National Mitigation 

Framework 

May 2013

National Mitigation Framework

Executive Summary

The National Mitigation Framework establishes a common platform and forum for coordinating and 

addressing how the Nation manages risk through mitigation capabilities. Mitigation reduces the 

impact of disasters by supporting protection and prevention activities, easing response, and speeding 

recovery to create better prepared and more resilient communities. This Framework describes 

mitigation roles across the whole community. The Framework addresses how the Nation will 

develop, employ, and coordinate core mitigation capabilities to reduce loss of life and property by 

lessening the impact of disasters. Building on a wealth of objective and evidence-based knowledge 

and community experience, the Framework seeks to increase risk awareness and leverage mitigation 

products, services, and assets across the whole community. 

While the National Mitigation Framework is new, mitigation has long existed at every level—from 

the family that creates a sheltering plan in case of a tornado, to corporate emergency plans for 

opening manufacturing plants to the community, to local codes and zoning that systemically address 

risks in a community’s buildings. Building widespread resilience throughout communities, however, 

is a priority for the Nation. Responsibility is shared by individuals; businesses; non-profit 

organizations; and local, state, tribal, territorial, and Federal governments. Drawing upon the support 

and guidance of the whole community, risk and vulnerability can be managed and community 

residents can feel confident knowing they live in safer, more secure, and resilient communities. 

Working together, risks can be recognized and addressed through a culture of preparedness and 

mitigation that is built and sustained over time. This begins with a comprehensive understanding of 

risk that is translated into plans and actions through partnerships. Aiming toward the ultimate goal of 

sustainability and resilience, mitigation requires a process of continuous learning, adapting to change, 

managing risk, measuring successes, and evaluating progress. 

The four guiding principles for mitigation include Resilience and Sustainability, Leadership and 

Locally Focused Implementation, Engaged Partnerships and Inclusiveness, and Risk-conscious 

Culture. These principles lay the foundation for the Mitigation mission and the execution of its core 

capabilities. 

Effective mitigation begins with identifying the threats and hazards a community faces and 

determining the associated vulnerabilities and consequences. Sound assessment requires risk 

information—based on credible science, technology, and intelligence—validated by experience. 

Understanding risks makes it possible to develop strategies and plans to manage them. Managing

risks from threats and hazards requires decision making to accept, avoid, reduce, or transfer those 

risks. Avoiding and reducing risks are ways to reduce the long-term vulnerability of a community 

and build individual and community resilience. This Framework is driven by risk, rather than the 

occurrence of incidents. By fostering comprehensive risk considerations, the Framework encourages 

behaviors and activities that will reduce the exposure and vulnerability of communities. 

The Nation increases its resilience when it manages risks across this spectrum, from narrow-impact 

incidents to widespread, severe, and catastrophic disasters. Building and sustaining a mitigationminded culture will make the Nation more socially, ecologically, and economically resilient before, 

during, and after an incident. Resilience in communities and the Nation depends on the whole 

community working together. 

The National Mitigation Framework discusses seven core capabilities required for entities involved 

in mitigation: threat and hazard identification, risk and disaster resilience assessment, planning, 

 i 
National Mitigation Framework

community resilience, public information and warning, long-term vulnerability reduction, and 

operational coordination. 

Coordinating structures are composed of representatives from multiple departments or agencies, 

public and/or private sector organizations, or a combination of these. Coordinating structures are able 

to facilitate the preparedness and delivery of capabilities, and they provide guidance, support, and 

integration to aid in the preparedness of the whole community and building resilience at the local, 

regional, and national levels. They ensure ongoing communication and coordination among all 

parties involved in preparing and delivering capabilities.

The coordinating structures for mitigation should focus on creating a national culture shift that 

embeds risk management and mitigation in all planning, decision making, and development. 

Regardless of the level of the coordinating structure, consideration of risk management and 

mitigation will reduce the Nation’s risk and associated consequences. Given the risk-based premise 

(rather than an incident-based focus), the preponderance of the coordinating structures originate and 

are sustained at a regional and local scale.

A Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) is being established to coordinate mitigation 

efforts across the Federal Government and to assess the effectiveness of mitigation capabilities as 

they are developed and deployed across the Nation. The MitFLG will include relevant local, state, 

tribal, and Federal organizations. The MitFLG will have a balance of non-Federal members to ensure 

appropriate integration of Federal efforts across the whole community. 

In implementing the National Mitigation Framework to build national preparedness, partners are 

encouraged to develop a shared understanding of broad-level strategic implications as they make 

critical decisions in building future capacity and capability. The whole community should be 

engaged in examining and implementing the strategy unifying principles and doctrine contained in 

this Framework, considering both current and future requirements in the process. 

ii
National Mitigation Framework

Table of Contents

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

Framework Purpose and Organization .................................................................................1

Intended Audience ...................................................................................................................3

Scope ............................................................................................................................. 3

Guiding Principles ...................................................................................................................4

Risk Basis ..................................................................................................................................5

Roles and Responsibilities........................................................................................... 7

Individuals, Families, and Households ..................................................................................8

Communities .............................................................................................................................8

Nongovernmental Organizations ............................................................................................9

Private Sector Entities .............................................................................................................9

Local Governments ..................................................................................................................9

State, Tribal, Territorial, and Insular Area Governments ................................................10

Federal Government ..............................................................................................................10

Collaboration Across Roles ...................................................................................................11

Core Capabilities......................................................................................................... 14

Threats and Hazard Identification .......................................................................................15

Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment .............................................................................16

Planning ..................................................................................................................................18

Community Resilience ...........................................................................................................20

Public Information and Warning .........................................................................................22

Long-term Vulnerability Reduction .....................................................................................24

Operational Coordination .....................................................................................................25

Coordinating Structures and Integration .................................................................. 26

Local Coordinating Structures .............................................................................................27

Multi-jurisdictional, State, and Sector Coordinating Structures ......................................28

Federal Coordinating Structures..........................................................................................29

National Coordinating Structures ........................................................................................29

iii
National Mitigation Framework

Integration ..............................................................................................................................31

Relationship to Other Mission Areas......................................................................... 31

Prevention Mission Area .......................................................................................................32

Protection Mission Area ........................................................................................................32

Response Mission Area ..........................................................................................................32

Recovery Mission Area ..........................................................................................................33

Operational Planning .................................................................................................. 33

Mitigation Operational Planning .........................................................................................33

Planning Assumptions ...........................................................................................................35

Framework Application ........................................................................................................35

Supporting Resources................................................................................................ 35

Conclusion................................................................................................................... 35

iv
National Mitigation Framework

Introduction

Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 8: National Preparedness was released in March 2011 with the

goal of strengthening the security and resilience of the United States through systematic preparation 

for the threats that pose the greatest risk to the security of the Nation. PPD-8 defines five mission 

areas—Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery—and mandates the development 

of a series of policy and planning documents to explain and guide the Nation’s approach to ensuring 

and enhancing national preparedness. This National Mitigation Framework, part of the National 

Preparedness System, sets the strategy and doctrine for building, sustaining, and delivering the core 

capabilities for Mitigation identified in the National Preparedness Goal. This Framework considers 

the full spectrum of threats and hazards, including natural, technological/accidental, and 

adversarial/human-caused. 

Prevention: The capabilities necessary to avoid, prevent, or stop a threatened or actual 

act of terrorism. As defined by PPD-8, the term “prevention” refers to preventing imminent 

threats.

Protection: The capabilities necessary to secure the homeland against acts of terrorism 

and manmade or natural disasters.

