to

meet these needs. Resource Management planning

involves a process to find, obtain, allocate, and distribute

resources to satisfy the needs that are generated by an

emergency.

Resource management has emerged as one of several

national priority areas for improvement.

Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program

Resources is the only attribute in this functional

area to be rated at the top level, i.e., “Always/

Consistently Meets.” States must comply with Federal regulations to receive FEMA IFG funds.

Most States report an adequate capability for Resource Identification.

Attribute 4.8–Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program Resources

This attribute involves personnel and administrative aspects of the IFG Program, such as

identifying a program manager and ensuring the program has adequate computers, office

equipment, and staffing/hiring procedures.

30 States have a capability that always or consistently meets this attribute.

39 States have identified a Grant Coordinating Officer and State IFG Program Manager.

Definition: Definition: Definition: Systematic development of

methodologies for the prompt and

effective identification, acquisition,

distribution, accounting, and use of

personnel and major items of equipment

for essential emergency functions.

The National Average

is 1.73, which makes

it the lowest rated

functional area.

Strengths By Attribute
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

30 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Equipment for

Nuclear,

Biological, and

Chemical (NBC) Terrorism was the lowest rated attribute in this lowest rated functional area. Other

attributes with low scores are Human Resource Planning, Development of Mutual Aid Compacts,

and Donated Goods and Volunteer Services.

Attribute 4.3–Human Resources Established, Maintained as a State Emergency

Plan Annex or ESF

This attribute includes designating a coordinator for Human Resources, developing standard

operating procedures, developing a training program, and establishing agreements between

State and local governments.

23 States report needing additional work on a Human Resources

Emergency Plan annex.

The national average for this attribute is 1.71. Forty-six (46)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Six (6) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Seventeen (17) States normally meet the

criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-three (23) States indicated that

additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Nine (9) States

indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Attribute 4.5–Mutual Aid Compacts

Mutual Aid Compacts are agreements involving the following written agreements for use of

private sector resources: agreements with neighboring jurisdictions; intrastate agreements (e.g.,

fire, public works, transportation, mental health); and agreements for disaster housing resources.

26 States need additional work to develop or improve their Mutual

Aid Compact agreements with the private sector or neighboring

jurisdictions.

31 States lack adequate written agreements for use of private

sector resources.

27 States report having only minimal capability for intrastate

disaster housing resources, i.e., coordinators identified, staffing

and hiring procedures, and various types of equipment.

The national average for this attribute is 1.60. Fifty-one (51)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Two (2) States indicated that the

attribute always or consistently met the criteria (>2.5). Twenty-three (23) States normally meet the

criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-six (26) States indicated that additional work is needed on this

attribute (<1.5). Four (4) States indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

4.3 - HR Established, 

Annex or ESF

42%

31%

11%

16%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

4.5 - Mutual Aid Compacts

47%

42%

4%

7%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

Areas For Improvement By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 31

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 4.6–Equipment for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Terrorism

This attribute involves the development of hazardous material (HAZMAT) teams with

specialized equipment to respond to an NBC incident. It also includes treatment

pharmaceuticals positioned at hospitals and treatment facilities in sufficient quantities to

treat mass casualties.

42 States report significant capability shortfalls for this

attribute and its characteristics.

The national average for this attribute is 1.14. Forty-seven

(47) States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their

State. One (1) State indicated that the attribute always or

consistently met the criteria (>2.5). Four (4) States normally

meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Forty-two (42) States

indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute

(<1.5). Eight (8) States indicated that this attribute was not

applicable to their State.

Attribute 4.7–Donated Goods and Volunteer Services

This attribute involves volunteer personnel registered and trained to manage donated goods,

plans to utilize untrained volunteers, and a clear understanding of the kinds of donations needed.

33 States report inadequate capability to manage Donated

Goods and Volunteer Services.

The national average for this attribute is 1.50. Fifty-one (51)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Five (5) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Thirteen (13) States normally meet the

criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Thirty-three (33) States indicated that

additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Four (4)

States indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their

State.

Disasters often require more specialized resources than

responding agencies have available.

4.6 - Equipment for NBC Terrorism

76%

7%

2%

15%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

4.7 - Donated Goods and 

Volunteer Services

60%

24%

9%

7%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

32 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Basic Capability By Attribute

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 4.1–A Requirements Analysis has been completed for this EM

function and is the basis for the assessment

This involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all of the emergency

management aspects for the Resource Management function.

Attribute 4.2–Resource Identification

Resource Identification consists of the identification of: State and local government personnel

and equipment; resources of volunteer agencies; a knowledge of Federal response capabilities;

establishing baseline cost estimates; and a schedule for updating resource lists.

Attribute 4.4–Development of Human Resource Qualifications, Standards

This attribute comprises the training, experience, certification, authorities, and abilities of

individuals involved in Resource Management.
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 33

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

34 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions 4.0 Resource Management EMF Breakout By States 20% 80% 0% Note: Reflects percentages of States. National Average: 1.73 4.0 Resource Management Attribute Breakout 45% 39% 16% =<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 Note: Reflects percentage of attributes. National Average: 1.73
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 35

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

EMF #5–PLANNING

THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING

Conducting coordinated operations in an emergency is

basically executing EOPs. The payoff in lives saved and

property preserved results from emergency forces doing the

right thing at the right time. Experience in emergencies and

disasters has shown repeatedly that when emergency plans

and procedures are known, exercised, and used by response

forces, reaction times are reduced, coordination is improved,

and the overall response and recovery measures are more

effective. However, EOPs are only one segment of the planning effort. Another key component of

planning is the development of a Mitigation Plan. This involves developing cost-effective strategies

and identifying specific opportunities to reduce risks posed by identified hazards.

Developing comprehensive emergency management plans is crucial to an effective all-hazards

and risk-based program. This section looks at

criteria for mitigation plans, EOPs, and an array of administrative plans tied to various programs.

Most of the States have had long experience in the development of these plans, and update them

regularly by folding in the results of exercise critiques and After-Action Reports (AARs) following

major disasters. It is not surprising that virtually all States report at least a basic capability in the

planning function and its 38 attributes. Attributes with the highest scores are development of the

State plan, Alerting and Notification annex, Communications annex, Law Enforcement annex, and

Military Support planning, which received the highest rating (2.63) in this functional area. Close

working relationships exist between the States and military installations located within their borders.

Attribute 5.3–State Emergency Plan

This attribute involves the development and maintenance of an all-hazard plan including: a

prescribed format for the State plan; functional annexes; hazard specific annexes (as

appropriate); a maintenance program to update the plan and annexes; and promulgation by the

chief executive.

29 States indicate that they always or consistently meet this attribute.

Definition: Definition: The collection, analysis,

and use of information, and also the

development, promulgation, and maintenance of the organization’s comprehensive emergency management plan,

action plans, and mitigation plans.

The National Average

is 2.03. Planning

ranks in the middle of

the 13 EMFs.

Strengths By Attribute
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

36 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 5.4–Function of Law Enforcement Established, Maintained as a State

Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

The law enforcement section of the State plan typically identifies: a law enforcement coordinator;

the need for a task force; inventory of law enforcement supplies and equipment; security

procedures and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) duties established.

24 States always or consistently meet the criteria for this attribute.

Attribute 5.20–Function of Military Support Established, Maintained as a State

Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

The Military Support attribute includes: the designation of a coordinator; identification of military

resources to support State and local emergency operations; description procedures to activate

plans; development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and checklists; and designation

procedures for activation of the National Guard.

39 States were assessed at 2.5 or higher, which means they always or consistently meet this

attribute.

40 States report having designated a Military Support Coordinator.

31 States assessed themselves high for describing the scope of military support responsibilities and

describing procedures for activation of military support plans.

39 States rate themselves high for development of procedures to activate the National Guard.

Attribute 5.21–Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP)

This attribute involves the development and maintenance of preparedness plans for incident

response in those jurisdictions located near chemical stockpile disposal sites.

7 of the 10 States at risk to this hazard always or consistently meet the capabilities required by this

attribute.

Attribute 5.23–Function of Alerting and Notification Established, Maintained as

a State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This function includes: developing an Alerting and Notification System; describing methods used

to notify key Governmental officials and emergency response personnel; and developing SOPs.

28 States indicate a high capability in planning for alerting and notification of officials.
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 37

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 5.26–Function of Communications Systems Established, Maintained as

a State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This attribute involves: designating a communications coordinator; developing an inventory of

communications capabilities; describing EOC and field service communications capabilities; and

creating a test and maintenance schedule to assure the communications capabilities will

effectively operate in a disaster occurrence.

24 States report they always or consistently meet this attribute.

Attribute 5.30–Function of Response and Recovery Operations Reports

Established, Maintained as a State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

Reporting on the status of emergency operations is an important element in a disaster event. This

attribute involves the development of a reporting system for local response agencies, a format for

reporting damages, a pre-scripted local proclamation of an emergency, and a draft request for

assistance.

28 States report having consistently good planning for response and recovery operations reports.

Attribute 5.32–Program Implementation for Individual & Family Grant, Public

Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs

Program implementation for these programs includes: approval by FEMA of the current State

Administrative Plan; program SOPs; closeout procedures; and a current personnel activation

plan.

28 States indicate a strong capability to implement the IFG, Performance Partnership Agreement

(PPA), and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

Developing comprehensive emergency management plans are

crucial to an effective all-hazards and risk-based program.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

38 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

There are only a

comparatively few lowrated planning areas out of

the 38 attributes in this

functional area. At least three of the five listed below are areas that have not received a lot of

attention in recent years. NBC terrorism has been widely perceived as a serious threat only

recently, after the Oklahoma City and New York World Trade Center bombings in this country, and

the sarin gas attack in Tokyo. The need for greater attention to emergency plans for animal control

emerged from the widespread flooding in Midwestern farming States in 1993. Responsibility for

disaster housing resources is currently shifting from the Federal Government to the States. Many

States have not yet begun to develop plans to manage this important element, and a significant

number of States, possibly because of their unique situation (e.g., Western States with small and

widely dispersed populations), feel they do not need to make this program a high priority.

Attribute 5.7–Function of Resource Management Established, Maintained as a

State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This attribute involves planning for resource management issues such as designation of a

Resource Coordinator, inventory of resources, operational controls, notification and activation

procedures, and establishment of an industry resource council.

23 States indicated that much more work is needed to meet this

attribute.

The national average for this attribute is 1.65. Forty-seven (47)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Five (5) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Nineteen (19) States normally meet the

criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-three (23) States indicated that

additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Eight (8)

States indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Attribute 5.16–Animal Control Program

An Animal Control Program consists of emergency veterinary services and animal disposal

procedures.

29 States indicate a serious capability shortfall for animal

control programs.

The national average for this attribute is 1.63. Fifty (50)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Nine (9) States indicated that the attribute always or

consistently met the criteria (>2.5). Twenty (12) States

normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-nine (29)

States indicated that additional work is needed on this

attribute (<1.5). Five (5) States indicated that this attribute

was not applicable to their State.

5.16 - Animal Control Program

53%

22%

16%

9%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

5.7 - Function of Resource

Management Established,

Maintained as a State

Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

41%

35%

9%

15%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

Areas For Improvement By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 39

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

5.37 - Family Emergency Preparedness 

Plans Prepared for Emergency 

Responders and EOC Personnel 

64%

15%

5%

16%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

5.28 - Restoration Plan for Essential Services; 

Utility/Industry/Government Coordination

51%

20%

11%

18%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

Attribute 5.18–Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Terrorism Plans

NBC Terrorism Plans emphasize: terrorist incident response; coordination among Federal and

Regional hazardous materials and emergency medical services agencies to identify response

support; and coordination with hospitals and treatment facilities to establish medical treatment

protocols and procedures.

35 States rate themselves at the lowest level for this attribute.

The national average for this attribute is 1.34. Forty-nine (49) States

indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Two (2) States

indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the criteria

(>2.5). Twelve (12) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5).

Thirty-five (35) States indicated that additional work is needed on this

attribute (<1.5). Six (6) States indicated that this attribute was not

applicable to their State.

Attribute 5.28–Restoration Plan for Essential Services; Utility/Industry/

Government Coordination

This attribute emphasizes the development and maintenance of a Restoration Plan for essential

services in the event of an emergency, the coordination of the plan with other appropriate

agencies, and periodic testing of the plan.

28 States indicate development of a restoration plan for essential

services as a significant deficiency.

The national average for this attribute is 1.50. Forty-five (45) States

indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Six (6)

States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the

criteria (>2.5). Eleven (11) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5).

Twenty-eight (28) States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Ten (10)

States indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Attribute 5.37–Family Emergency Preparedness Plans Prepared for Emergency

Responders and EOC Personnel

The purpose of this attribute is to develop a family emergency plan for key individuals such as

EOC personnel and emergency responders. This would be necessary for devastating or

widespread disaster events that could affect the families of key

response personnel. A plan of this nature would allow responders

to carry out their duties without worrying about the safety of their

family members.

35 States indicate a low level of capability in this area.

The national average for this attribute is 1.30. Forty-six (46) States

indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Three (3)

States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the criteria

(>2.5). Eight (8) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5).

Thirty-five (35) States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Nine (9)

States indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

5.18 - NBC Terrorism Plans

63% 22%

4%

11%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

40 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 5.38–Disaster Housing Resources Established as part of the State

Emergency Plan, Maintained as Annex or ESF

Disaster Housing Resources involves: identifying and assigning staff; identifying and budgeting

sources of funding for the State share of site development;

plan maintenance and updating; and development of SOPs

for Disaster Housing Resource (DHR) functions.

24 States rate themselves as lacking a basic capability to

manage disaster housing resources in an emergency.

The national average for this attribute is 1.31. Thirty-one (31)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Two (2) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Five (5) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-four (24)

States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Twenty-four (24) States

indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 5.1–A Requirements Analysis has been completed for this EM

function and is the basis for the assessment

A Requirements Analysis involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all of the

emergency management aspects for the Planning function.