Mitigation: The capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and property by lessening 

the impact of disasters.

Response: The capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the 

environment, and meet basic human needs after an incident has occurred.

Recovery: The capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by an incident to 

recover effectively.

Framework Purpose and Organization

This Framework establishes a common platform and forum for coordinating and addressing how the 

Nation manages risk through mitigation capabilities. It describes mitigation roles across the whole 

community.1

 While businesses make money by taking risks, they lose money by failing to effectively 

manage those risks. Similarly, in the public sector, choices are made every day that affect the 

consequences, duration, and costs of responding to and recovering from adverse incidents. Mitigation 

requires systemically anticipating and adjusting to trends that could endanger the future of the 

community. Appropriate choices made before an event can help to manage or reduce long-term risk

and potentially reduce response requirements. Mitigation during the recovery phase helps strengthen 

and build a more resilient community to withstand future disasters. 

Building on long-held American values of civic engagement, the Nation must engage in an ongoing 

dialogue about how to prepare for the future. Demonstrating clear and measurable returns on 

investment through mitigation is essential to that dialogue and necessary to build a resilient, riskconscious culture. A mature, risk-conscious culture is ultimately measured by its reduction in loss of 

1 The whole community includes individuals, families, and households; communities; the private and nonprofit 

sectors; faith-based organizations; and local, state, tribal, territorial, and Federal governments. Whole community is 

defined in the National Preparedness Goal as “a focus on enabling the participation in national preparedness 

activities of a wider range of players from the private and nonprofit sectors, including nongovernmental

organizations and the general public, in conjunction with the participation of Federal, state, and local governmental 

partners in order to foster better coordination and working relationships.” The National Preparedness Goal is located 

online at http://www.fema.gov/ppd8. 

 1 

 
National Mitigation Framework

life and whether it has sufficient capacity to continue to promote the social, ecological, and economic 

vitality of the community when adapting to changing conditions or recovering from an adverse 

incident.

Starting with existing structures and capabilities, this Framework outlines how the Nation can expand 

its commitment to mitigation and strengthen resilience. The National Mitigation Framework 

discusses seven core capabilities required for entities involved in mitigation: 

 Threats and Hazard Identification 

 Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment

 Planning 

 Community Resilience

 Public Information and Warning 

 Long-term Vulnerability Reduction 

 Operational Coordination. 

Those who play a role in mitigation range from an individual making decisions about how to manage 

the risks in his or her life, to local jurisdictions and large metropolitan regions working to manage 

their community members’ risks from threats and hazards, to state and Federal agencies 

administering large, multi-purpose programs. The Nation increases its resilience when it manages 

risks across this spectrum, from narrow-impact incidents to widespread, severe, and catastrophic 

disasters. Building and sustaining a mitigation-minded culture will make the Nation more socially, 

ecologically, and economically resilient before, during, and after an incident. Resilience in 

communities and the Nation depends on the whole community working together. 

Resilient communities proactively protect themselves against hazards, build selfsufficiency, and become more sustainable. Resilience...involves technical, 

organizational, social, and economic dimensions. It is fostered not only by government, 

but also by individual, organization, and business actions.2

Effective mitigation3 begins with identifying the threats and hazards a community faces and 

determining the associated vulnerabilities and consequences. Sound assessment requires risk 

information—based on credible science, technology, and intelligence—validated by experience. 

Understanding risks makes it possible to develop strategies and plans to manage them. Managing

risks from threats and hazards requires decision making to accept, avoid, reduce, or transfer those 

risks. Avoiding and reducing risks are ways to reduce the long-term vulnerability of a community 

and build individual and community resilience. 

When preparing for mitigation plans and activities, it is critical to consider the implications in 

context of the economy, housing, health and social services, infrastructure, and natural and cultural 

2 Godschalk, David R., et.al. 2009. “Estimating the Value of Foresight: Aggregate Analysis of Natural Hazard 

Mitigation Benefits and Costs.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52(6):739-56. 3 PPD-8 includes a definition of “mitigation” that extends beyond the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). The term “mitigation” under PPD-8 “refers to those capabilities necessary 

to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters. Mitigation capabilities include, but are not 

limited to, community-wide risk reduction projects; efforts to improve the resilience of critical infrastructure and 

key resource lifelines; risk reduction for specific vulnerabilities from natural hazards or acts of terrorism; and 

initiatives to reduce future risks after a disaster has occurred.”

2 

 
National Mitigation Framework

resources. Taking such a broad view enables leaders to assess existing interdependencies, associated 

vulnerabilities, and cascading effects so that communities understand the risks thoroughly enough to 

plan not only for those identified and quantified but also for residual risks.

America’s security and resilience work is never finished. While the Nation is safer, stronger, and 

better prepared than it was a decade ago, the commitment to safeguard the Nation against its greatest 

risks, now and for decades to come, remains resolute. 

Intended Audience

The Mitigation Framework addresses individuals, nonprofit entities and nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs), the private sector, communities, critical infrastructure interests, governments, 

and the Nation as a whole. Engaging the whole community is critical to success and individual and 

community preparedness is a key component. By providing equal access to acquire and use the 

necessary knowledge and skills, the whole community can contribute to and benefit from national 

preparedness. This includes children, individuals with disabilities and others with access and 

functional needs;

4

 those from religious, racial, and ethnically diverse backgrounds; and people with 

limited English proficiency (LEP). Their contributions must be integrated into preparedness efforts, 

and their needs must be incorporated as the whole community plans and executes the core 

capabilities.

Scope

PPD-8 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a National Preparedness Goal—

through a coordinated effort with other Executive Branch departments and agencies and consultation 

with local, state, tribal, and territorial governments, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the 

public—to define “the core capabilities necessary to prepare for the specific types of incidents that 

pose the greatest risk to the security of the Nation” and a series of National Planning Frameworks to 

coordinate efforts to deliver the capabilities defined in the Goal. 

The National Mitigation Framework is one of five frameworks developed to enable achievement of 

the goal of a secure and resilient Nation with the capabilities required to prevent, protect against, 

mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk across the 

whole community. The Framework addresses how the Nation will develop, employ, and coordinate 

core mitigation capabilities to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters. 

Building on a wealth of objective and evidence-based knowledge and community experience, the 

Framework seeks to increase risk awareness and leverage mitigation products, services, and assets 

across the whole community. 

Mitigation is the thread that permeates the fabric of national preparedness.

This Framework describes the seven core capabilities necessary for successful mitigation that will 

lead to a more resilient Nation. This Framework is driven by risk rather than the occurrence of 

incidents. By fostering comprehensive risk considerations, the Framework encourages behaviors and 

activities that will reduce the exposure and vulnerability of communities. 

4 Access and functional needs includes ensuring the equal access and meaningful participation of all individuals, 

without discrimination.

 3 

 
National Mitigation Framework

Guiding Principles

The four guiding principles for mitigation include Resilience and Sustainability, Leadership and 

Locally Focused Implementation, Engaged Partnerships and Inclusiveness, and Risk-conscious 

Culture. These principles lay the foundation for the Mitigation mission and the execution of its core 

capabilities. 

Resilience and Sustainability

Preparing people, property, critical infrastructure resources, and the economy to withstand or absorb 

the impact of an incident and rebound in a manner that sustains their way of life in the aftermath 

makes their communities and the Nation more resilient. Individuals, communities, NGOs, all levels 

of government, and the private sector should consider the long-term economic, health, social, and 

environmental dimensions of their choices and ensure resilience is maintained and improved. 