Attribute 5.2–Mitigation Plan

This attribute consists of the development of a Mitigation Plan that normally consists of activities

such as: hazard identification and risk assessment; building and fire codes; corrective measures

applied to community development, property acquisition, flood insurance, land use planning,

public education, incentive programs, public/private partnerships, and training programs.

Attribute 5.5–Function of Donated Goods and Volunteer Services Established,

Maintained as a State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This involves such activities as: developing SOPs; developing a registration system; identifying

lead and supporting State agencies; establishing roles and responsibilities; and developing

procedures for receipt, storage, and distribution.

Attribute 5.6–Function of Food, Water Commodities Distribution (FWCD)

Established, Maintained as a State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This attribute consists of the development of policies, SOPs, inventories, distribution priorities, and

the identification of food, water, and commodities resources.

5.38 - Disaster Housing Resources 

Established, Annex or ESF

43%

4% 9%

44%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

Basic Capability By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 41

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 5.8–Plans Interface

This involves the interface of State plans with Federal Government plans, adjacent States, local

government emergency plans; and plans of business/industry and voluntary organizations.

Attribute 5.9–Planning Assistance to Schools, Business, Industry, Native

American Tribes, etc.

This attribute suggests that States provide emergency management planning assistance to

schools, businesses, industries, and Native American tribes.

Attribute 5.10–Function of Fire Protection Established, Maintained as a State

Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This attribute includes activities such as developing fire SOPs and checklists, inventory of fire

equipment, creating fire focus groups, developing mutual aid agreements, and establishing an

incident command system.

Attribute 5.11–Function of Evacuation Established, Maintained as a State

Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

Evacuation planning addresses: activation authorities; evacuation routes; modes of

transportation; access control; emergency public information; the special needs populations;

security in evacuated areas; and the return of people to their homes.

Attribute 5.12–Function of Transportation Established, Maintained as a State

Emergency Plan Annex

Transportation planning involves an inventory of transportation resources, establishing points of

contact, and developing mutual aid agreements.

Attribute 5.13–Function of Mental Health Established, Maintained as a State

Emergency Management Plan Annex

This attribute includes developing mental health plans, referral services, an inventory of mental

health agencies or groups, and developing strategies to reduce disaster worker stress.

Attribute 5.14–Function of Medical, Health, and Mortuary Established,

Maintained as a State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This planning includes developing: an inventory of medical facilities (e.g., hospitals, clinics),

supplies and personnel; and plans and procedures for public health guidelines, mortuary

services, mass casualties, recordkeeping, and the release of information to the media.

Attribute 5.15–Function of Mass Care Established, Maintained as a State

Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This attribute involves issues such as: working relationships with non-profit, public service, and

private sector organizations; mass care sites; registration systems; public inquiries;

communications; and various assistance programs for disaster victims.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

42 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 5.17–Function of Voluntary Agencies Coordination Established,

Maintained as a State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

Planning for the involvement of voluntary agencies consists of: designating points of contact;

identifying volunteer organizations; inventorying agencies’ capabilities; and developing SOPs and

checklists.

Attribute 5.19–Function of Direction, Control, and Coordination (DCC)

Established, Maintained as a State Emergency Plan Annex

This attribute includes: identifying Federal, State, local, and private sector agencies that are part

of the response organization; designating primary and alternate EOCs; establishing EOC staffing;

and developing activation procedures.

Attribute 5.22–Function of Energy and Utilities Established, Maintained as a

State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This attribute involves coordination with energy utilities; development of SOPs and checklists; and

establishing an inventory of energy resources.

Attribute 5.24–Function of Warning Established, Maintained as a State

Warning Plan

Warning consists of the following planning activities: describes methods to alert and warn the

public; identifies warning devices; describes procedures to warn special locations (schools,

hospitals, etc.); defines warning signals; specifies the authorities to activate warning systems;

and addresses a schedule to test and maintain equipment and train personnel.

Attribute 5.25–Function of Emergency Public Information Established,

Maintained as a State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This attribute addresses the designation of a Public Information Officer; the development of a

Joint Information Center for the media in major disasters; the development of SOPs and

checklists; and the description of a system for handling information.

Attribute 5.27–Function of Individual Assistance Established, Maintained as a

State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

Individual Assistance involves: cataloging State, Federal, and volunteer assistance programs;

developing SOPs for the Individual and Family Grant (IFG) program; and identifying resources for

disaster housing assistance.

Attribute 5.29–Vital Records for Continuity of Government Established and

Maintained

This attribute provides for the preservation of vital public records by: identifying vital records

required for preservation; developing a capability for alternate storage; and preserving vital

records and backups of critical ADP systems.
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 43

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 5.31–Function of Damage Assessment Established, Maintained as a

State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

Planning for Damage Assessment involves the following: assigning agencies/individuals to

conduct damage assessment; developing procedures for integrating Federal and State damage

assessment teams; and using technological capabilities to support the assessment function.

Attribute 5.33–Function of Search and Rescue Established, Maintained as a State

Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

The attribute for Search and Rescue consists of the following: designating a SAR coordinator;

establishing a task force; providing training and equipment to registered volunteers; creating

checklists; and developing mutual aid agreements.

Attribute 5.34–Function of Emergency Engineering Services (ESS) Established,

Maintained as a State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

This attribute involves designating an engineering coordinator; inventorying equipment; and

developing SOPs and mutual aid agreements.

Attribute 5.35–Function of In-Place Shelter Established, Maintained as a State

Emergency Plan Annex

Shelter planning includes developing public service announcements and coordinating shelter

actions with the Emergency Alert System and warning functions.

Attribute 5.36–SARA Title III Program

The SARA Title III Program involves establishing Local Emergency Preparedness Committees and

developing State and local community hazardous materials preparedness programs.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

44 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 45

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

46 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 47

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

5.0 Planning

EMF Breakout By States

7%

84%

9%

Note: Reflects percentages of States.National Average: 2.03

5.0 Planning

Attribute Breakout

26%

44%

30%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5

Note: Reflects percentage of attributes.National Average: 2.03
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

48 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

EMF #6–DIRECTION, CONTROL, AND COORDINATION (DCC) TION (DCC) TION (DCC)

THE IMPORTANCE OF DIRECTION, CONTROL, AND COORDINATION

Direction, Control, and Coordination (DCC) is a critical emergency management function. During

the phases (pre-, trans-, and post-) of the emergency response effort, it allows officials to

(1) analyze the emergency situation and decide how to respond quickly, appropriately, and

effectively; (2) direct and coordinate the efforts of the

jurisdiction’s various response forces; (3) coordinate with the

response efforts of other jurisdictions; and (4) use available

resources efficiently and effectively.

The scores for most of the attributes in the DCC

functional area indicate that most of the States

have at least a basic capability in this functional

area. The strongest attribute is the Ability to Activate the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).

Most States have had extensive experience in activating their EOCs. Most States also have

experience in requesting implementation of the Individual and Family Grant, Public Assistance, and

Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs.

Attribute 6.3–Have Demonstrated Ability of the EOC to Activate

This attribute includes functions such as crisis action teams, managing requests for outside

assistance, developing the declaration process, establishing policies and priorities, defining

primary EOC functions, and establishing On-Site Incident Management capability.

30 States indicate a high level of ability to activate the EOC and its primary functions.

34 States indicate a strong capability in the Disaster Declaration Process.

Attribute 6.10–Governor Requests IFG/PA/HMGP Program Implementation

This attribute centers on the infrastructure established for these programs and relationships

concerning financial, human resources, and public information activities with other State

agencies.

40 States indicate a strong capability to request and administer the Individual and Family Grants,

Public Assistance (PA), and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs.

Definition: Definition: Definition: Development of the

capability for the chief executive and key

officials to direct, control, and coordinate response and recovery operations.

The National Average

is 2.08.

Strengths By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 49

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

While more planning and

coordination work needs

to be accomplished

between State emergency

management agencies and the private sector, it would appear that State planning for Disaster

Housing Resources represents the most significant shortfall in this functional area. FEMA policy is

moving away from providing mobile homes for disaster victims, thereby giving the States more

responsibility for disaster housing. States are just getting started in this area. It is interesting that 19

of the 56 respondents mark the Disaster Housing Resources attribute Not Applicable (N/A).

Attribute 6.8–Private Sector: Coordination with State Emergency Management

Agency

This involves consistent coordination between the State emergency management agency and

private sector organizations including regular meetings, the exchange of information, review of

emergency roles and procedures, and updating mutual aid agreements.

32 States indicate they require a much greater effort to improve

this attribute.

The national average for this attribute is 1.42. Fifty (50) States

indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Three

(3) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met

the criteria (>2.5). Fifteen (15) States normally meet the criteria

(>1.5 and <2.5). Thirty-two (32) States indicated that additional

work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Five (5) States indicated

that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Attribute 6.11–Disaster Housing Resources

This attribute involves the development of lead State element responsibilities and a description of

coordination structure and job descriptions by level, i.e., State, sub-state (area, region), county,

and municipality.

26 States indicate a low capability, one that needs additional

work to meet the attribute.

The national average for this attribute is 1.40. Thirty-six (36)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Three (3) States indicated that the attribute always or

consistently met the criteria (>2.5). Seven (7) States normally

meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-six (26) States

indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5).

Nineteen (19) States indicated that this attribute was not

applicable to their State.

Direction, control, and coordination is the linchpin to

emergency management continuity of operations.

6.8 - Private Sector: 

Coordination Between 

State EM Agency and:

27% 59%

5%

9%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

6.11 - Disaster Housing Resources

47%

13%

5%

35%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

Areas For Improvement By Attribute
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

50 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Basic Capability By Attribute

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 6.1–A Requirements Analysis has been completed for this EM

function and is the basis for the assessment

A Requirements Analysis involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all of the

emergency management aspects for the Direction, Control, and Coordination function.

Attribute 6.2–EOC Plans, Procedures Used

This attribute involves developing operations planning manuals and guides for: EOC staff

procedures; activation; alert and notification; EOC operations; communications; information

handling; recordkeeping; agency coordination; interface with FEMA; security; reporting; and

training and exercises.

Attribute 6.4–Intrastate Coordination Between State and EM Agency and Other

Agencies

This attribute addresses coordination between the State emergency management agency and

elected officials, other State agencies, the media, business and industry, municipalities, and civic

and professional organizations.

Attribute 6.5–Interstate Coordination with the State EM Agency

This involves coordination between the State EM agency and neighboring jurisdictions including:

regular meetings; review of roles and responsibilities; and review of mutual aid agreements and

interstate compacts.

Attribute 6.6–Federal Coordination with the State EM Agency

This attribute involves coordination between the State and Federal agencies including regular

meetings, review of emergency roles and procedures, and coordination of mutual aid

agreements.

Attribute 6.7–Volunteer Organizations Coordination with State EM Agency

This attribute involves coordination between the State and volunteer agencies including regular

meetings, review of emergency roles and procedures, and coordination of mutual aid

agreements.

Attribute 6.9–Crisis Management

Crisis Management involves the development of standard operating procedures for the

emergency decision making process and notification.
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 51

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

52 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions 6.0 Direction, Control & Coordination EMF Breakout By States 9% 73% 18% Note: Reflects percentages of States. National Average: 2.08 6.0 Direction, Control & Coordination Attribute Breakout 24% 44% 32% =<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 Note: Reflects percentage of attributes. National Average: 2.08
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 53

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

EMF #7–COMMUNICATIONS AND WARNING

THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION AND WARNING

During periods of extreme national emergency, reliable communications are required not only to

enable the President to reassure and give direction to the American people, but also to afford the

Federal, State, and local emergency managers the

opportunity to perform their critical missions. Consequently,

there is a continuing requirement for adequate communications capability at all levels of the Government to meet this

need.

Communications and warning are separate yet integrated

critical functions associated with emergency management.

From a disaster operations standpoint, it is a widely known

fact that without an ability to communicate you lack the

ability to manage and control the situation at hand. With

enormous disaster costs (multi-billion dollars a year), different types and greater magnitudes of

disasters, and with disasters requiring more sophisticated and more timely responses than in the

past, the Federal/State emergency management partners must possess the requisite capability to

effectively manage and control disasters. This operational control allows for the emergency

responders at all levels to help prevent the loss of

life and property.

Of all data assessed within 56 States, the overall

rating for Communications and Warning is 2.09,

indicating that this capability is currently at the

acceptable level within the Capability Assessment

for Readiness (CAR) three-level rating system

(“normally meets the respective attribute/characteristic”).

Definition: Definition: Development and maintenance of a reliable communications

capability to alert public officials and

emergency response personnel, warn

the public, and effectively manage

response to an actual or impending

emergency.

The National

Average is 2.09.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

54 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

The vast majority of the nation has an effective

warning system in place to protect its citizens.

With the clear need to identify threats to the

population, along with the need to properly use limited first responder resources, this is a critical

aspect of emergency management that must remain a priority item. While no strengths were

identified at the attribute level, numerous strengths exist at the characteristic level.

The use of the

Geographical Information

System (GIS) has become

an integral part of assessment and reporting in part to understand more accurately what is needed and when. The full

potential of GIS applications has not yet been realized. Shared use between State, local, and Federal

responders will greatly help to improve our methods of applying this important technology. GIS

use, or lack thereof, should be included in post-event evaluations.

Attribute 7.4–Computer-Based Communications Systems with Shared Mapping

Systems

Adequate automated data processing capability to perform necessary emergency operations at

the State and local levels of government.

28 States reported their computer-based

communication systems with shared mapping systems

capability need improvement.

23 States have a weak automated GIS capability.

26 States have a weak automated Global Positioning

System (GPS) capability.

The national average for this attribute is 1.55. Fiftyone (51) States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Four (4) States indicated

that the attribute always or consistently met the criteria (>2.5). Nineteen (19) States normally meet

the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-eight (28) States indicated that additional work is needed on

this attribute (<1.5). Four (4) States indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Strengths By Attribute

7.4 - Computer Based 

Communications Systems 

With Shared Mapping Systems

35% 51%

7%

7%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

Without communications you lack the ability

to manage and control.