Sustainability employs a longer-term approach through plans, policies, and actions that reflect a 

comprehensive understanding of the economic, social, and environmental systems within a 

community. 

The National Mitigation Framework addresses two dimensions of resilience5: 

Community resilience is an inclusive, informed process that addresses social, 

economic, natural and cultural, technical, and organizational dimensions within a 

community—preparing a community to consciously mitigate rather than ignore risks.

Resilience is an outcome—the state of being able to adapt to changing conditions and 

then withstand and rebound from the impacts of disasters and incidents.

Leadership and Locally Focused Implementation

Mitigation empowers formal and informal local leaders to embrace their ownership of building 

resilient and sustainable communities. Effective, ongoing mitigation is led by the local community, 

working together to identify, plan for, and reduce vulnerabilities and promote long-term personal and 

community resilience and sustainability. Everyday discussions and actions can have unexpected 

implications for risk management and, therefore, should be viewed through the mitigation lens. 

Leaders at the state and national levels support local leadership by facilitating effective ongoing 

mitigation through setting a vision, aligning programs, and supporting local efforts as needed. 

Engaged Partnerships and Inclusiveness

Mitigation is advanced through the collective actions of many groups. No one entity can accomplish 

these goals. These partnerships may include: 

 All levels of government 

 Faith-based organizations 

 Nonprofit organizations 

 Private/corporate entities

 Public groups 

 Community associations

5 The National Mitigation Framework builds on the definition of resilience as defined in the National Preparedness 

Goal, September 2011.

4 

 
National Mitigation Framework

 Academia

 Experts 

 Professional groups 

 Neighbors. 

Participation within these partnerships should include advocates for children, seniors, individuals 

with disabilities and others with access and functional needs, racially and ethnically diverse 

communities, people with LEP, and animals. The most effective partnerships within a community 

capitalize on all available resources—identifying, developing, fostering, and strengthening new and 

existing coordinating structures to create a unity of effort. Many of the community organizations and 

partners have active roles in the other mission areas as well. 

Establishing trusted relationships among leaders and communities prior to a disaster is essential to 

community resilience and sustainability. These relationships enhance and strengthen day-to-day 

mitigation efforts and are critical for timely and effective response and recovery activities during and 

after a disaster event. This inclusiveness will generate public awareness and support to reach the 

common objective of mitigating risk and promoting resilience. 

Risk-conscious Culture

The American people, resources, economy, and way of life are bolstered and made more resilient by 

anticipating, communicating, and preparing for threats and hazards—both internal and external—

through comprehensive and deliberate risk management. The value of a risk management approach 

or strategy to decision makers is not in the promotion of a particular course of action but rather in the 

ability to distinguish among various risk management choices for accepting, avoiding, reducing, or 

transferring the risk within the larger context. 

Nurturing a risk-conscious culture enables community leaders to routinely and systematically 

evaluate a wide variety of threats and hazards and then prioritize strategies, resources, and efforts 

using a comprehensive approach. A risk-conscious culture involves providing clear, meaningful, 

consistent, accessible (including for people with LEP), and culturally appropriate or multidisciplinary messaging so that the whole community embraces mitigation and reduces its exposure 

and vulnerability to risk. Information should be communicated to LEP individuals through 

interpreters and translated documents. Information and messaging must ensure effective 

communication with individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional needs, 

including the deaf, hard of hearing, blind, or people with low vision, through the use of appropriate 

auxiliary aids and services, such as sign language and other interpreters, and the captioning of audio 

and video materials. Systems, communities, and institutions that are robust, adaptable, and have the 

capacity for rapid recovery contribute to overall public safety and security. 

Resilience is an end-state of effective risk management. Risk management includes identifying 

opportunities to build resilience into planning, resourcing to reduce risk in advance of a hazard, and 

mitigating the consequences of disasters that occur. By focusing on the resilience of the community 

as a whole, the community’s adaptive capacity to recover from all kinds of change is enhanced, 

whether that risk has been identified or not. 

Risk Basis

Risk is the potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from an incident or caused by systemic 

degradation, as determined by its likelihood, associated consequences, and vulnerability to those 

consequences. 

 5 
National Mitigation Framework

The Strategic National Risk Assessment (SNRA) was developed as part of the larger PPD-8 effort. 

The core capabilities in the National Preparedness Goal are informed by the results of the SNRA, 

which identifies the threats and hazards most likely to affect the Nation. The SNRA assigned threats 

and hazards for the Nation into three categories: natural hazards; technological/accidental hazards; 

and adversarial/human-caused threats/hazards.6

 The risks and threats identified by SNRA include the 

following: 

 Natural hazards, including hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, and floods, present a significant 

and varied risk across the country. 

 A virulent strain of pandemic influenza could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, affect 

millions more, and result in considerable economic loss. Additional human and animal infectious 

diseases, including those previously undiscovered, may also present significant risks. 

 Technological and accidental hazards, such as dam failures or chemical substance spills or 

releases, have the potential to cause extensive fatalities and severe economic impacts, and the 

likelihood of occurrence may increase due to aging infrastructure. 

 Terrorist organizations or affiliates may seek to acquire, build, and use weapons of mass 

destruction. Conventional terrorist attacks, including those by lone actors employing explosives 

and armed attacks, present a continued risk to the Nation. 

 Cyber attacks can have catastrophic consequences and may also have cascading effects such as

power grid or financial system failures. 

Mitigation, as a mission area, is specifically intended to minimize risks associated with these threats 

and hazards. No single threat or hazard exists in isolation. As an example, a hurricane can lead to 

flooding, dam failures, and hazardous materials spills. The National Preparedness Goal, therefore, 

focuses on Mitigation core capabilities that can be applied to deal with cascading effects as well as 

other unknown risks. Figure 1 depicts some of the threats and hazards that guided the development of 

this Framework. Communities should consider them in their analyses. 

6 Generally, “threats” relate to adversarial concerns.

6 

 
National Mitigation Framework

Figure 1: Examples of Threats and Hazards by Category

Planning for and managing the “greatest risks” are fundamental components of the National 

Preparedness Goal and the National Preparedness System. Regardless of whether mitigation occurs at 

the individual, institutional, or national level, each entity coordinates with mitigation partners 

vertically and horizontally to identify, clarify, and prioritize risks. 

Roles and Responsibilities

Resilience depends on the whole community—individuals, families, and households; communities; 

NGOs; private sector entities; local governments; state, tribal, territorial, and insular area 

governments; and the Federal Government (see Figure 2). Inclusiveness and partnership throughout 

these levels can ensure the best use of available knowledge, resources, and efforts. All levels of 

public and private entities have a role in community resilience and sustainability. Leaders strengthen 

community and economic vitality while reducing the long-term vulnerabilities when they support, 

promote, align, and implement these policies and activities. This is complemented by research, 

development, and investment—the basis of new and improved long-term vulnerability reduction 

capabilities—making these investments an increasingly effective, cost-efficient, and sustainable 

approach to building resilience. 

 7 
National Mitigation Framework

Figure 2: Composition of the Whole Community

Individuals, Families, and Households

Mitigation begins with individual awareness and action. Informed actions that reduce risk allow 

individuals, families, households, and their animals to better withstand, absorb, or adapt to the 

impacts of threats and hazards. Adverse incidents can compromise safety, physical and behavioral 

health, property, and financial well-being. Safe and secure individuals, families, and households are 

often less dependent on response services, which, in turn, places fewer responders in hazardous 

response situations. Members of the whole community, including individuals with disabilities and 

others with access and functional needs, LEP populations, and racially and ethnically diverse 

communities, benefit from mitigation actions as they can expect fewer disruptive disaster impacts 

and a decreased need for supplemental resource support. 