Areas For Improvement By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 55

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 7.1–A Requirements Analysis has been completed for this EM

function and is the basis for the assessment

A Requirements Analysis involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all of the

emergency management aspects for the Communications and Warning function.

Attribute 7.2–Demonstrated Warning System Capability

State testing of Warning System hardware and/or software to ensure proper operability.

Attribute 7.3–Disaster Effects Reporting Process; Demonstrated Ability to

Communicate

State actual testing of various communications capabilities.

Attribute 7.5–Demonstrated Ability to Use the Various Features of State Warning

Systems

State actual testing of various Warning Systems.

Attribute 7.6–Demonstrated Communications Connectivity

State testing of all necessary emergency management communications connections.

Attribute 7.7–Features of Communications Systems Have Demonstrated Ability

to Acquire and Deploy Personnel, Equipment, and Resources in Support of

Disaster Operations

State demonstrated ability to coordinate available State, Federal, and local communications

systems and equipment and ensure connectivity.

Attribute 7.8–States Demonstrated Ability to Operate Various Communication

Systems

The States demonstrate their professional ability to effectively operate HF, VHF, UHF, Microwave,

Repeaters, Meteor Burst, Commercial switched telephones/computers/data, and the four primary

Satellite communications capabilities.

Basic Capability Capability Capability Capability By Attribute Attribute Attribute Attribute
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

56 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 57

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

7.0 Communications & Warning

EMF Breakout By States

9%

75%

16%

Note: Reflects percentages of States.National Average: 2.09

7.0 Communications & Warning

Attribute Breakout

22%

48%

30%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5

Note: Reflects percentage of attributes.National Average: 2.09
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

58 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

EMF #8–OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES TIONS AND PROCEDURES

THE IMPORTANCE OF OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES

Development, coordination, and implementation of

operational policies, plans, and procedures are fundamental

to the State emergency management organization. It is

through successfully meeting this function that the State

emergency management structure is able to mitigate,

prepare, respond,

and recover from

disasters. It is also through this function that the State

emergency management organization coordinates with

Federal, local, and private emergency organizations and

services.

States report having many strong attributes in their

disaster operations and procedures. For example,

many States report they have a demonstrated

capability to establish operations and procedures after a disaster, based on lessons learned. They

can work closely with the National Guard and Federal military forces; are able to request a

Presidential Disaster Declaration; and work closely with Federal representatives to implement the

IFG, Individual Assistance, Public Assistance programs, and mental health services. Finally, States

have established important positions in the Federal Disaster Field Office (DFO) to represent the

State Governor, coordinate disaster response, and interact with the media.

Attribute 8.7–Demonstrated Features of Military Support

This attribute refers to the demonstrated capability to use the National Guard and active Federal

military units in support of a disaster response. These forces would work in coordination with

civilian government and private entities.

31 States report meeting this attribute consistently, utilizing both the National Guard and active

Federal military units in their Disaster Response activities.

37 States report a strong capability to utilize the National Guard.

Attribute 8.9–States Have Demonstrated Ability to Utilize an Individual and

Family Grant Program State Administrative Plan

This attribute refers to having developed an IFG State Administrative Plan and utilized it in disaster

recovery. IFG awards are made to eligible applicants for disaster-related needs.

29 States report a capability to consistently meet this attribute with a developed IFG State

Administrative Plan to be implemented during disaster recovery.

28 States have a current SOP for activating their IFG State Administrative Plan.

26 States report having established and utilized a relationship with the National Processing Services

Center (NPSC), which transmits applications to States for processing.

Definition: Definition: Development, coordination, and implementation of operational policies, plans, and procedures

for emergency management.

The National Average is 2.13,

which means that States believe

they can normally meet the

attributes for this function.

Strengths By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 59

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 8.11–Demonstrated Ability to Provide Mental Health Services

Provision of mental health services is an important part of any major disaster response due to the

mental stress resulting from property loss and even the loss of loved ones. This attribute refers to

the demonstrated ability to assess needs for mental health services and provide such services in

a post-disaster setting.

28 States report a capability to consistently meet this attribute, demonstrating a capability for

providing mental health services after a disaster.

22 States report a capability in crisis counseling to meet mental health needs of victims after a

disaster.

Attribute 8.15–Demonstrated Ability to Respond to a Disaster Involving

Hazardous Materials

Hazardous materials pervade modern society and can be involved in a wide variety of disasters

resulting from floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. This attribute refers to a demonstrated ability

to respond to disasters involving hazardous materials.

26 States report a strong capability in responding to emergencies involving hazardous materials.

20 States have established environmental protection guidance for responding to disasters involving

hazardous materials.

Attribute 8.19–Demonstrated Ability to Provide Fire Protection

Having a demonstrated ability to provide fire protection involves the ability to coordinate services

and supplies at the State level and also to coordinate these services and supplies with local

providers.

28 States report a strong capability for providing fire protection.

25 States report they consistently coordinate with local governments to support them in detection

and suppression of fires.

26 States report strong capabilities to mobilize and provide personnel, equipment, and supplies in

response to fire protection and suppression.

Attribute 8.21–Ability to Request Presidential Disaster Declaration

An ability to request a Presidential Disaster Declaration is extremely important when a disaster

exceeds the response capabilities of affected local and State governments.

48 States report a strong capability to consistently request a coordinated Presidential Disaster

Declaration when State capabilities for responding are exceeded.

33 States report a strong capability to develop the required initial damage estimate.

38 States report they also are consistently able to request joint Federal/State/local Preliminary

Damage Assessments.

36 States report a strong capability to conduct joint Federal/State/local Preliminary Damage

Assessments.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

60 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 8.22–Demonstrated Ability to Use Procedures for Public Assistance in

Disaster Programs

Public Assistance is a crucial component of disaster response where significant and costly

public facilities and resources have been damaged or destroyed. There are specific procedures

that must be followed for funds to be allocated under this program. Effective and efficient use of

this program is dependent upon use of these procedures.

35 States report they are consistently able to administer the Public Assistance program effectively,

in partnership with FEMA, so that Federal/State Public Assistance funding is provided to local

jurisdictions.

25 States report the ability to use the required procedures for Public Assistance consistently and

accurately.

Attribute 8.23–Demonstrated Ability to Use Procedures for Individual Assistance

in Disaster Programs

Individual Assistance is also a crucial component of disaster recovery where individuals have

disaster-related losses and needs. The Individual Assistance program provides financial

assistance to these individuals. There are specific procedures based on specific eligibility

requirements for receiving Individual Assistance.

28 States report consistently demonstrating their ability to use procedures for Individual Assistance

in a disaster situation.

22 States report consistently using the required procedures for Individual Assistance in a timely

fashion.

Attribute 8.26–State Disaster Organization Position Descriptions Established for

a Federal Disaster Field Office

In a large Presidentially declared disaster, the State and Federal Government work closely

together in response to its consequences. To do this successfully, the State has to have

representatives at the Federal Disaster Field Office (DFO) to represent its interests.

26 States consistently have position descriptions established for State disaster organization

representatives in the DFO.

30 States have a Governor’s Authorized Representative established in the Federal DFO.

30 States have a State Coordinating Officer position established at the DFO to assist in coordinating

the State’s response to the disaster in conjunction with the Federal response.

25 States have a Hazard Mitigation Officer position established at the Federal DFO to coordinate

post-disaster mitigation activities aimed at making facilities and structures less vulnerable in the

future.

26 States have a State Public Information Officer (PIO) position established at the Federal DFO to

coordinate with Federal representatives on release to the media of information concerning the

disaster.
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 61

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

The need for improvements in Operations and Procedures is reported for a few specific areas.

Particularly, establishing operations to deal with donated goods and volunteer services needs

additional work by States. In addition, half the States report also needing additional work in

procedures for dealing with animal populations in disasters, Staff Action Guides for DFOs, and

community relations. Finally, some States report needing additional work concerning developing

and implementing a debris removal program and in planning for maintaining and terminating

temporary housing.

Attribute 8.4–Demonstrated Ability to Provide Operations Concerning Donated

Goods and Volunteer Services

This attribute refers to the demonstrated capability for establishing and maintaining operational

capabilities for dealing with unsolicited donated goods and working with the various volunteer

services that are a significant part of every major disaster response. Such goods and services

supplement the support provided by local, State, and Federal sources.

27 States report that they need additional work to establish and maintain an operational capability

for dealing with donated goods and working with volunteer services.

25 States report needing additional work in establishing an

inventory and database concerning services and goods available.

23 States report needing work in establishing procedures to get

volunteers and donations to areas of need.

20 States report needing additional work in establishing phone

banks for disaster victims and response workers.

The national average for this attribute is 1.55. Forty-three (43)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Five (5) States indicated that the

attribute always or consistently met the criteria (>2.5). Sixteen (16) States normally meet the criteria

(>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-seven (27) States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute

(<1.5). Seven (7) States indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Areas For Improvement By Attribute

8.4 - Donated Goods and 

Volunteer Services Operations, 

Have Demonstrated Ability to Provide: 

49%

29%

9%

13%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

62 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 8.25–Have Demonstrated Ability to Coordinate an Animal Population

Program in Disaster Situations

Programs to deal with animal populations after a disaster are important in both rural and urban

areas. When disaster strikes in rural areas there can be large negative economic and health

consequences if there is no coordinated program for animal populations. Appropriate treatment

or disposal of animals, especially large farm animals, can be a serious resource requirement

during a disaster. In urban areas, the need to have an animal control program is also important.

For example, reuniting pets with their owners can be a very

positive post-disaster event for owners.

29 States report that their ability to coordinate an animal

population program needs additional work.

22 States report needing additional work concerning procedures

for coordinating water, food, shelter, medical supplies, and

medical care for animal populations.

23 States report needing additional work concerning coordinating

rescue/capture of animals after a disaster.

The national average for this attribute is 1.37. Forty-five (45) States indicated that this attribute was

applicable to their State. Zero (0) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the

criteria (>2.5). Sixteen (16) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-nine (29)

States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Ten (10) States indicated that

this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Attribute 8.30–Debris Removal Program

After a large disaster, effective and efficient debris removal (including debris clearance) is key to

getting disaster assistance personnel and material into the stricken area quickly and later

restoring the area. Approaches to solving debris removal must include environmental

considerations.

22 States report that their debris removal program needs additional

work.

The national average for this attribute is 1.67. Forty-five (45)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Five (5) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Eighteen (18) States normally meet the

criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-two (22) States indicated that

additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Ten (10) States

indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

When disaster strikes in rural areas, there can be large negative

economic and health consequences if there is no

coordinated program for animal populations.

8.25 - Coordination of 

Animal Populations

53%

29%

0%

18%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

8.30 - Debris Removal Program

40%

33%

9%

18%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 63

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 8.38–Disaster Field Office has a Community Relations Program

Throughout a disaster response, the Community Relations function coordinates with State and

local jurisdictions to identify community leaders (e.g., grassroots, political, religious, educational,

business, labor, and ethnic) and neighborhood advocacy groups. These groups assist in the

rapid dissemination of information, the identification of unmet needs, establishment of an ongoing

dialogue and information exchange, and in facilitating collaborative Federal, State, and local

planning and mutual support for disaster recovery. This coordination process is greatly

enhanced when the State has a well developed Community Relations capability that can operate

in conjunction with the Federal response and recovery effort.

21 States report they need additional work including a community

relations program in the DFO.

The national average for this attribute is 1.66. Forty (40) States

indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Six (6)

States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the

criteria (>2.5). Thirteen (13) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5

and <2.5). Twenty-one (21) States indicated that additional work is

needed on this attribute (<1.5). Fifteen (15) States indicated that this

attribute was not applicable to their State.

Attribute 8.43–Disaster Housing Resources Mission Implementation

Following a disaster, the provision of housing is a crucial requirement for those victims whose

houses have been destroyed or damaged to such an extent that they cannot be inhabited until

repairs are made. The provision of housing units (mobile homes/travel trailers) is one way to

provide such temporary housing, if there is no available vacant housing suitable for occupancy.

18 States report needing to conduct additional work to provide disaster housing resources.

14 States report that they need additional work in conducting a needs assessment for housing units,

doing site assessments for the units, and identifying, establishing, and managing staging areas.

14 States report that they also need additional work in unit

maintenance during occupancy and in termination of housing

assistance and in tenant eviction procedures.

The national average for this attribute is 1.50. Thirty-two (32)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Two (2) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Twelve (12) States normally meet the

criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Eighteen (18) States indicated that

additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Twenty-three

(23) States indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their

State.

8.43 - Disaster Housing Resources 

Mission Implementation

33%

4% 22%

41%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

8.38 - Community Relations 

Program Conducted at DFO

38%

24%

11%

27%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

64 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 8.1–A Requirements Analysis has been completed for this EM

function and is the basis for the assessment

A Requirements Analysis involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all of the

emergency management aspects for the Operations and Procedures function.

Attribute 8.2–State Mitigation Program Implementation

Requires the establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive mitigation program including

identifying potential hazards, assessing State capabilities and developing short- and long-range

mitigation objectives and strategies that can be funded, implemented, and maintained.

Attribute 8.3–Law Enforcement Operations

Requires a demonstrated ability to support and coordinate law enforcement operations with the

National Guard and local law enforcement officials to ensure public warning, traffic and crowd

control, first aid and search and rescue, evacuation procedures, and communications

connectivity can be conducted or maintained.

Attribute 8.5–Features of Mass Care

Requires a demonstrated ability to coordinate mass care with local governments and provide for

individual needs in such areas as food, shelter, medical and social services support, and

sanitation.

Attribute 8.6–Features of Transportation

Requires a demonstrated ability to provide air, land, rail, and water transportation for resources,

emergency responders, and victims.

Attribute 8.8–Features of Volunteer Agency Affairs (VAA)

Requires a demonstrated ability for States to coordinate Volunteer Agencies’ provision and

transport of food and water, and their provision of counseling and information services.

Attribute 8.10–Emergency Resource Management Operations

Requires the demonstrated ability to identify unmet disaster needs and analyze needed

resources, as well as the direction and control of these resources to meet identified needs.

Attribute 8.12–Features of Damage Assessment

Requires the demonstrated ability to ensure that pre-disaster maps, photos, and other documents

are available and that damage assessment teams can be deployed to collect damage

information and produce damage assessments.

Basic Capability By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 65

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 8.13–Features of Search and Rescue

Requires a demonstrated ability to support search and rescue teams that can locate, extricate,

and provide medical aid to disaster victims.

Attribute 8.14–Features of Medical, Health, and Mortuary (MH&M)

Requires a demonstrated ability to support and provide public health services including disease,

vector, and waste control; the treatment of victims; and the provision of mortuary services.

Attribute 8.16–Features of Evacuation

Requires the ability to support provision of warning, notification, alerting, and transportation out of

an endangered area, and then re-entry into the evacuation area after the danger has passed.

Attribute 8.17–Incident Command System (ICS)

Requires the ability to use the Incident Command System (ICS) to manage disaster operations.

Attribute 8.18–Use of State Response Staff Action Guides and Field Operations

Guides

Guides for State response and field operations are very useful in emergency disaster situations

where all personnel are heavily committed. Such guides list what is expected and needed, and

enable effective use of staff and resources in disaster situations. They are useful tools in

rostering critical personnel. In addition, such guides are valuable for training and exercises.

Attribute 8.20–Features of In-Place Shelter

Requires the ability to support local governments’ “Shelter In-Place” programs and in those

CSEPP areas, and provide zone-specific information.

Attribute 8.24–Features of Special Populations

Requires the ability to identify and locate special populations, evacuate them, if necessary, and

provide emergency medical care, water, food, and shelter, if required.

Attribute 8.27–Training Provided to State DFO Staff

Requires that training be provided to State staff assigned to a DFO.

Attribute 8.28–State Interface with Federal Emergency Response Team

Requires that States are able to interface with Federal Emergency Response Teams in such

areas as information and planning, transportation, communications, public works, public

information, firefighting, mass care, food, health, and medical.

Attribute 8.29–Features of Response and Recovery Operations Reports

Requires the demonstrated ability to develop response and recovery reports that include

situation reports, including status on personnel, equipment, and facilities, and the development of

action plans.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

66 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 8.31–Recovery Functions

Requires that recovery plans have been developed, procedures for conducting damage

assessments are established, and recovery staff mobilized.

Attribute 8.32–Corrective Actions Initiated

Requires that post-emergency/disaster critiques and debriefings take place and procedures for

modifying emergency organizations and programs be based on lessons learned.

Attribute 8.33–Features of Energy and Utilities

Requires the demonstrated ability to identify emergency and restoration energy needs, and meet

these needs by providing the required manpower, materials, and equipment through coordination

with the private sector.

Attribute 8.34–Features of Emergency Engineering Services (EES)

Requires the ability to support the identification of damage to transportation and utility systems,

and their emergency repair, closure, or restoration. Also requires the ability to support flood

control efforts.

Attribute 8.35–State Mitigation Program Implemented

Requires the ability to perform benefit/cost analysis, inform citizens about hazards and risk

reduction, and administer pre- and post-disaster mitigation project grants.

Attribute 8.36–Features of Human Resources

Requires the demonstrated ability to obtain the required number of employees in a disaster

situation either by recalling off-duty staff, hiring temporary workers, and/or obtaining volunteers.

Attribute 8.37–Features of Emergency Public Information

Requires the demonstrated ability to coordinate and disseminate information to the public,

monitor media reports, and respond to media inquiries.

Attribute 8.39–Features of Shelter

Requires the demonstrated ability to identify, stock, and staff emergency shelters.

Attribute 8.40–State Human Services Staffing Established at DFO

Requires the ability to provide human services staffing in the areas such as assistance, housing

disaster loans, IFG programs, and crisis counseling.

Attribute 8.42–Ability to Request Fire Suppression Assistance Program

Requires the ability to follow specific procedures when applying for a Fire Suppression

Assistance Declaration and to coordinate with FEMA.
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 67

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

68 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 69

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

70 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 71

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

8.0 Operations & Procedures

EMF Breakout By States

4%

92%

4%

Note: Reflects percentages of States.National Average: 2.13

8.0 Operations & Procedures

Attribute Breakout

17%

51%

32%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5

Note: Reflects percentage of attributes.National Average: 2.13
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

72 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

EMF #9–LOGISTICS AND FACILITIES

THE IMPORTANCE OF LOGISTICS AND FACILITIES

Logistics and facilities are fundamental to successful

emergency management. After a disaster, local sources of

supplies can be damaged or destroyed. Many facilities in

the disaster area can also be damaged or destroyed, while

temporary facilities must be established to support a large

influx of local, State, Federal, non-Governmental, and

private sector responders. Logistics support needs to be

brought in from the outside. Storage of critical items or

pre-identification of sources for critical items is needed to

ensure timely response of life sustaining items. Facilities

able to withstand the possible disasters in the area should

also be pre-identified to allow rapid occupation by

emergency responders.

Logistics and Facilities has emerged as one of several

national priority areas for improvement.

Radiological monitoring support is the only logistics

attribute that States reported being able to meet

consistently. The possible consequences due to the lack of monitoring and lack of quick utilization

of monitoring data during an incident involving a nuclear facility are well known and could be

severe. This capability is a high priority in those States having nuclear facilities.

Attribute 9.10–Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Incident

Monitoring

Capability to monitor a nuclear incident, analyze data, and coordinate results with authorities to

help ensure protection of the population.

30 States report strong capability to monitor a nuclear incident, analyze the data, and coordinate the

results with authorities and the media.

21 States report having the capability to directly monitor the nuclear facility from a nearby off-site

facility.

22 States report having a central point for the receipt, analysis, and coordination of field monitoring

data and for dealing with the media.

Definition: Definition: Identification, location,

acquisition, distribution, and

accounting for services, resources,

materials, and facilities to support

emergency management. Logistics

actions fall into one of four major

categories: material management,

property management, facility management, and transportation management.

The National Average

is 1.89.

Strengths By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 73

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

States report that they

need additional work in a

wide variety of logistics

areas essential to effective,

efficient, timely, and accountable emergency management. Critical logistics areas need additional

work (e.g., acquiring, transporting, storing, and accounting for commodities). As a result, this

often means that key items needed for disaster operations either are not available, arrive late, are

inappropriate due to inaccurate requirements, or are perhaps lost. The need for additional

planning, checklists, and SOPs further exacerbates the logistical problems. Finally, States note a

lack of funds to support logistics operations. They report that some of these problems have been

particularly evident in their logistics support for the program areas of donated goods and

temporary disaster housing.

Attribute 9.6–Identification/Pre-Designation of Shelters

The identification and official designation of shelters before a disaster.

18 States reported needing additional work in identifying and

designating shelters before a disaster.

16 States need additional work in developing maps of shelters by

jurisdiction, including shelter addresses.

The national average for this attribute is 1.76. Thirty-eight (38)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Nine (9) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Eleven (11) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Eighteen (18)

States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Seventeen (17) States

indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Attribute 9.8–Demonstrated Ability to Provide Donated Goods and Volunteer

Services

The capability to perform logistics functions in support of the management and delivery of

donated goods and volunteer services. Such activities include management, storage,

distribution, and collection of donated goods.

28 States report that their capability to provide logistics support

for donated goods and volunteer services during a disaster

needs additional work.

19 States report needing additional work in the storage and

distribution of donated goods.

The national average for this attribute is 1.56. Fifty (50) States

indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Six (6) States indicated that the attribute

always or consistently met the criteria (>2.5). Sixteen (16) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5

and <2.5). Twenty-eight (28) States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5).

Five (5) States indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Areas For Improvement By Attribute

States note a lack of funds to support logistics operations.

9.6 - Identification/

Predesignation of Shelters

33%

20% 16%

31%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

9.8 - Donated Goods and Volunteer Services, 

Have Demonstrated Ability to Provide:

51%

29%

11%

9%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

74 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 9.11–General Facility Operations

The identification, setup, and initial operations of critical temporary facilities established in or

near the disaster area to support disaster operations.

24 States report needing additional work in general facility operations.

21 States report needing additional work in pre-identification of temporary warehouses, arrival

points, field offices, and command posts.

The national average for this attribute is 1.57. Forty-one (41) States

indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Six (6)

States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the

criteria (>2.5). Eleven (11) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5

and <2.5). Twenty-four (24) States indicated that additional work is

needed on this attribute (<1.5). Fourteen (14) States indicated that

this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Attribute 9.12–Transportation and Coordination

Sources of, and coordination of, transportation assets constitute an important component of

logistics management. Transportation occurs into and out of the disaster area as well as within

the disaster area itself. Also, different modes of transportation need to be considered such as air,

rail, ground, and maritime. Pre-identification of multi-modal transportation sources, establishment

of agreements to obtain these assets rapidly, and development of movement plans for known

possible disasters help to fulfill this attribute’s requirement. Moving commodities and teams

during disaster operations is expensive. Sensible planning and execution of transportation

activities can save taxpayer dollars while ensuring a more timely delivery of critical assets.

23 States report that they need additional work in the transportation and coordination area.

27 States report needing to do additional work to have contracts in

place for moving stored commodities in response to a disaster.

The national average for this attribute is 1.70. Forty-three (43)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Four (4) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Twenty-one (21) States normally meet the

criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-three (23) States indicated that

additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Seven (7) States

indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

9.11 - General Facility Operations

44%

20%

11%

25%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

9.12 - Transportation 

and Coordination

42%

38%

7%

13%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 75

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 9.13–Logistics Plans/Procedures

Logistics planning and the development of logistics procedures need to be done in advance of a

disaster. During disaster operations, it is difficult to develop plans and work out procedures as to

how to obtain items, move them, store them, and account for them.

34 States report needing additional work in logistics plans and

procedures.

24 States report that logistics position descriptions and checklists

for logistics teams need further development.

20 States report needing additional work in developing SOPs for

resource ordering, sourcing, transporting, storing, and accounting

for logistics items.

The national average for this attribute is 1.47. Forty-two (42) States indicated that this attribute was

applicable to their State. Four (4) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the

criteria (>2.5). Nine (9) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Thirty-four (34) States

indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Eight (8) States indicated that this

attribute was not applicable to their State.

Attribute 9.14–Resource Inventory Process

Inventories of commodities moved into the disaster area can quickly accumulate. In addition,

inventories of items commonly needed in disaster response are often stored in anticipation of a

disaster. A resource inventory process is needed to monitor the location and availability of

resources and to track the movement of commodities and teams through the system. This will aid

logistics personnel in their efforts to receive goods and teams, distribute stock, anticipate

shortfalls, alert officials when critical stock levels are reached, order commodities, account for

property, and retrieve property at the conclusion of an operational activity.

24 States report that they need additional work in the resource

inventory process.

15 States report needing to conduct additional work in writing

SOPs for their resource inventory process and in automating this

process.

17 States report needing additional work in identifying critical

stocking levels for logistics items.

The national average for this attribute is 1.62. Forty-four (44) States indicated that this attribute was

applicable to their State. Six (6) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the

criteria (>2.5). Fourteen (14) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-four (24)

States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Eleven (11) States indicated

that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

9.13 - Logistics Plans/Procedures

16% 62%

7%

15%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

9.14 - Resource Inventory Process

44%

25%

11%

20%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

76 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 9.15–Storage and Warehousing

The identification, operation, and maintenance of warehouse facilities needed for storing critical

resources in preparation for disasters. Storage and warehouse activities specific to the disaster

field operation are covered in Attribute 9.11 above.

22 States report that they need additional work in storage and

warehousing critical resources.

The national average for this attribute is 1.66. Forty-one (41) States

indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Eight (8)

States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the

criteria (>2.5). Eleven (11) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5

and <2.5). Twenty-two (22) States indicated that additional work is

needed on this attribute (<1.5). Fourteen (14) States indicated that this attribute was not applicable

to their State.

Attribute 9.17–Resource Sourcing

Development of standby contracts and agreements with Governmental organizations, identifying

multiple sources of critical commodities, and identifying means to fill typical requirements costs

effectively.

25 States report that they need additional work in resource sourcing

of critical commodities or services.

20 States report needing work in establishing standby contracts to

obtain critical commodities or services.

The national average for this attribute is 1.71. Forty-six (46) States

indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Ten (10)

States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the criteria (>2.5). Eleven (11) States

normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-five (25) States indicated that additional

work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Nine (9) States indicated that this attribute was not

applicable to their State.

Attribute 9.18–Asset Visibility

The ability to track and account for assets as they are sourced, ordered, transported, received,

issued, and retrieved, using specific processes and tools (e.g., databases).

21 States report they need additional work in developing asset

visibility.

19 States report needing to further develop automated systems to

track assets.

The national average for this attribute is 1.76. Forty-four (44) States

indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Eight (8)

States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the

criteria (>2.5). Fifteen (15) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-one (21)

States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Eleven (11) States indicated

that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

9.15 - Storage and Warehousing

40%

20%

15%

25%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

9.17 - Resource Sourcing

46%

20%

18%

16%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

9.18 - Asset Visibility

38%

27%

15%

20%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 77

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 9.24–Funding

Logistics managers require sufficient resources to support logistics operations, including the

warehousing and maintenance of critical response items.

26 States report a need for additional work in this area.

The national average for this attribute is 1.51. Forty-five (45)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Four (4) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Fifteen (15) States normally meet the

criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-six (26) States indicated that

additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Ten (10) States

indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Attribute 9.25–Disaster Housing Sites

Logistics support to temporary housing (e.g., trailers or mobile homes) following a disaster. Such

support includes identifying sources for housing units and parts, staging areas and sites for

housing units, transportation and property disposition procedures.

31 States report that they need additional work to logistically support disaster housing.

23 States report a need to identify additional staging areas for housing units.

24 States report a need to identify more commercial sites and

transportation vendors, as well as to develop standby contracts for

unit and parts acquisition.