Possible individual, family, and household long-term vulnerability reduction efforts may 

include:7

 Ensuring that a tornado safe room or shelter is quickly and easily accessible

 Removing pine needles from the roof and gutters to reduce the likelihood of a home 

catching fire from wildfire embers

 Maintaining appropriate insurance coverage

 Installing a home generator

Elevating heat pumps, water heaters, and air conditioners high enough to stay dry 

during a flood event. 

Communities

Communities are unified groups that share goals, values, or purposes rather than geographic 

boundaries or jurisdictions. Communities bring people together in different ways for different 

reasons, but each provides opportunities for sharing information and promoting collective action. 

They have the ability to promote and implement mitigation activities without necessarily holding a 

formal position of authority within a jurisdiction. 

7 Refer to the Core Capabilities section for more information.

8 

 
National Mitigation Framework

Communities advancing mitigation can include social and community service groups and 

institutions, neighborhood partnerships, communities representing and/or including those with 

disabilities and others with access and functional needs, online communities, hazard-specific 

coalitions, and communities of practice. While the scale will vary, communities may be the most 

effective actors to take specific action to manage and reduce their specific risks. In many 

communities, local Citizen Corps Councils8

 assist in bringing government and civic leaders and 

organizations together. These local Citizen Corps Councils engage broad participation in assessing 

and reviewing community risks and are positioned to integrate resources from the community. 

Nongovernmental Organizations

NGOs and nonprofit organizations—including voluntary organizations, faith-based organizations, 

national and professional associations, and educational institutions—play an essential role in 

facilitating resilience across the whole community. These organizations are inherently independent 

and committed to specific interests and values. They can augment government efforts and provide 

specialized services to groups such as children, individuals with disabilities and others with access 

and functional needs, ethnically and racially diverse communities, people with LEP, and animal

owners, including household pets and service animals. NGOs can also provide training and education 

to communities, including how-to guides. They can represent communities and many groups in 

mitigation policy discussions. 

Private Sector Entities

Private sector entities (e.g., local businesses, large corporations, healthcare providers, childcare 

providers, and other service providers) are integral parts of the community, and their perspectives are

indispensable in mitigation efforts. Mitigation is a sound business practice that enables a reduction in 

disaster losses and a quicker restoration of normal operations. Private sector investments in 

continuity and vulnerability reduction also have broad benefits. 

As the owners and operators of the majority of the Nation’s infrastructure, private sector entities are 

essential to improving resilience through planning and long-term vulnerability reduction efforts. A 

more resilient private sector strengthens community resilience by helping to sustain economic vitality 

and ensuring the continued delivery of goods and services in the aftermath of a disaster. Among 

numerous activities that promote and implement the mitigation core capabilities, businesses analyze 

and manage their own risks, volunteer time and services, operate business emergency operations 

centers, help protect America’s infrastructure, and promote the return on investment realized from 

increased resilience and reduced vulnerability. 

Local Governments

Working to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people they represent, local governments 

also bear responsibility for mitigation activity. Across multiple levels of public service, they develop, 

assess, and implement mitigation core capabilities with consideration given to the economy, housing, 

health and social services, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources. Local governments often 

8 The mission of Citizen Corps is to harness the power of every individual through education, training, and volunteer 

service to make communities safer, stronger, and better prepared to respond to the threats of terrorism, crime, public 

health issues, and disasters of all kinds. The Citizen Corps Councils bring together leaders from the relevant sectors 

of communities to coordinate the Citizen Corps effort. The purpose of the Council is to have all decisionmakers at 

the table to manage existing volunteer resources, to leverage mutually supportive endeavors among the represented 

groups, and to direct the overall local plans to implement Citizen Corps in the community.

 9 

 
National Mitigation Framework

join together and take a regional approach to mitigation, such as across watersheds or nuclear 

emergency planning zones. 

Most mitigation occurs at the local level, where communities apply a localized understanding of risks 

to effective planning and identify strategic mitigation options. Local governments are directly 

connected to community plans and goals and, in many cases, bring more precise understanding of 

local vulnerabilities to bear on risk reduction activity. Making the connection between community 

resilience priorities and private sector development is a challenge most often addressed directly at the 

local level. Actions to reduce long-term vulnerability, such as effective building code adoption and 

enforcement, are applied in both the pre-disaster planning and the post-disaster recovery activities of 

the jurisdiction.

State, Tribal, Territorial, and Insular Area Governments

State, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments are responsible for the public safety, security, 

health, and welfare of the people who live in their jurisdictions. These levels of government serve an 

integral role as a conduit for vertical coordination among Federal agencies and local governments. 

They implement mitigation core capabilities through designated officials, such as State or Tribal 

Hazard Mitigation Officers or National Flood Insurance Program Coordinators. State, tribal, 

territorial, and insular area governments can promote resilience through their legislative bodies by 

implementing legislation that facilitates mitigation in all relevant functional components of the 

government, such as laws governing local land use and development decisions or building codes. 

As sovereign nations, tribal governments govern and manage the safety and security of their lands 

and community members along with their Federal partners. Federal, state, and local governments 

work with the sovereign tribal governments to ensure integration of their mitigation efforts. Tribal 

governments may assume a state or local role when receiving certain Federal hazard mitigation 

funding and developing hazard mitigation plans. 

Federal Government

The President leads the Federal Government Mitigation efforts to prepare the Nation for all hazards, 

including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. Supporting the whole 

community with Federal resources, data, intelligence, and leadership requires an engaged and 

responsive Federal role in mitigation. However, to be successful any approach to the delivery of 

Mitigation capabilities will require an all-of-Nation approach. All Federal departments and agencies 

must cooperate with one another, and with local, state, tribal, and territorial governments, community 

members, and private sector to the maximum extent possible. The Secretary of Homeland Security 

has the broad responsibility of coordinating preparedness activities, including mitigation activities, to 

respond to and recover from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies to ensure 

Federal unity of effort. As described in the Coordinating Structures and Integration section, most 

Executive Branch departments and agencies also play important roles in advancing mitigation and 

resilience in the Nation. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) plays a 

role in coordinating Federal mitigation policy and the effectiveness of mitigation capabilities as they 

are developed and deployed across the Nation. 

Further, several Executive Branch departments and agencies, including those identified by 

Presidential directive as Sector-Specific Agencies (SSAs) for the critical infrastructure sectors,9 play 

a leadership role in coordinating programs to address the effects of deliberate efforts by terrorists to 

9 See the National Infrastructure Protection Plan for more information on the SSAs.

10

 
National Mitigation Framework

destroy or exploit elements of the Nation’s infrastructure and to strengthen the national resilience of 

that infrastructure to all hazards. The Federal Government, in coordination with local, state, tribal, 

and territorial partners and the private sector, also contributes to the development and delivery of the 

core capabilities in a way that also ensures the protection of privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. 

Collaboration Across Roles

Many of the activities within the Mitigation mission area require a cross-section of players in order to 

achieve success. While not intended to be exhaustive, Table 1 illustrates the responsibilities and 

demonstrates the various roles that need to be involved. 

11
National Mitigation Framework

Table 1: Examples of Roles and Responsibilities That Advance Mitigation

Role/Responsibility

Individuals, Families, 

and Households

Communities

Nongovernmental 

Organizations

Private Sector Entities

Local Governments

State, Tribal, 

Territorial, and Insular 

Area Governments

Federal Government

Work with the Federal Government to inform the assessment, development, and 

coordination of mitigation core capabilities. X X X X X 

Coordinate the national assessment and report on the progress made within the 

mitigation core capabilities. X 

Use regulatory authorities and provide funds, incentives, expertise, and leadership to 

promote the development, implementation, and assessment of mitigation core 

capabilities. For example, use financial incentives and targeted capital improvement 

projects to reduce long-term vulnerabilities.

X X X 

Contribute to the general understanding of risk through the collection, development, 

analysis, and sharing of information about threats, hazards, and vulnerabilities, as well 

as through constant evaluation and enhancement of risk assessment methodologies.

X X X X X 

In coordination with other mission areas, develop, fund, and deliver training curricula for 

preschool, grades K–12, colleges and universities, continuing education, and the whole 

community to develop proficiency in understanding risks and mitigation.

X X X X X 

Engage with local leaders and planners to share perspectives on localized threats and 

hazards, vulnerabilities, and priorities for incorporating mitigation into community 

planning and development, therefore making achieving resilience a part of the 

community both before and after a disaster.

X X X X X X X 

Assess risks and disaster resilience. Maintain awareness of threats, hazards, and 

vulnerabilities. X X X X X X X 

12
National Mitigation Framework

Role/Responsibility

Individuals, Families, 

and Households

Communities

Nongovernmental 

Organizations

Private Sector Entities

Local Governments

State, Tribal, 

Territorial, and Insular 

Area Governments

Federal Government

Incorporate mitigation principles and priorities into ongoing activities, including 

economic and community planning and development, construction and assessment of 

infrastructure, comprehensive plans, disaster response and recovery support, homeland 

security research and development, training, and exercises. Identify leaders who will be 

responsible for applying mitigation capabilities to these areas, and identify ways to 

incentivize integration into existing organizational processes.

X X X X X X 

Acquire funding or resources and take action to reduce risk through projects, such as 

home elevation, or processes, such as enforcing building codes. X X X X X X 

Provide functional capacity and technical expertise to implement long-term vulnerability 

reduction projects across the whole community, whether engineering a bridge to 

withstand an earthquake, planning a future development for resilience, or building 

redundancies into critical infrastructure and lifeline systems.

X X X X X X 

Identify loss reduction and loss control methods and resources to develop mitigation 

strategies that reduce risks from threats and hazards to personnel, assets, and 

operations. Maintain continuity of government and/or continuity of operations/business 

continuity.

X X X X X 

Become familiar with public information and warning systems, share information with 

friends and neighbors, build skills to enhance behavioral health resilience, plan ahead, 

and promote mitigation efforts within communities.

X X X X X 

Conduct and fund outreach and education to effectively communicate successful 

practices, local mitigation priorities, and event-specific warnings and information in ways 

that are clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally and linguistically appropriate. Plan 

ahead and incorporate the needs of those with disabilities and others with access and 

functional needs.

X X X X X X 

13
National Mitigation Framework

Core Capabilities

Building on the National Preparedness Goal, this section explains what each mitigation core 

capability entails, the context in which it is employed, and the critical tasks associated with it. This is 

not an exhaustive list of mitigation capabilities but rather a description of the core capabilities used 

across the Nation. Individuals and households, communities, private sector and NGOs, and all levels 

of government should evaluate their particular risks and existing resources to determine whether and 

how to further develop and deploy these capabilities. 

Comprehensive mitigation strategies consider the systems that make up communities and the Nation.

Mitigation activities are implemented through the core capabilities with consideration given to the 

economy, housing, health and social services, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources 

(shown in Figure 3).10

Figure 3: Comprehensive Mitigation Includes Strategies for All Community Systems

Figure 4 depicts the seven core capabilities. The Threats and Hazard Identification and Risk and 

Disaster Resilience Assessment capabilities enable risk-based decision making based on both general 

and localized information about threats, hazards, and vulnerabilities. The Planning capability enables 

10 The community systems listed here intentionally parallel the components of the National Disaster Recovery 

Framework. These are the essential systems that constitute the backbone of effective communities.

14

 
National Mitigation Framework

a process that evaluates and prioritizes mitigation options for reducing risk, which are then 

implemented through the Long-term Vulnerability Reduction capability by taking actions to reduce 

risk and increase resilience. The whole community contributes to and benefits from the Operational 

Coordination capability, which promotes effective collaboration and avoids duplication of effort. The 

whole community also shares information about risks and ongoing or recommended mitigation 

activities through the Public Information and Warning capability. The Community Resilience 

capability enables all of the other capabilities by providing the leadership and collaboration necessary 

to identify, build support for, initiate, and sustain mitigation efforts that reflect the needs and 

priorities of all pertinent stakeholders. 

There are three capabilities that cross all five mission areas: Planning, Public Information and 

Warning, and Operational Coordination. These capabilities are shared and provide direct linkages 

among the mission areas.

Figure 4: Mitigation Core Capabilities

Threats and Hazard Identification

Identify the threats and hazards that occur in the geographic area, determine the 

frequency and magnitude, and incorporate this into the analysis and planning processes 

so as to clearly understand the needs of a community or entity.

Capability Description

In the context of mitigation, this capability involves the continual process of collecting timely and 

accurate data on threats and hazards to meet the needs of analysts and decision makers. Threats and 

Hazard Identification relies on two-way data collaboration—nationally generated and locally derived 

data. The bottom-up approach requires proactive, self-reliant, and empowered communities to gather 

data. Partners at all levels in the community make use of local, regional, state, and national data. 

Modeling and tools are refined by more specific local data. This approach ensures that existing 

15
National Mitigation Framework

national data can be reinforced and verified at the local level and improved as new data are 

generated. 

Both approaches generate a strategic, holistic picture that the community can share and use. Outputs 

derived from Threats and Hazard Identification activities may be used to inform planning activities in 

the other mission areas, especially Protection and Response. In return, lessons learned in the other 

mission areas can be used to augment Threats and Hazard Identification data, models, and tools.

Effective Threats and Hazard Identification is supported by standardized data sets, platforms, 

methodologies, terminologies, metrics, and reporting to unify levels of effort across all layers of 

government and society, reducing redundancies. Threats and Hazard Identification also requires the 

ability to synthesize real-time, static, prospective, and historical data to accurately assess risk.

Critical Tasks for Threats and Hazard Identification

 Identify data requirements across stakeholders. 

 Gather required data in a timely and accurate manner in order to effectively identify threats and 

hazards. 

 Ensure that the right data are received by the right people at the right time. 

 Share appropriate data on natural and manmade hazards in a transparent and usable manner. 

 Strike a proper balance between dissemination and classification of national security and 

intelligence information.

 Build cooperation among private and public sectors by protecting internal interests but sharing 

threats and hazard identification resources and benefits. 

 Leverage available third-party data, tools, and information; social media; and open-source 

technology. 

 Translate data into meaningful and actionable information through appropriate analysis and 

collection tools to aid in preparing the public. 

Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment

Assess risk and disaster resilience so that decision makers, responders, and community 

members can take informed action to reduce their entity’s risk and increase their 

resilience.