25 States report a need to identify more group sites for temporary

housing.

The national average for this attribute is 1.10. Thirty-three (33)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State.

Zero (0) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently

met the criteria (>2.5). Two (2) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Thirty-one (31)

States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Twenty-two (22) States

indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

9.24 - Funding

48%

27%

7%

18%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

9.25 - Disaster Housing Sites

56%

4%

0%

40%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

78 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 9.1–A Requirements Analysis has been completed for this EM

function and is the basis for the assessment

A Requirements Analysis involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all the

emergency management aspects for the Logistics and Facilities function.

Attribute 9.2–Identification/Pre-Designation of Congregate Care Facilities

Requires the identification and pre-designation of facilities for congregate care.

Attribute 9.3–Identification of Critical Energy and Utility Facilities

Requires that a plan for response and recovery from electrical energy outages consider and

locate alternate power facilities.

Attribute 9.4–Identification of Sites/Facilities to Serve as Disaster Recovery

Centers (DRCs)

Requires that sites/facilities be identified as Disaster Recovery Centers for Government, private,

and volunteer staffs.

Attribute 9.5–EOC Physical Facility

Requires that locations be identified and that equipping, supplying, and staffing of EOCs be

accomplished.

Attribute 9.7–CSEPP Decon Sites

Requires that chemical decontamination sites be chosen and appropriately equipped.

Attribute 9.9–IFG Program Equipment Resources Identified

Requires that resources to conduct an IFG program in a disaster be identified.

Attribute 9.16–Property Accountability

Requires that the process and forms for transferring property from one party to another be

developed.

Attribute 9.19–Operations and Maintenance

Requires that sufficient material handling equipment be available in a disaster.

Basic Capability By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 79

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 9.20–Acquisition

Requires the pre-identification of suppliers and specifications of commonly needed commodities

be developed.

Attribute 9.21–Receiving

Requires that procedures to report receiving discrepancies to finance and ordering officials be

developed.

Attribute 9.22–Retrieval

Requires development of a procedure for retrieving, rehabilitating, and returning non-expendable

property to storage.

Attribute 9.23–Disposal

Requires a procedure for disposing of items that have been damaged, destroyed, or are

expendable.

Attribute 9.26–Establish Maintenance Scheduling Program for Physical

Equipment

Requires the establishment of a maintenance scheduling program for physical equipment used in

disasters.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

80 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 81

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

82 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions 9.0 Logistics & Facilities EMF Breakout By States 22% 71% 7% Note: Reflects percentages of States. National Average: 1.89 9.0 Logistics & Facilities Attribute Breakout 38% 38% 24% =<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 Note: Reflects percentage of attributes. National Average: 1.89
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 83

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

EMF #10–TRAINING

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRAINING

In this last decade, the United States is experiencing numerous different types of disasters having

greater magnitude, affecting larger numbers of our citizens and costing more, and requiring

sophisticated and timely response than ever before in our

history. The diversity of Federal/State Government and private

sector organizations involved in mitigation, response, and

recovery is growing. There is also a greater cultural diversity

among victims than ever before.

Emergency management in the United States is now a multibillion-dollar-a-year endeavor. The requirement for professional, experienced disaster managers has never been greater. FEMA recognizes that THE KEY for

building a nationwide, inter- and intra-Governmental cadre of professional emergency managers is

TRAINING.

Access to high-quality emergency management training is another critical factor for meeting

communities’ needs in the time of a disaster. It is widely believed that a well trained staff is one of

the most important elements of disaster preparedness. In recent years, FEMA has worked hard to

improve emergency management training in terms of its quality, availability, and its responsiveness

to State and local needs. Since FEMA’s adoption of this philosophy, its Federal/State emergency

management partnership has contributed directly to the enhanced performance of emergency

managers.

Of all data assessed within 56 States, the overall rating for Training is 2.10, indicating that this

capability is currently at the acceptable level within CAR’s three-level rating system (“Normally

meets the respective Attribute/Characteristic”).

Definition: Definition: Assessments, develop- Definition:

ment, and implementation of a

training/education program for public

officials and emergency response

personnel.

The National Average

is 2.10.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

84 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

The goal of training is to change behavior. Normally

that translates into providing a solution to a problem

by teaching the individual how to perform the

function correctly. Training programs that consistently meet this goal generally consist of several

ingredients. Successful States have an appointed training officer; that training officer is enrolled in

the FEMA Master Trainer Program; and the State maintains training records for all personnel

trained. We have discovered that FEMA cannot develop all of the training that is needed by States

and local jurisdictions. The Master Trainer Program teaches State and local emergency managers

how to perform a needs assessment, design, develop, deliver, and evaluate training activities. It

gives States and local jurisdictions the capability to do more for themselves.

Attribute 10.1–Conducts an Annual Training Management Analysis

The detailed analyses by individual States of their respective training management plans,

procedures, and methodologies.

31 States report conducting quality annual training management analyses, consistently meeting this

attribute.

30 States report having a strong program that promotes the development and publication of a

schedule of training activities that meets the needs of its citizens.

33 States report providing their annual training analyses data to FEMA as part of their annual

Cooperative Agreement (CA).

Attribute 10.2–State Emergency Management Training Program

A comprehensive training program designed for emergency management personnel at all

levels, covering all facets of emergency management.

28 States report having a strong Emergency Management Training Program.

30 States report having a strong program that promotes the development and publication of a

schedule of training activities that meets the needs of its citizens.

41 States report having a Training Officer appointed to their respective staff.

21 States report having their Training Officer enrolled in the FEMA Master Training Program

sponsored by FEMA, Emergency Management Institute (EMI), or attending other appropriate

courses.

30 States report maintaining detailed training records for their personnel (type, date, and individual

personnel).

Attribute 10.4–Course Design

Utilization of systematic instructional design techniques when designing courses.

50 percent of the States report having developed and/or used a proven form of systematic

instructional course design.

Strengths By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 85

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

18 States report that their course design includes training activities that facilitate the learning of

targeted skills.

15 States report that their staff use checklists to ensure adherence to recognized practices.

Attribute 10.6–Course Delivery

Those procedures, techniques, and methodology utilized by the instructor to convey the desired

course material.

33 States reported a high caliber training course delivery capability consistently meets this attribute.

22 States report having a strong cadre of qualified instructors.

25 States deliver training using a variety of methodologies, techniques, and personnel as

demonstrated by Level 1 evaluation instruments.

26 States deliver a high-quality training program as demonstrated by Level 1 evaluation

instruments.

Attribute 10.9–Briefing/Training for Department, Agency, Organization Heads

Review and dissemination of emergency roles and procedures for those individuals in key

emergency management positions or others with a need to know.

29 States consistently meet this attribute.

24 States report having sponsored seminars (emergency roles and procedures) within the past year.

Attribute 10.10–Response Training Programs for Emergency Responders

A comprehensive training program designed for emergency responders at all levels covering all

facets of the response role supporting emergency situations.

26 States consistently meet this attribute.

33 States report their maintaining of detailed training records for their personnel (name, type, date,

and costs (including retraining)).

Attribute 10.21–CSEPP Training

A comprehensive CSEPP Training Program designed for emergency responders at the State and

local level.

70 percent of the States report having delivered CSEPP-related training courses as needed from

approved course lists and having maintained adequate trained CSEPP cadre levels. These States

have a capability that always or constantly meets this attribute.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

86 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Training for emergency

first responders,

planners, and public

officials is relatively new

in the United States. The incidents in Oklahoma City and the Atlanta Summer Olympic Games have

driven home the need for training in responding to, recovering from, and awareness of the hazards

associated with an NBC terrorist incident. The passage of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Bill has

increased the awareness of Federal, State, and local governments regarding the risks associated with

this form of terrorism. Although modest amounts of money have been provided to State emergency

management organizations, it has not been sufficient to provide any significant impact.

Moreover, States view this as a “Federal” responsibility due to the uniqueness of the NBC hazards

associated with this new threat. FEMA is working with the Department of Defense (DoD) and other

agencies to develop and deploy to the States the appropriate training modules needed for insertion

into existing HAZMAT courses, and other related training to fill the NBC “Delta” at the State and

local level.

Additionally, emergency management resources and priorities have changed over the past several

years with FEMA’s movement away from training business and industry personnel. In light of

recent disasters, it is apparent that training for business and industry is important and needs a

renewed effort. New courses under development are designed to meet this need.

Attribute 10.13–Response Training Programs for Business and Industry

A comprehensive training program designed for individuals in business and private industry

who are assigned or envisioned to hold designated emergency response roles in time of

emergency.

25 States reported needing improvement in this attribute.

22 States report their lack of established standards and

individual qualifications of their respective personnel.

21 States report their lack of established training programs

designed to meet their employees’ emergency job

descriptions.

The national average for this attribute is 1.62. Forty-five

(45) States indicated that this attribute was applicable to

their State. Nine (9) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the criteria (>2.5).

Eleven (11) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-five (25) States indicated that

additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Ten (10) States indicated that this attribute was

not applicable to their State.

Areas For Improvement By Attribute

10.13 - Response Training Programs 

for Business and Industry

46%

20%

16%

18%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 87

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 10.22–Disaster Housing Resource Training

A comprehensive training program designed for emergency management professionals who are

expected to support disaster housing programs during emergency operations.

25 States reported needing additional work in this attribute.

17 States report their lack of an established State Disaster Housing Management Plan.

14 States report difficulty in handling disaster housing applicant contacts and casework.

16 States report: lack of disaster housing pre-operations planning; lack of disaster housing project

evaluation and subsequent review; lack of adequate disaster housing maintenance operations;

degraded ability to support disaster housing unit installations (working

with building codes and specifications); inability to support the

conduct of group site design, operations, and management; and

difficulty in handling disaster housing leasing operations.

15 States report: lack of pre-identified disaster housing operational

staging areas; lack of adequate inventory controls supporting disaster

housing operations; lack of adequate transportation in support of

disaster housing operations; and degraded ability to conduct

inspection of sites and units.

The national average for this attribute is 1.22. Twenty-nine (29) States

indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Three (3)

States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the criteria

(>2.5). One (1) State normally meets the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-five (25) States indicated

that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Twenty-six (26) States indicated that this

attribute was not applicable to their State.

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 10.3–Performance and Needs Analysis

The State specific analysis for perceived unmet training needs.

Attribute 10.5–Course Development

The State systematic use of the ISD model in developing courseware along with the use of

effective checklists that incorporate recognized training practices.

Attribute 10.7–Evaluation

The States use of an effective established training program evaluation system.

10.22 - Disaster Housing 

Resources Training

45%

5% 2%

48%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 

Basic Capability By Attribute
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

88 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 10.8–Briefing/Training for Elected/Public Officials

The States unique training program targeted at Elected Officials that includes emergency roles

and procedures for those officials.

Attribute 10.11–Response Training Programs for Non-EOC Government

Employees with Emergency Assignments

The States unique comprehensive training program targeted at all non-EOC government

employees with emergency assignments.

Attribute 10.12–Response Training for Voluntary Agencies

The States unique training program targeted at Voluntary Agency personnel with emergency

response roles.

Attribute 10.14–Training for EOC Staff

A comprehensive emergency management training program designed for those personnel with

responsibilities residing in their respective State, EOC.

Attribute 10.15–Training Program on Disaster Recovery and Mitigation Funding

A comprehensive State emergency management training program designed for those State

emergency management personnel with responsibilities associated with disaster recovery and

mitigation funding.

Attribute 10.16–Training for Damage Assessment Teams

A comprehensive State training program designed for those emergency management personnel

assigned to damage assessment teams.

Attribute 10.17–NBC Terrorism Training–Preparedness

HAZMAT/EMS Response Teams trained to recognize, respond, provide health and medical

services for mass casualties to NBC terrorist incidents.

Attribute 10.18–Response Training Programs for Mental Health Responders

A comprehensive State training program designed for those personnel assigned as mental health

responders during disaster operations.

Attribute 10.19–Professionalism

The professional organizations, classes, certifications, etc., that the States emergency

management cadre possess and/or belong to.

Attribute 10.20–IFG, PA, and HMGP Program Training

A comprehensive State training program designed for those personnel assigned responsibilities

in the IFG, PA, and HMGP programs.

It is widely believed that a well trained staff is one of the most

important elements of disaster preparedness.
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 89

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

90 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 91

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

10.0 Training

EMF Breakout By States

16%

68%

16%

Note: Reflects percentages of States.National Average: 2.10

10.0 Training

Attribute Breakout

23%

41%

36%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5

Note: Reflects percentage of attributes.National Average: 2.10
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

92 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Strengths Strengths Strengths Strengths By Attribute Attribute Attribute Attribute

EMF #11–EXERCISES

THE IMPORTANCE OF EXERCISES

The past 8 years have brought some of the costliest

disasters of the century. Public and Congressional concern

about the ability of Federal, State, and local governments to

respond quickly and effectively to these events resulted in

numerous studies of emergency management capabilities.

These conclusions and recommendations recognized the

need to continually evaluate emergency response

capabilities at all levels of Government and the value of exercises to the evaluation process. To

meet this need, FEMA moved from a program-based structure to one that is based on functions.

FEMA’s exercise component developed a Comprehensive Exercise Program (CEP) to address the

entire threat spectrum in partnership with emergency managers at all levels of Government and the

private sector. The objective of the CEP is to improve the proficiency of Federal, State, and local

governments to perform emergency management functions in an efficient and timely manner.

Since the CEP’s publication and subsequent implementation in 1995, the Federal/State emergency

management partnership has benefited in a positive fashion reflecting a higher state of operational

readiness. The following exercise-specific information is provided to delineate those enhancements

and discuss the current national perspective.

Of all the data assessed within 56 States, the overall rating for

Exercises is 2.29, indicating that this capability is currently at the

acceptable level within the CAR’s three-level rating system

(“Normally meets the respective Attribute/Characteristic”).

Functional and full-scale exercises are the largest

and most complex types of emergency

management exercises. Accordingly, they

present the greatest challenge to participating jurisdictions, organizations, and individuals, and

yield the most significant evaluation information regarding emergency management capabilities. In

1996, FEMA canceled the requirement that States conduct certain numbers and types of exercises

within a certain time period (with the exception of regulatory-based exercises). Since that time, the

States have made their own determinations regarding the numbers and types of exercises they

need to assess and to attain, or maintain, their desired level of emergency management

capabilities. States that have experienced one or more major disasters in the past 2 years may

have determined that they did not need an exercise in order to assess their capabilities.

Attribute 11.2–Functional and Full-Scale Exercises

Functional Exercise–An Functional Exercise– activity designed to test or evaluate the capability of individual or

multiple emergency management functions or sub-elements within a function. This exercise is

more complex than a tabletop exercise in that activities are usually under time constraint with the

evaluation/critique coming at the end of the exercise. It can take place in some type of operating

Definition: Definition: Assessment and evaluation of emergency response plans and

capabilities through a program of

regularly scheduled tests and

exercises.

The National Average

is 2.29, making it the

second highest rated

functional area.
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 93

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

center, the field, or a combination of both. For example, a direction and control functional

exercise is designed to test and evaluate the centralized emergency operations capability and

timely response of one or more units of Government under a stressful environment. It might be

centered in an emergency operation center to simulate the use of outside activity and resources.

Full-Scale Exercise–An Full-Scale Exercise– activity intended to evaluate the capability of emergency management

systems in an interactive manner over a period of time. It involves testing a major portion of the

basic functions existing within emergency operation plans and organizations in a stressful

environment. A full-scale exercise includes mobilization of personnel and resources, the actual

movement of emergency personnel and resources, and possibly the actual movement of the

emergency workers, equipment, and resources required to demonstrate coordination and

response capability. The EOC is activated and field command posts may be established.

28 States report having conducted functional and full-scale exercises over the past 2 years. These

States have a capability that always or constantly meets the criteria.

Attribute 11.6–State’s Real Disaster/Emergency Operations Experience Is

Factored Into All Facets of Exercise Planning

Real-world experience gained from actual disaster/emergency operations is considered and

factored into the numerous levels of planning and preparation in support of all exercises.

26 States report having utilized real-world disaster experience when determining exercise scenarios,

objectives, scheduling dates, and the specific use of human resources.

Attribute 11.9–Use of the Emergency Management Exercise Reporting System

(EMERS)

EMERS is a system that collects data on the successes and problem areas reported by State and

local jurisdictions based on exercises and real-world disaster occurrences.

28 States always or consistently report this data using the EMERS.

Attribute 11.10–Exercise Training

Development and implementation of exercise unique training programs for those individuals

serving the emergency management community.

29 States report their emergency management personnel having completed FEMA’s Emergency

Management Institute exercise design and evaluation course.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

94 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 11.11–Hazard-Specific Exercise Programs Comply with Necessary

Federal/State Regulatory Requirements

The compliance with regulatory requirements of various hazard-specific emergency

management exercise programs (e.g., Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REP) and

the Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Program).

39 States report hazard-specific exercise program compliance with all necessary regulatory

requirements.

Based on the criteria established for incorporation of data into this report, there are no weaknesses

identified for any of the CAR’s exercises attributes.

Areas For Improvement By Attribute Areas For Improvement By Attribute

To meet emerging trends in disaster management, FEMA has moved

from a program-based structure to one based on functions.
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 95

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 11.1–A Requirements Analysis has been completed for this EMF and

is the basis for the assessment

A Requirements Analysis involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all the

emergency management aspects for exercises.

Attribute 11.3–Emergency Exercise Program Management

The States senior exercise official(s) have adequate access to policy determining officials,

adequate staff, budget, and adequate time to perform exercise program management duties.

Attribute 11.4–Exercise Program Incorporates Hazard/Risk Assessment

The incorporation of the jurisdiction’s hazard/risk assessment in the Comprehensive Exercise

Program.

Attribute 11.5–State Level Multi-Year Exercises Schedule

A State’s multi-year schedule designed to provide the basic exercise information (name, location,

date, sponsor, etc.) covering all planned exercises over a specified period for emergency

management professionals.

Attribute 11.7–Obtaining and Providing Technical Assistance

Receiving and providing assistance regarding exercise program management to all necessary

customers within the State’s emergency management community.

Attribute 11.8–Exercise Evaluation Methodology and Corrective Action

Program/Process

The State’s actual system of data collection and subsequent tracking capability for disasterrelated activities.

Attribute 11.12–The State Energy Office Participates in State/Federal Exercises

to Test the State’s Capability to Respond to and Recover From Energy Outages

Caused By All Hazards

The actual participation of State emergency management personnel in State emergency energy

outage response and recovery exercises.

Basic Capability By Attribute
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

96 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 97

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

11.0 Exercises

EMF Breakout By States

4%

65%

31%

Note: Reflects percentages of States.National Average: 2.29

11.0 Training

Attribute Breakout

16%

36%

48%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5

Note: Reflects percentage of attributes.National Average: 2.29
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

98 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

EMF #12–PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION

THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION

Public education and information is designed to

provide the public with accurate, timely, and useful

information prior to and throughout the emergency

response and recovery period. This consists of

information and instructions to the people at risk. For

some hazards (e.g., nuclear power plant accidents), a

jurisdiction may have only a few minutes to alert those

at risk and pre-scripted information must go out with

the initial warning. However, States and local

communities must also deal with the wider public’s

interest and desire to help or seek information during

a disaster. This includes information about what is

happening, what the response organization/State is doing, and what measures residents should take

to be safe. People may call to find out about family members, offer help, or simply send donations.

Accurate, timely information can help prevent the overloading of communications systems and

networks. For information and instructions to reach State residents, these public information

operations must develop ties to all media in–around the State and local jurisdictions. When disaster

strikes, disaster victims need to know their Government is working. They need to know what to

expect and where to find help. The public information operations must ensure the dissemination of

information that:

l Is timely, accurate, consistent, and easy to understand;

l Explains what people can expect from their Government; and

l Demonstrates clearly that Government and voluntary agencies are working together to

provide the services needed to rebuild communities and restore lives.

Of all reports reviewed within 56 States, the overall assessment for Public Education and

Information is 2.01, indicating that this EMF is currently at the acceptable level within the CAR

three-level assessment system (“normally meets the respective attribute/characteristic”). There is

one of eight attributes (13 percent) that is considered a strength nationally: IFG Program

Information. There are two of eight attributes (25 percent) that need improvement: System to

Minimize Family Separation, and Risk Communication.

Definition: Definition: Procedures to disseminate

and respond to requests for predisaster, disaster, and post-disaster

information involving employees,

responders, the public, and the media.

Also, an effective public education

program regarding hazards affecting

the jurisdiction.

The National Average

is 2.01.
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 99

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

The vast majority of the nation has a very strong

public awareness education program along with

those critical procedures in place for accurate and

timely dissemination of emergency public information. These close ties to the general population,

along with proven processes, are of paramount importance during crisis periods.

Attribute 12.8–Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program Information

That IFG program information (directives, plans, procedures, handouts, etc.) available for the

emergency managers administering the program as well as for the end users (citizens).

This attribute received a total score of 2.47 out of a possible score of 3.0, indicating that this

capability is currently at the acceptable within the CAR’s three-level rating system (“normally meets

the respective attribute/characteristic”).

27 States have the capability to consistently provide emergency managers and citizens with IFG

program information.

21 States report having updated and complete FEMA Helpline information for their citizens should

disaster occur.

21 States report having updated and complete FEMA and State public information capabilities to

support disaster operations.

Strengths By Attribute

A basic public expectation: “Provide public education and

information to protect lives and minimize property loss.”
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

100 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

There should be an

established system

allowing for adequate

information flow from

mass care facilities to the Mass Care Coordinator and from the Mass Care Coordinator to State/local

public information and inquiry response organization. Under the Federal Response Plan (FRP), the

American Red Cross (ARC) and ESF #6 (Mass Care) may operate a Disaster Welfare Information

(DWI) System. The DWI system uses information from shelter lists, casualty lists, hospitals, the

State EOC, and other sources to aid in family reunification and in responding to inquiries from

immediate family members from outside the affected area about the status of their loved ones.

There should be designated plans and procedures for interfacing the State system to minimize

family separation and the DWI with the State/local emergency information and media affairs

organization.

Attribute 12.4–System to Minimize Family Separation

A State capability (program, plans, or procedures) designed to minimize that separation time of

family members during times of disaster.

This attribute received a total score of 1.62 out of a possible

score of 3.0, indicating that this capability is currently below

average within the CAR’s three-level rating system (“needs

additional work to meet respective attribute/characteristic”).

23 States report that they need additional work to minimize

family separation time during disaster.

17 States reported having an existing system designed for the

collection and dissemination of information on missing persons,

known dead, and medical inpatients.

The national average for this attribute is 1.62. Forty-two (42) States indicated that this attribute was

applicable to their State. Seven (7) States indicated that the attribute always or consistently met the

criteria (>2.5). Twelve (12) States normally meet the criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-three (23)

States indicated that additional work is needed on this attribute (<1.5). Thirteen (13) States

indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

Areas For Improvement By Attribute

12.4 - System to Minimize 

Family Separation

41%

22%

13%

24%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 101

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 12.7–Risk Communication Program (Community Disaster Education)

An all-hazard community disaster education program targeting all facets of community needs

during and after disaster operations.

This attribute received a total score of 1.66 out of a possible

score of 3.0, indicating that this capability is currently below

average within the CAR’s three-level rating system (“needs

additional work to meet respective attribute/characteristic”).

24 States report that they need additional work in their disaster

education programs.

18 States report having developed and maintained a current

and complete community profile.

The national average for this attribute is 1.66. Fifty-one (51)

States indicated that this attribute was applicable to their State. Four (4) States indicated that the

attribute always or consistently met the criteria (>2.5). Twenty-three (23) States normally meet the

criteria (>1.5 and <2.5). Twenty-four (24) States indicated that additional work is needed on this

attribute (<1.5). Four (4) States indicated that this attribute was not applicable to their State.

12.7 - Risk Communication Program 

(Community Disaster Education)

44%

42%

7%

7%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 NA

Reflects

percentages

of States 
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

102 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas needing

improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 12.1–A Requirements Analysis has been completed for this EMF and

is the basis for the assessment

A Requirements Analysis involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all the

Emergency Management aspects for the Public Education and Information function.

Attribute 12.2–Emergency Preparedness Education

The State has established means by which to communicate with the public vital information about

emergency preparedness, hazards, and risk reduction through the use of brochures, the news

media, public service announcements, community outreach, and public and private sector

partnerships.

Attribute 12.3–Procedure for Disseminating and Managing Emergency Public

Information

The State has established a Public Information Officer (PIO) and has developed policies and

procedures for the gathering, categorizing, and dissemination of information through the PIO.

Attribute 12.5–Rumor Control Program

The State has established a system that can be utilized in emergencies such as phone banks and

hot lines to prevent the spread of rumors that may cause panic or additional hazards.

Attribute 12.6–Joint Information Center

The State has procedures for establishing a Joint Information Center between FEMA and the

State for implementing local and regional media strategies that include systems to provide the

disaster victims, the general public, and various target audiences with accurate, timely,

consistent, and easy-to-understand information about disaster response, recovery, mitigation,

and preparedness operations.

Basic Capability By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 103

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

104 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions 12.0 Public Education & Information EMF Breakout By States15% 74% 11% Note: Reflects percentages of States. National Average: 2.01 12.0 Public Information & Education Attribute Breakout 27% 27% 46% =<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5 Note: Reflects percentage of attributes. National Average: 2.01
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 105

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

EMF #13–FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

THE IMPORTANCE OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

Finance and administrative procedures are a crucial component of emergency management.

Having both sound fiscal and administrative policies, procedures, and practices day to day, in

advance of any disaster, provides the foundation needed in

a disaster situation. Having sound emergency and

expedited fiscal and administrative procedures to be

activated during a disaster allows the necessary response

and recovery to take place while ensuring fiscal

accountability and propriety, and correct administrative

procedures and activities.

Over half of the States report that they can consistently

meet most of the finance and administrative attributes in

this survey, and most of the rest of the States report that

they can normally meet them. These attributes cover a

wide range of fiscal and administrative requirements from establishing emergency fiscal and

administrative procedures and records, to defining pre-award and after-the-grant policies for

administering grants and cooperative agreements. In addition, these attributes cover the

development of accounting systems to track and document emergency management costs and

ensure compliance with Federal civil rights regulations.

Attribute 13.3–Emergency Fiscal Procedures Established

A series of emergency fiscal procedures needs to be established to ensure proper fiscal

operations during a disaster crisis. Emergency procurement procedures need to be established

for use in the event that normal procedures prove to be too slow in the crisis. Procedures for

emergency fiscal recordkeeping need to be agreed upon as well as procedures for defining the

type of open purchase orders that will be allowed and the predesignation of specific budget

categories.

27 States report that they consistently meet this attribute, having established emergency fiscal

procedures applicable to disasters.

20 States report having defined the open purchase orders that need to be established and the normal

procurement procedures that need to be suspended during a disaster.

22 States report having pre-designated budget categories.

Definition: Definition: Development of finance

and administrative procedures to

support emergency measures before,

during, and after disaster events, and

to preserve vital records.

Strengths By Attribute

The National Average

is 2.38, making it the

highest rated

functional area.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

106 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 13.4–Administrative Fiscal Procedures and Records

During a disaster, emergency fiscal procedures need to be followed if normal procedures are to

be suspended. Essential fiscal records during this disaster period need to be maintained and

collected.

25 States report that they consistently meet this requirement to develop emergency administrative

fiscal procedures and records.

23 States report that they have developed specific procedures to document costs and preserve

essential records during disasters.

Attribute 13.5–Pre-Award Policies for Administering Grants/Cooperative

Agreements

Pre-award policies for administering grants and cooperative agreements allow for the smooth

execution of grants and cooperative agreements needed in a disaster. Establishing program and

eligibility requirements, allowable costs, procedures for review, and responsibilities for financial

management are also required under this attribute.