Capability Description

Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment is the evaluation of threats, hazards, vulnerabilities, 

consequences, needs, and resources through algorithms or other methods to define and prioritize risks 

so community members, decision makers, and responders can make informed decisions and take the 

appropriate action. Such an assessment directly connects threat and hazard data and information in 

order to analyze and understand the potential effects on a community. A robust Risk and Disaster 

Resilience Assessment capability allows a comparison and prioritization of risks from disparate 

threats and hazards across a variety of communities and jurisdictions. Outcomes from Risk and 

Disaster Resilience Assessments, such as analysis and data, can be leveraged in planning efforts and 

resource allocation across the other mission areas. 

16
National Mitigation Framework

Critical Tasks for Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment

Data

 Share risk assessment data, both new and existing, to establish common operations across 

mission areas and standardized data requirements and guidance. Secure sensitive data as 

appropriate. 

 Establish standard data formats to enable sharing of vulnerability data and risk assessment 

outputs. 

 Provide the right data to the right people at the right time.

 Incorporate vulnerability data sets, such as population, demographic, infrastructure inventory and 

condition assessment information; climatological, geological, and environmental factors; critical 

infrastructure, lifelines, and key resources; building stock; and economic data to calculate the risk 

from the threats and hazards identified. 

 Incorporate data from lessons learned and statistical information to target consideration of 

populations (such as for individuals with disabilities or access and functional needs, LEP

populations, and racially and ethnically diverse communities). 

 Update risk assessments to include changes to the risks and the physical environment. This 

includes aging infrastructure, new development, new mitigation projects and initiatives, postevent verification/validation, new technologies or improved methodologies, and better or more 

current data.

 Create and maintain redundant systems for storing information. 

Analysis

 Perform credible risk assessments using scientifically valid and widely used risk assessment 

techniques. 

 Understand social and structural vulnerabilities. 

 Incorporate knowledge gained by those who have experienced incidents to help understand all 

the interdependencies, cascading impacts, and vulnerabilities associated with threats and hazards. 

 Validate, calibrate, and enhance risk assessments by relying on experience and knowledge 

beyond raw data or models. 

 Develop analysis tools to provide information more quickly to those who need it and make use of 

tools and technologies, such as geographic information systems (GIS). 

 Consolidate analysis efforts to remove useless duplication and provide a more uniform picture of 

the risks. 

Education and Training 

 Build the capability within communities to assess, analyze, and apply the knowledge of risk and 

resilience.

 Ensure that data users and assessment stakeholders get the best available data and understand the 

assumptions/estimations made in the methodology. 

17
National Mitigation Framework

 Train stakeholders to develop risk assessments and have the same accurate and comprehensive 

standards of assessment outputs. 

 Use risk assessments to design exercises for response activities and to determine the feasibility of 

mitigation projects and initiatives.

Planning

Conduct a systematic process, engaging the whole community as appropriate, in the 

development of executable strategic, operational, and/or community-based approaches 

to meet defined objectives.

Capability Description

Planning is vital to mitigation, whether it happens at the individual level; in neighborhoods, cities, 

regions, or states; at the national level; or in groups that do not share the same geographic area. 

Within mitigation, planning is a systematic process that translates risk assessment data and 

information into prioritized goals and actions for the whole community. Federal agencies, states, 

businesses, individuals, and groups all develop plans for increasing their resilience. Effective plans 

are living documents that evolve over time and address new risks and vulnerabilities as they arise. 

The planning process is a tool to integrate risk analysis and assessment of local capabilities and 

authorities into community priorities and decision making. This includes the development of plans 

related to family emergencies, land use, critical infrastructure, transportation, capital improvement, 

business improvement districts, sustainability, disaster recovery, climate adaptation, energy 

assurance, public health, and multi-hazard mitigation. Wherever possible, mitigation planning should 

capitalize on existing community efforts. Integrating planning efforts across sectors, disciplines, and 

mission areas and sharing risk analyses and vulnerability assessments eliminate redundancy, 

conserve resources, and identify common solutions. 

To these ends, it is vital that plans reflect the values of the whole community. Planning is most 

effective when it is driven by local need rather than Federal mandates. Individuals and the private 

sector bring specific, valuable expertise and resources to the table when developing and executing 

plans. Planning teams should be integrated and represent a broad spectrum of the population, both 

public and private, so that plans result in strategies and actions that are more meaningful and relevant 

to the mitigation process and the community. 

Local governments that integrate the rights of individuals with disabilities and others with access and 

functional needs into mitigation planning reduce adverse consequences and barriers that create risk 

for them and those associated with them and increase independence. For example, the design, 

construction, alteration, and implementation of program access in emergency management facilities 

and programs permits individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional needs with 

the equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from emergency preparedness. Advance planning 

to ensure disability-related assistance/access and functional needs support services, durable medical 

equipment, and consumable medical supplies mitigates the adverse effects that disasters have on 

individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional needs. 

Critical Tasks for Planning

 Embed risk-based decision making into the planning processes. 

 Collaborate, cooperate, and build consensus across other disciplines that impact plans.

18
National Mitigation Framework

 Understand the demographics and systems that make up the community and their vulnerabilities 

and interdependencies with each other. 

 Include disability and other access and functional needs subject matter experts in mitigation 

planning to address considerations, such as architectural accessibility through compliance with 

the Americans with Disabilities Act architectural standards; disability and other access and 

functional needs advocacy organizations, such as independent living centers; and providers of 

disability- and other access and functional needs-related assistance/functional needs support 

services (FNSS). 

 Understand the full range of animal issues in the community. This will ensure that the 

jurisdiction is equipped to comprehensively address human and animal issues and take steps to 

mitigate vulnerabilities in this area during or after a disaster. Understand the unique differences 

between animals generally, as well as service animals, and the civil rights of their users, such as 

not being separated from their service animals and being able to use all parts of facilities the 

public uses.

 Incorporate the findings from the assessment of risk and disaster resilience into the planning 

process. 

 Seek out and incorporate the whole community in planning efforts. 

 Build on the expertise, knowledge, and systems in place within the community. 

 Share success stories where resilience-based planning has demonstrated measureable 

effectiveness in creating economic vitality within communities.

 Engage in a peer-to-peer and regional partnership (coalitions) mentoring structure that promotes 

best practices, particularly when the planning capability is not present in a community. 

 Foster public-private partnerships to promote resilience and maximize the use of available 

resources. 

 Promote planning initiatives through multiple media sources. 

Effective Planning Practices

 Provide incentives, information, and tools for businesses to exceed minimum standards.

 Strengthen building codes and enforcement to address appropriate local threats and 

hazards. 

 Create economic development opportunities that reduce vulnerabilities.

 Implement strategies before a disaster.

 Create communications networks to reach all partners in the community.

 Exercise the decision making process outlined in the plan.

 Include a timetable for implementation of mitigation actions.

 Monitor plan usefulness.

 Account for stakeholder values in light of hazard mitigation—find planning initiatives that 

build off long-standing community values.

 Include mitigation strategies in community development comprehensive plans.

19
National Mitigation Framework

Community Resilience

Lead the integrated effort to recognize, understand, communicate, plan, and address 

risks so that the community can develop a set of actions to accomplish mitigation and 

improve resilience.

Capability Description

Community Resilience requires leadership, collaboration, partnership building, education, and skill 

building. A community uses these skill sets to understand and assess its risks and to plan, coordinate, 

and execute actions that reduce vulnerability over the long term. The Community Resilience 

capability supports and orchestrates all mitigation activities. 

Official and informal leaders at all levels are important messengers, models, and change agents to 

ensure that mitigation elements are included in plans and actions on a routine basis. A whole 

community approach to building sustainable and resilient communities requires finding ways to 

support and strengthen the institutions, assets, and networks that already work well in communities 

and are working on a daily basis to address issues important to community members. 

Aspects of the Community Resilience Capability

Leadership: The ability to bring together a group that collaborates to make well-informed, timely 

decisions.

A resilient community embodies the risk-based culture—one of vigilance, periodic assessment, and 

continuous improvement. Establishing resilience often requires improvements to the processes, task 

organization, prioritization, and sometimes even the culture of a community’s everyday business. 

Leading such change, or merely maintaining the resilient character of a community, requires 

embracing and adopting mitigation principles. Leaders need to demonstrate to community members 

the intrinsic benefits of implementing change, and then project a vision of the future that inspires 

community members to change mindsets and behaviors to adopt a more resilient outlook. 

Keeping mitigation activities credible and relevant to a community will also help address 

complacency when there has not been an incident in recent history to highlight the need for ongoing 

mitigation. Maintaining a continual dialogue in a trusted environment is essential for connecting 

public and private sector interests, as well as individual and shared values, interests, and priorities 

across multiple communities.

Collaboration: A broad engagement and ongoing dialogue about threats and vulnerabilities and 

meaningful, sustained participation in community planning and decision making.

Meaningful risk reduction measures will frequently include collaboration among private sector 

interests in community development, public sector or law enforcement interests in community safety, 

and various other interest groups, such as those representing children, seniors, and those with 

disabilities and others with access and functional needs. Creating an environment that capitalizes on 

shared interests and addresses differences is crucial to accomplishing resilience. Further 

collaboration includes schools and childcare; public, agricultural/animal, and environmental health 

departments; hospitals/hospital associations; and behavioral health services. A community will 

recover more effectively with intact school, childcare, and health and medical systems. Leadership 

should foster inclusion of the whole community, including members with disabilities and others with 

access and functional needs, LEP, and ethnically and racially diverse groups. 

20
National Mitigation Framework

Partnership Building: The establishment of long-term relationships—well before, during, and 

after incidents—that support ongoing communication and awareness building, decision making, 

and the implementation of plans and decisions.

Partnership building is a key to resilient communities. Mitigation capabilities are coordinated through 

new and existing partnerships at all levels of government with the private sector and NGOs. 

Partnerships and coalitions facilitate the timely exchange of information and provide a potential 

source of shared resources through mutual aid and assistance agreements. Partnerships also support a 

vital educational component, promoting or sharing risk management knowledge and strategies within 

communities, and supporting a variety of skill sets and stakeholders. The continued use of a 

partnership model promotes the coordinated delivery of mitigation capabilities. 

Education and Skill Building 

Resilient communities share and rely on existing education and outreach tools and create 

opportunities to advance mitigation. Resilient communities are capable of adapting to change and can 

integrate new information or educate communities on how to change systems to improve their 

resilience. Partnerships and professional groups capture mitigation success stories from communities 

across the country, share experiences, and develop new resources and skills within their own 

communities. There is a wealth of information on risk reduction activities (available from the private 

sector; local, state, tribal, and territorial government; and Federal sources), as well as a wide range of 

education and outreach material available from communities with expertise. Resilient communities 

leverage these resources and integrate them into their training and outreach efforts. Educational 

institutions—from preschool to graduate-level programs—professional certification groups, and 

continuing education programs have a unique opportunity to incorporate resilience topics into their 

curriculum, affecting education in multiple disciplines. 

Critical Tasks for Community Resilience

 Know the community’s systems—who makes up the community and how to build constructive 

partnerships. 

 Understand the risks facing a community, including physical, social, economic, and 

environmental vulnerabilities to all threats and hazards.

 Recognize and communicate the reinforcing relationships between environmental stewardship 

and natural hazard risk reduction (e.g., enhancement of flood storage through wetland 

protection/restoration and holistic floodplain management). 

 Communicate and utilize the best available localized climate projections so that the public and 

private sectors can make informed decisions. 

 Know the community’s permanent and transient population demographics and use that 

information to plan ahead to address resilience for the whole community, including individuals 

with disabilities and others with access and functional needs. 

 Foster sustained communication, civic engagement, and the development and implementation of 

proactive planning, response, and long-term risk reduction actions in the whole community. 

 Convince community members of the value of mitigation for reducing the impact of disasters and 

the scale of response and recovery efforts. 

 Identify and promote sound choices and discourage choices that increase vulnerabilities and 

risks. 

21
National Mitigation Framework

 Inspire transparency in risk management decision making so that individuals, communities, 

private organizations, and all levels of government demonstrate how resilience is considered. 

 Recognize the interdependent nature of the economy, health and social services, housing 

infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources within a community. 

 Acknowledge and seek out naturally occurring relationships within communities and build 

partnerships and coalitions before disasters or incidents occur. 

 Educate the next generation of community leaders and resilience professionals; learn from the 

past and from what is working in the present. 

Community resilience is expressed through a holistic approach to risk reduction. The 

success of one element relies upon the resilience capacity of other elements. For 

example, when a large business facility is retrofitted to account for wind and flood 

hazards, the community is also motivated to strengthen area schools, employee housing, 

and transportation infrastructure to ensure that workers will be able to quickly rebound 

from an incident, return to work, and restore the community’s tax base. Similarly, when a 

school district or parks department ensures that its facilities, which are used as 

emergency shelters, are architecturally accessible for people with disabilities and others 

with access and functional needs, the community strengthens its school or park system 

and emergency management system, and maximizes the independence of people with 

disabilities and others with access and functional needs. 

Collaborative steady-state Prevention and Protection activities support the Community Resilience 

capability. Increased resilience, brought about through engaged leadership, collaborative 

partnerships, and education efforts, lessens the Response requirements following an incident. 

Resilient communities are likely to be better coordinated and prepared for Recovery activities, 

including the restoration of physical, economic, and social infrastructures. Lessons learned from the 

other mission areas can be incorporated in subsequent resilience building initiatives and planning 

efforts.

Public Information and Warning

Deliver coordinated, prompt, reliable, and actionable information to the whole community 

through the use of clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally and linguistically 

appropriate methods to effectively relay information regarding any threat or hazard and, 

as appropriate, the actions being taken and the assistance being made available.

Capability Description

Effective mitigation is powered throughout its capabilities by risk-informed decision making. For 

mitigation, the Public Information and Warning capability includes all information targeted toward 

creating resilient communities. Ideally, the whole community shares information; communicates 

analytical findings; conducts outreach, engagement, and education; and builds consensus as part of 

ongoing actions. This capability provides a continuous flow of risk and hazard information to the 

whole community, in particular to people who authorize action before and following a disaster and 

drive risk-informed recovery decisions. 

Timely, accurate, and open information sharing, along with mutual regard and respect for all 

stakeholders, provides the foundation for effective engagement. The most critical elements of 

information concerning hazards, risk, responsibilities, successful practices, preventive measures, 

situational awareness, capabilities, and available assistance should be clearly and openly 

communicated by leaders to the whole community—including individuals with disabilities and others 

22
National Mitigation Framework

with access and functional needs, the socially isolated, children, seniors, ethnically and racially 

diverse communities, and people with LEP. 

Critical Tasks for Public Information and Warning

Steady-state/Ongoing Operations 

 Persuade the public that it is worthwhile to build a resilient community. Encourage private and 

public sector partners to work together to communicate the benefits of mitigation action and 

arrive at solutions. 

 Warn people of the risks in their community and the actions they can take to mitigate those risks.