35 States report that they consistently meet this attribute of establishing pre-award policies for

administering grants and cooperative agreements.

32 States report that have specifically incorporated Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

administrative requirements embodied in the “Common Rule.”

37 States report that they consistently use standard established forms for pre-award administration.

31 States report that they have defined allowable and unallowable costs, indirect costs, excessive

costs, and extraordinary costs.

29 States report that they have defined recipients’ responsibilities for sound financial management

systems.

30 States report that they consistently have appropriate timing for cash drawdown from the Federal

Government.

31 States report that they have a requirement for implementation of the single audit concept.

27 States report that they have assured recipients’ eligibility.

Finance and Administration was the highest rated

functional area in the CAR assessment.
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 107

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Attribute 13.7–After-the-Grant Policies for Administering Grants/Cooperative

Agreements

After-the-grant policies for administering grants and cooperative agreements include policies for

the smooth and fiscally correct closeout of grants and cooperative agreements, and procedures

for the recovery of excess Government funds or property. Additional procedures for appropriate

audits and review of findings, and use of inspections or investigations, if required, need to also be

established under this attribute.

29 States report that they have consistently established after-the-grant policies for administering

grants and cooperative agreements.

26 States report that they have management processes to track costs questioned by auditors and to

assure a timely resolution.

28 States report that they perform annual audits on grants and cooperative agreements.

25 States report that they consistently use auditors, inspectors, or investigators in areas of alleged

weaknesses, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement.

28 States report that they consistently coordinate the results of audits, inspections, or investigations

with FEMA and other agencies.

Attribute 13.8–Performance Partnership Agreements

PPAs are 5-year strategic planning memorandums of understanding between each State and

FEMA defining the emergency management partnership. These PPAs establish performance

goals and objectives for all-hazards emergency management.

25 States report they are always able to establish PPAs in partnership with FEMA, and another 21

States report that they normally can meet this attribute.

23 States consistently use the PPAs in their strategic planning processes, and another 14 States

normally use them in strategic planning.

23 States consistently brief their chief executive annually concerning the PPAs, and another 10

States normally do so.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

108 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

Attribute 13.9–System to Ensure Compliance with Federal Civil Rights

Regulations

Specific Federal civil rights regulations must be followed by States to use Federal funds in support

of emergency management. A State coordinator has to be designated, an implementation plan

must be developed, and a system to ensure compliance and collect compliance data must be

established and maintained.

37 States report that they have a system in place to consistently assure compliance with Federal civil

rights regulations.

29 States report that they have designated a State coordinator for civil rights activities.

30 States report that they have a civil rights implementation plan.

29 States report that they consistently give public notice of FEMA financed programs that are

covered by civil rights regulations.

21 States report that they have a compliance data collection system.

27 States report that they have a Civil Rights Compliance Officer.

Attribute 13.11–Accounting System to Track and Document Emergency

Management Costs

States need to develop and maintain an accounting system able to track and document

emergency management costs.

36 States report that they have established the capability to track and document emergency

management costs consistently.

No particular weaknesses are indicated for this attribute.

Areas For Improvement By Attribute
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 109

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Basic Capability By Attribute

Listed below are those attributes that were not classified as either areas of strength or areas

needing improvement. These attributes meet the basic capability criteria.

Attribute 13.1–A Requirements Analysis has been completed for this EMF and

is the basis for the assessment

A Requirements Analysis involves the State completing a comprehensive analysis of all the

Emergency Management aspects for the Finance and Administration function.

Attribute 13.2–Emergency Administrative Procedures Established

Requires that emergency administrative procedures are established and emergency job

descriptions written.

Attribute 13.6–Grants/Cooperative Agreement Administration Post-Award

Policies

Requires that States monitor and analyze post-award performance of recipients and subrecipients, and that prompt action is taken, as necessary. Also, requires that a final management

system provide information and reports, and that indirect, excessive, or extraordinary costs have

been negotiated with recipients and problems resolved. Finally, that financial controls be

established to ensure proper payments.

Attribute 13.10–IFG, PA, HMGP Program Funding

Requires that States can operate and manage with correct fiscal procedures the IFG, PA, and

HMGP programs, as well as provide for cost share contingency funding, administrative costs, and

an “Additional Assistance Program.”

Attribute 13.12–Function of Administrative and Fiscal Procedures and Records

(AFPR) Established, Maintained as a State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF

Requires that the appropriate administrative and fiscal procedures and records be established

and maintained in the State Emergency Plan Annex or ESF. Such administrative and fiscal

procedures include having an emergency recordkeeping system, developing SOPs, and defining

the laws and policies for jurisdictions’ emergency fiscal responsibilities.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

110 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 111

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

13.0 Finance & Administration

EMF Breakout By States

2%

53%

45%

Note: Reflects percentages of States.National Average: 2.38

13.0 Finance & Administration

Attribute Breakout

11%

39%

50%

=<1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >=2.5

Note: Reflects percentage of attributes.National Average: 2.38
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Part IV–Analysis by Emergency Management Function:

112 Expanded Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
V

HAZARD-SPECIFIC

ANALYSES
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 113

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

T he Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible to lead and support thenation in a comprehensive, risk-based, all-hazard emergency management program. As part of

its mission, FEMA supports or sponsors a number of hazard-specific emergency management

programs: the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), the National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP), the Hurricane Program, the Chemical Stockpile Emergency

Preparedness Program (CSEPP), the Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program, and Fire

and Emergency Management programs.

The analyses that follow compare the average scores of States subject to particular hazards (and

participating in hazard-specific programs) to average scores of the other States and the national

average scores.

In all the hazard-specific program analyses, average scores for the States under consideration fall

within the range considered as a basic capability (>1.5 and <2.5). The numerical assessment for

each Emergency Management Function (EMF) varies slightly, from a high of 2.17 for the CSEPP

States to a low of 2.04 for the NEHRP States with a high or very high seismic hazard.

These assessment results depict stronger profiles for CSEPP, REP, and flood

States. The results also confirm that the Federal Government needs to continue its policy of

effective implementation of hazard mitigation measures designed to contribute to the long-term

economic and environmental well-being of all communities as well as protecting the natural and

cultural resources of our nation.

PART V

HAZARD-SPECIFIC

ANALYSES

“Since 1993, over 1.4 million Americans have

been impacted by disasters that resulted in

Presidential declarations....On the Federal

side alone, disasters have cost a total of over

$20 billion in public funds that might have

been used for public education, job training,

and health care–for investments in our

children and our Nation’s future.”

Kay C. Goss

FEMA Associate Director for Preparedness, Training,

and Exercises
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

114 Part V–Hazard-Specific Analyses

Designated flood zones encompass morethan 167,000 square miles of land in the

States and Territories. Areas with an estimated

1-percent annual chance of flooding account

for more than one tenth the land mass of 26

States: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,

California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,

Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico,

South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington,

and West Virginia.

Analysis of EMF Data

T his section compares CAR results forthese “flood States” to the average results

for all 56 States and for the other 30 States, at

both the EMF and attribute levels.

Referring to the chart below, the combined

average for flood States is 2.15. Overall,

numerical assessments for the designated flood

States are 4.37 percent above the national

average in the EMFs assessed by the CAR, and

8.37 percent above non-flood States’ scores.

The charts on page 115 depict the attribute breakout for flood States by score and also the EMF

comparison of the flood States to the non-flood States and to the national aggregate.

Designated Flood States
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 115

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

EMF COMPARISON FOR FLOOD STATES

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

19%

44%

37%

%<=1.5 %1.5-2.5 %>=2.5

Attribute Breakout for Designated

Flood States

Note: 

Reflects 

percentages 

of attributes

1.0 Laws & Authority

2.0 Hazard Identification & Risk

Assessment

3.0 Hazard Management

4.0 Resource Management

5.0 Planning

6.0 Direction, Control & Coordination

7.0 Communications & Warning

8.0 Operations & Procedures

9.0 Logistics & Facilities

10.0 Training

11.0 Exercises

12.0 Public Education &

Information

13.0 Finance & Administration

Flood Non-Flood National Average
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

116 Part V–Hazard-Specific Analyses

Hurricanes Hugo and Andrewresulted in losses in the

tens of billions of dollars, but if their

tracks had been only slightly different,

damages could have approached $100 billion.

Damage potential is increasing, with coastal

properties being developed four times faster

than the rest of the Nation; therefore, the

emergency management capabilities and

readiness of States subject to hurricanes is of

particular interest to the States and the Federal

Government.

Analysis of EMF Data

Referring to the chart on the facing page,the 24 hurricane States have an average

EMF assessment of 2.08 based on the

combined scores from the 13 EMFs. This is

approximately the same average score as the

national average, 2.06, and the average for the

non-hurricane States, 2.05. Consequently, the

24 hurricane States score at approximately the

same level of emergency management

capability and readiness as other States in the

nation. While individual EMF scoring

differences are small, the hurricane States do

score approximately 4 to 7 percent better than

non-hurricane States in the following EMFs:

Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment;

Resource Management; Logistics and Facilities;

Training; and Exercises.

This section focuses on 24 States that

historically are subject to hurricanes. These

States are Alabama, American Samoa,

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,

Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North

Carolina, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, Texas, Virgin Islands, and Virginia.

The average scores of these States, as broken

down into the 13 EMFs, are compared to the

national averages and the average numerical

assessments of the 33 non-hurricane States.

See charts on page 117 and on page 118.

However, hurricane States score approximately

4 percent less than non-hurricane States in two

EMFs: Laws and Authorities, and Hazard

Management.

Since hurricanes, or the threat of hurricanes,

are relatively frequent in the hurricane States, it

might be expected that these States would score

better in every EMF, and score better by a

higher percent; however, this assumption is not

supported by the data. With hurricane States

scoring only 1.5 percent better than nonhurricane States, and only 0.9 percent better

than the national average, the CAR data show

that the hurricane States have the same level of

emergency management capabilities as the rest

of the nation.

Designated Hurricane States

There is an increasing hurricane damage potential . . .
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 117

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Designated Hurricane States
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

118 Part V–Hazard-Specific Analyses

EMF COMPARISON FOR HURRICANE STATES

23%

44%

33%

%<=1.5 %1.5-2.5 %>=2.5

Attribute Breakout for Designated

Hurricane States

Note: 

Reflects 

percentages 

of attributes

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

1.0 Laws & Authority

2.0 Hazard Identification & Risk

Assessment

3.0 Hazard Management

4.0 Resource Management

5.0 Planning

6.0 Direction, Control & Coordination

7.0 Communications & Warning

8.0 Operations & Procedures

9.0 Logistics & Facilities

10.0 Training

11.0 Exercises

12.0 Public Education &

Information

13.0 Finance & Administration

Hurricane Non-Hurricane National Average
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 119

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

(NEHRP)

S ince the inception of NEHRP 20 years ago,the NEHRP agencies (FEMA, U.S.

Geological Survey, National Science

Foundation, and National Institute of Standards

and Technology) have combined efforts to

reduce the devastating effects of earthquakes in

the United States. FEMA is the lead agency for

the NEHRP. Part of FEMA’s role is to provide

assistance to State and local communities’

efforts in this area.

This section compares CAR results for States

with high and very high seismic hazards to

national average scores and the average scores

of States without a high seismic hazard. The

States classified as having a high or very high

seismic hazard are Alaska, American Samoa,

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Guam, Hawaii,

Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri,

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Puerto Rico,

South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virgin Islands,

Washington, and the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands.

Analysis of EMF Data

Referring to the chart below, the overallaverage for States with a high or very high

seismic hazard is 2.04. This is only 0.97

percent lower than the national average.

While these earthquake prone States score

within the range considered as a basic capability

(>1.5 and <2.5) in all EMFs, for four of these

EMFs (Hazard ID and Risk Assessment,

Resources Management, Logistics and Facilities,

and Public Education and Information) the

scores are lower than 2.0. This may indicate a

need for attention to these areas; however,

scoring differences between the earthquake

prone States and the rest of the nation are

minimal.

The charts on page 120 depict the attribute breakout for earthquake States by score and also the

EMF comparison of the earthquake States to the non-earthquake States and to the national

aggregate.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

120 Part V–Hazard-Specific Analyses

EMF COMPARISON FOR EARTHQUAKE STATES

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

1.0 Laws & Authority

2.0 Hazard Identification & Risk

Assessment

3.0 Hazard Management

4.0 Resource Management

5.0 Planning

6.0 Direction, Control & Coordination

7.0 Communications & Warning

8.0 Operations & Procedures

9.0 Logistics & Facilities

10.0 Training

11.0 Exercises

12.0 Public Education &

Information

13.0 Finance & Administration

26%

42%

32%

%<=1.5 %1.5-2.5 %>=2.5

Attribute Breakout for Designated

Earthquake States

Note: 

Reflects 

percentages 

of attributes

Earthquake Non-Earthquake National Average
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 121

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Fire and Emergency Management

F ire is a pervasive and serious risk. Unlikeother problems in disaster management that

have a seasonal cycle, fires are a constant threat.

If loss of life is taken as a measure of consequence, fire takes more lives than all other

hazards combined. Between 1988 and 1996,

there was a total of 917 on-duty firefighter

deaths caused by fire, and a total of 44,500

civilian deaths caused by fire. Specifically, there

were 94 on-duty firefighter deaths in 1996, and

4,990 civilian fire deaths in 1996. Property

damage resulting from fires amounted to $9.406

billion. Fire is a risk that cannot be totally

eliminated, but a risk that can be successfully

mitigated by building codes, code enforcement,

fire prevention and public education programs,

and fixed fire protection systems in residential

occupancies.

Fire risks need to be examined in both the urban

and in the urban wild land interface. The

challenge of managing wild land fire in the

United States is increasing in complexity and

magnitude. Catastrophic wildfire now threatens

millions of wild land acres, particularly where

vegetation patterns have been altered by past

land use practices and a century of fire

suppression. As the built environment extends

into previous wild land areas, structures become

at risk from woodland fire, like the paint fire in

Santa Barbara County, CA, in June 1990.

Analysis of EMF Data

There are five attributes that address Fire:

1.4–Support States for building and fire codes;

3.4–Support States in the building and fire

inspection program; 5.1–A requirements analysis

has been completed for this EMF and is the basis

for the assessment; 8.19–Fire protection; and,

8.42–Ability to request the Fire Suppression

Assistance Program.

States reflect a good integration of the fire

function into overall emergency management

I

f the loss of life is

taken as a

measure of

consequence, fires

take more lives

than all other

hazards combined.

preparedness. The States have, in general,

recognized and planned for fire preparedness

and fire response.

One area in which the States rated themselves

lower was that of building inspection and code

enforcement. Adoption of strong building

codes is necessary but not sufficient to

enhance fire safety. A strong building

inspection and compliance program must

enforce codes before the benefit of strong

codes can be realized.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

122 Part V–Hazard-Specific Analyses

T he REP Program was developed in theaftermath of the emergency at the Three

Mile Island nuclear facility near Harrisburg,

PA, in March of 1979. FEMA, the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC), and other

Federal agencies joined in the development of

the Federal Radiological Emergency Response

Plan (FRERP). FEMA Rule 44 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) 350 establishes the policies

and procedures for FEMA’s initial and

continued approval of State and local

governments’ radiological emergency planning

and preparedness for commercial nuclear

power plants. This approval is contingent, in

part, on State and local governments’

participation in joint exercises with licensees.

State and local jurisdictions that fall within

identified exposure planning zones are

required to develop plans and procedures to

protect the off-site civilian population within

those areas in the event of an accidental release

of radioactive materials. The program provides

a planning basis for State and local emergency

preparedness efforts, and involves

requirements in the following areas:

assignment of responsibilities, an emergency

classification system, notification procedures,

communications, public education, accident

assessment, protective response, radiological

exposure control, recovery and reentry

planning, training, and exercises and drills.

This section compares average scores of the 31

States that participate in the REP Program to

national average scores and the average scores

of the 25 non-REP States. The REP States are

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,

Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa,

Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,

Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Analysis of EMF Data

Referring to the chart on the facing page,the combined average of the REP States

is 2.12. REP States’ scores exceeded the

national average by the highest percentage in

Logistics and Facilities, Public Education and

Information, Resource Management, and

Communications and Warning. The data

suggest that regulatory requirements and

financial support from utilities have resulted in

better emergency management capabilities for

jurisdictions located near nuclear power

facilities. This is notable in EMFs that involve

investments in facilities (e.g., Emergency

Operating Centers) and equipment (e.g.,

communications and warning systems), and in

resource management generally.

Overall, States participating in the REP Program score higher

above the national average in all functional areas.

Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP)

Program
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 123

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Designated Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program States
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

124 Part V–Hazard-Specific Analyses

EMF COMPARISON FOR REP STATES

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

20%

46%

34%

%<=1.5 %1.5-2.5 %>=2.5

Attribute Breakout for Designated 

REP States

Note: 

Reflects 

percentages 

of attributes

1.0 Laws & Authority

2.0 Hazard Identification & Risk

Assessment

3.0 Hazard Management

4.0 Resource Management

5.0 Planning

6.0 Direction, Control & Coordination

7.0 Communications & Warning

8.0 Operations & Procedures

9.0 Logistics & Facilities

10.0 Training

11.0 Exercises

12.0 Public Education &

Information

13.0 Finance & Administration

REP Non-REP National Average
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 125

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program

(CSEPP)

P ublic Law 99-145 directs theDepartment of Defense (DoD) to

dispose of the United States’ stockpile of

lethal chemical weapons and munitions,

distributed among eight sites. CSEPP was

established to enhance the ability of the

installations, the surrounding local communities, and their States to respond should

a release occur. Under an agreement with

the U.S. Army, FEMA manages funding to

State and local jurisdictions for this

program.

This section compares Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) results for the 10

CSEPP States to the average results for all 56

States and for the 46 non-CSEPP States, at

both the Emergency Management Function

(EMF) and attribute levels. The CSEPP

states are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado,

Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,

Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

Analysis of EMF Data

Referring to the chart below, the combinedaverage for CSEPP States is 2.17. Overall,

the 10 CSEPP States’ numerical assessments are an

average of 5.3-percent higher than the national

average in all 13 EMFs, and 7.1-percent higher

than the average for the non-CSEPP States.

Driving this difference is the CSEPP States’ higher

EMF numerical assessments in Laws and

Authorities (2.37), Training (2.23), Exercises

(2.44), and Finance and Administration (2.52).

The data suggest that participation in CSEPP has

been beneficial to the emergency management

capabilities and operational readiness of the CSEPP

States.

The charts on page 126 depict the attribute breakout for CSEPP States by score and also the EMF

comparison of the CSEPP States to the non-CSEPP States and to the national aggregate.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

126 Part V–Hazard-Specific Analyses

EMF COMPARISON FOR CSEPP STATES

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

1.0 Laws & Authority

2.0 Hazard Identification & Risk

Assessment

3.0 Hazard Management

4.0 Resource Management

5.0 Planning

6.0 Direction, Control &

Coordination

7.0 Communications & Warning

8.0 Operations & Procedures

9.0 Logistics & Facilities

10.0 Training

11.0 Exercises

12.0 Public Education &

Information

13.0 Finance & Administration

CSEPP Non-CSEPP National Average

21%

40%

39%

%<=1.5 %1.5-2.5 %>=2.5

Attribute Breakout for Designated

CSEPP States

Note: 

Reflects 

percentages 

of attributes
VI

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Disaster

Resistant

Communities
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 127

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

S ince the inception of the Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM) Cycle by the NationalGovernors Association, the phases of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery have

become the major structural framework for differentiating the activities that are performed in context

with a given disaster event. Many State offices have organized around these four phases and the

terms are deeply ingrained within the emergency management vernacular. However, for purposes of

managing a program, the phases of CEM have less utility. The functions of management may fall

fully or partially within each of these phases. For example, the emergency management function of

“planning” applies equally to mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.

T he Performance

Partnership Agreement/

Cooperative Agreement (PPA/

CA) brings structure to

emergency program management, addressing the full range

and scope of contingency

planning and execution of those

plans. The 13 Emergency

Management Functions (EMFs)

set forth in the Capability

Assessment for Readiness

(CAR) define the structure for

program execution as well as for

evaluation of program

performance. The PPA/CA

goals and objectives describe

the strategic view of the partnership and the EMFs contain the “recommended

practices” for achieving those objectives.

Through the management function of

“evaluation,” organizations review their

“operational performance” against performance

goals evolving from CAR. Currently, there are no

nationally recognized benchmarks for

emergency management.

For evaluation of “simulations/exercises” or

“real-world disaster operations,” the critical

data concerning results are generally

contained in After-Action Reports (AARs)

PART VI

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

THE PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT/COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENT AS A FRAMEWORK FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

PPA/CA Continuous Improvement Cycle

PPA/CA CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT CYCLE
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

128 Part VI–Future Directions

from “disaster critiques” and reports on “lessons

learned” from exercises. This data feeds into the

CAR process. CAR is the primary evaluation

technique for assessment of the program

management criteria to determine both baseline

capabilities and incremental progress towards

program objectives. This evaluation data should

be considered in the aggregate in formalizing

appropriate changes to the program in future

years.

The evaluation of exercises/simulations, realworld disasters, and the capability assessment

process should all follow the same format

(evaluation of the 13 EMFs). This process

simplifies collection, documentation, and

comparison of results from different sources, and

reinforces the structural all-hazards approach to

emergency management as opposed to

evaluation of a particular program component. It

also allows for capturing input to the next step in

the management cycle: “corrective action.”

The “corrective action” phase takes the data

derived from the “evaluation” part of the cycle

and applies it to the 13 EMF criteria. This is

often the most neglected aspect of the management process for continuous improvement. It

requires a concentrated, systematic approach to

track these actions back to the program functional criteria and assure that the standards and

practices are revised, as needed.

The “corrective action” process feeds directly

into the “action planning” step of the process for

the revision/update of the annual CA component

of the PPA and possible changes to the PPA

strategic view, if appropriate. When the

corrective actions from real-world disasters,

exercises, and the CAR assessment have been

reflected in the revised planning criteria and

standards, the cycle repeats.

It is important to note that the phases of

emergency management as portrayed in the CEM

cycle are contained within the management

process, but are distributed throughout the

functions, as appropriate. For a State or locality

that has not had a real-world test of its planning

criteria, it derives its assessment of capability

primarily from exercises. In cases where neither

exercises or real-world experience has been

gained, EMFs are essentially “untested.”

These untested functions are addressed in

CAR and should flow back into a

comprehensive exercise program for full

evaluation.

Other States have frequent real-world disaster

operations, or may have an unusually heavy

disaster year. In those cases, it will call upon

its real-world disaster experiences or results

from critiques for input to its assessment of

performance. This performance should

reinforce data gained from CAR.

T he current draft FEMA Strategic Planfor 1998 to 2007, developed in

compliance with the Government Performance

and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, will use the

CAR process as a performance measure to

evaluate the progress of States in enhancing

their emergency management capability. An

objective of the FEMA strategy will be to

improve State capabilities by 20 percent

before the year 2007. The baseline,

developed from the 1997 CAR, will be used

as the basis for future assessments.

During the short term, we will work with each

of the States to review and negotiate the

existing annual CAs to correct areas for

improvement identified by CAR results during

Fiscal Year (FY) 1998. In the longer run,

PPAs may be revised as well, to reflect

strategic changes in State emergency

management programs.

THE FEMA STRATEGY AND GPRA

“The concept of Disaster Resistant

Communities will soon be piloted and

may become the model for the future.”

 --James L. Witt
Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 129

Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

A s we move into the 21st century, aprimary focus of emergency management will be to build disaster resistant

communities. This effort has to start at the

grass roots, the local jurisdiction level, with

support from the State. State leadership is

crucial to encourage local communities to

develop sound mitigation practices such as the

very critical areas of hazard identification and

vulnerability assessment. Local communities

need to be encouraged to build alliances,

constructive partnerships, and public-private

collaborations to collectively reduce the

community’s vulnerability to disasters. States,

in concert with local communities, need to take

the necessary steps to protect and minimize the

loss of life and property from the disasters they

are likely to encounter.

The pilot CAR focused on the State level.

Under State leadership, the CAR process can be

applied to the local level as well. The CAR

process is designed to bring together

emergency management partners, focusing

attention on mitigation and promoting

community responsibility. In support of

building disaster resistant communities, the

involvement of elected officials; Federal, State,

and local disaster personnel; representatives

from the business, labor, insurance, and

environmental communities; and local

neighborhood towns and cities to collectively

assess the emergency management

infrastructure, will foster a comprehensive

community involvement approach to

An objective of the FEMA strategy will be to improve State capabilities by 20 percent before the year 2007.

BUILDING DISASTER RESISTANT COMMUNITIES

emergency management. CAR incorporates the

solid background critical to building disaster

resistant communities, including hazard

identification and vulnerability assessment for

identifying and prioritizing risk reduction

actions in communities, which is necessary to

support development of a strong State and local

mitigation program.

Utilizing the State CAR assessment results,

together with a local CAR assessment

instrument, community planners will have a

solid foundation on which to build mitigation

efforts and a sound emergency management

infrastructure. Thus, the State and local

communities, in partnership with the private

sector, can together take the steps necessary to

reduce the costs and consequences of potential

future disasters.

The end result supports the new FEMA Disaster

Resistant Community initiative “Project

Impact,” changing the way America prevents

and prepares for disasters. “Project Impact” is

designed to challenge everyone in the country

to take actions now that will protect families,

businesses, and communities by reducing the

effects of future disasters. CAR assessments,

incorporating Disaster Resistant Community

criteria as outlined in “Project Impact,” have the

potential to produce local mitigation and hazard

information that can be integrated into the PPA/

CA process, and into State and local strategic

planning, by providing the solid background on

which to build a strong mitigation strategy.
Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)

130 Part VI–Future Directions

P erformance in each of the emergency

management program areas must be

related to some set of generally accepted

performance criteria and must be measurable in

order to be effective. Those performance

criteria must also be generally applicable across

the country to any size emergency management

organization, regardless of location or

organizational configuration. As noted earlier

in this report, no such criteria exist.

The results of the CAR pilot year could

yield those criteria in the form of

“recommended practices” for

emergency management similar to

those being considered by the NFPA

for disaster management. This is

dependent upon the feedback received from the

States as we move forward to improve the CAR

process and assessment instrument. In 1995,

the NFPA issued NFPA 1600 Recommended

Practices in Disaster Management. A technical

committee of the NFPA (comprised of

MEASURING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

IMPROVING THE CAR PROCESS AND INSTRUMENT

representatives of: NEMA; NCCEM; Federal,

State, and local government; and business and

industry organizations) developed the document, which will be issued in final draft in the

Spring of 1998. The NFPA 1600 is currently

undergoing revisions in committee. FEMA

does not develop standards for State and local

government, but supports their efforts to do so

as it improves the overall capability of the

emergency management profession and the

national capability.

NEMA is currently investigating the feasibility

of accreditation of State Emergency Management organizations based upon review of

successful accreditation programs in other

related fields such as fire and law enforcement.

The results of NEMA’s work in this area will

help guide FEMA in the development of

appropriate performance measures for its

programs. The current interest in the CAR

process, standards development, and

accreditation are all positive examples of the

bold new direction in our partnership for

preparedness for the 21st century.

T he CAR process is an evolving process, intended to be improved during the upcoming yearsin close coordination with the NEMA, the NCCEM, and other emergency management

organizations. Workshops, currently scheduled in three locations, will focus on reviewing the CAR

process in support of the PPA/CA. Topics to be addressed will include the CAR process,

reassessment cycles, review of attributes and characteristics, weighting of questions, identification

of Core Competencies, “recommended practices,” and a rating system.

“. . . CAR process, standards development, and accreditation . . .

our bold new direction in our partnership for preparedness for the

21st century.”