 Communicate priorities and actions identified through risk analysis and plans to stakeholders and 

those expected to take action to reduce risk. 

 Refine and consider options to publicly release potentially sensitive risk information. 

 Use social media, Web sites (e.g., Ready.gov), and smartphone applications, as well as more 

traditional mechanisms, such as community meetings or ethnic media outlets, to inform the 

public of actions to take to connect preparedness to resilience. Information and messaging should 

ensure effective communication with individuals who have disabilities or access and functional

needs, including those who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, or have low vision, through the use 

of appropriate auxiliary aids and services, such as sign language and other interpreters and the 

captioning of audio and video materials. 

 Promote mitigation and resilience to the public through a national preparedness campaign to 

increase public awareness and motivate individuals to build societal resilience prior to an event.

 Target messages to reach organizations representing children, individuals with disabilities or 

access and functional needs, diverse communities, and people with LEP. 

 Support and increase the number of communities that develop and share risk reduction products 

(e.g., building codes, design standards, floodplain management principles and practices, and 

architectural accessibility standards).

Incident-driven Operations

 Provide the tools necessary to make decisions quickly, such as a synchronization matrix that 

allows multiple leaders to make independent decisions.

 Share information obtained through coordinating activities to inform response and recovery 

decision making by effectively communicating threat and hazard risk analysis. 

 Conduct outreach with atypical partners. Coordinate common messaging and verified source 

communications through local community leaders. 

 Capitalize on the critical post-disaster window of opportunity and the media information cycle to 

influence public opinion to take steps toward future mitigation. 

Change Management 

 Address evolving risk perception and risk communication within a community. 

 Practice science-based methods, such as community-based social marketing, to create behavior 

change.

23
National Mitigation Framework

Long-term Vulnerability Reduction

Build and sustain resilient systems, communities, and critical infrastructure and key 

resources lifelines to reduce their vulnerability to natural, technological, and humancaused incidents by lessening the likelihood, severity, and duration of the adverse 

consequences related to the incident.

Capability Description

The Long-term Vulnerability Reduction capability encompasses a variety of actions that reduce 

vulnerability. A resilient community has taken stock of the threats and hazards it faces; analyzed its 

available resources, processes, programs, and funding opportunities; and adopted successful practices 

as it promotes individual and community safety and resilience. The result is an informed action that 

leads to lasting reductions in vulnerability.

Building this capability enhances resilience and vitality across economic, housing, health and social, 

natural and cultural resources, and infrastructure considerations. Further, it lessens the effects of 

natural, technological/accidental, or adversarial/human-caused incidents. Reducing vulnerability over 

the long term can include actions as varied as including mitigation measures in construction and 

development plans and projects, adopting and enforcing hazard-resistant building codes and 

standards, or initiating and maintaining neighborhood civic associations. The Long-term 

Vulnerability Reduction capability includes initiatives and investments that reduce Response and 

Recovery resource requirements in the wake of a disaster or incident. Individuals and organizations 

active across all mission areas can help identify opportunities to reduce risk and build resilience 

through this capability. 

Long-term Vulnerability Reduction requires a commitment to the long-term planning and investment 

processes to ensure community resilience and vitality after an incident. Community partners and 

stakeholders should be engaged and educated on risks, vulnerabilities, and mitigation activities. They 

should share necessary resources to avoid duplication of effort. The result is a safer community that 

is less reliant on external financial assistance.

Critical Tasks for Long-term Vulnerability Reduction

Mitigation actions are successfully implemented with commitment from the community. Engaging 

the whole community with a stake in vulnerability reduction ensures that public and private entities, 

as well as individuals, are invested, fully active partners.

Individual and Local Community

 Broaden the use of natural hazards and catastrophic insurance. 

 Develop plans and recognize that a prepared individual or family is the foundation of a resilient 

community. 

 Promote neighborhood activities and encourage volunteerism that advances preparedness 

awareness campaigns.

 Adopt and enforce a suitable building code to ensure resilient construction. 

 Incorporate mitigation measures into construction and development projects that take into 

account future conditions.

 Capitalize on opportunities during the recovery building process to further reduce vulnerability.

24
National Mitigation Framework

Private Sector

 Determine the level of appropriate risk reduction to incorporate in operational and capital 

improvement projects. 

 Advance projects and activities that do not increase the residual risk in nearby neighborhoods and 

communities. 

 Coordinate with government and community organizations to reduce duplication of effort and 

encourage complementary efforts.

Government

 Put community plans to work. 

 Execute identified risk management actions and projects resulting from analysis and planning 

processes in the community.

 Make risk reduction a priority in capital improvement projects. 

 Employ a variety of incentives, statutory and regulatory requirements, and voluntary initiatives to 

implement successful practices throughout communities. 

 Be transparent and explicit about mitigation efforts in order to increase and sustain whole 

community investment, reduce duplication of effort, and encourage complementary efforts by 

partners. 

 Establish standards and practices to reduce long-term vulnerability.

 Capitalize on opportunities during the recovery building process to further reduce vulnerability. 

Operational Coordination

Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operation structure and process that 

appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders and supports the execution of core 

capabilities.

Capability Description

Incorporating mitigation efforts, as well as response and recovery efforts following disasters, into 

everyday activities requires operational coordination. Operational Coordination is an important 

component in achieving successful mitigation through coordinating structures (see the following 

section, Coordinating Structures and Integration) that connect mitigation practitioners with other 

communities of interest, practice, and expertise. The Operational Coordination capability is 

fundamental to all the other mitigation capabilities and is necessary to build whole community 

resilience.

More specifically, Operational Coordination is the conduit to and from stakeholders. It leverages 

other mitigation capabilities and other mission areas to promote resource sharing, collaboration, and 

whole community mitigation. This capability is broad and could refer to a physical coordinating body 

or a document that outlines procedures. Effective Operational Coordination enables efficient 

information flow and contains a feedback mechanism that incorporates improvements back into the 

governing process and structures.

Some threats, hazards, or disasters require highly disciplined and uniform operational coordination. 

This is particularly true during initial response and recovery activities where incident command and 

control structures are in place to ensure the safety of responders and provide continuity and 

25
National Mitigation Framework

accountability for survivors. Other situations, such as daily building enforcement operations or 

community planning efforts, are more decentralized and organic in their coordinating structures, 

bringing together varied and complex stakeholders with unique authorities and responsibilities. 

Whatever the coordination required, mitigation works effectively as part of all operational 

environments and brings risk-informed decisions to support activity across the whole community of 

national preparedness. 

Critical Tasks for Operational Coordination

Steady-state/Ongoing Operations 

 Establish procedures and build partnerships and coalitions that support mitigation capabilities 

across the whole community and emphasize a coordinated delivery of mitigation capabilities.

 Identify mitigation roles and responsibilities and engage stakeholders across the whole 

community to support the information sharing process. 

 Recognize the complexity of various interest groups and integrate organizations across 

communities, including public-private partnerships. 

Incident-driven Operations

 Emphasize mitigation technique integration into Incident Command System (ICS)11 planning 

cycles by command and general staff representatives and educate whole community partners.

 Use and leverage mitigation products and capabilities, such as the identification of threats and the 

assessment of risk, to support incident operations. 

 Contribute to the situational awareness and a common operating picture for the entire Federal 

Government and for local, state, tribal, and territorial governments, as appropriate, in the event of 

a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other manmade disaster. 

 Capitalize on opportunities for mitigation actions following disasters and incidents. 

Change Management 

 Adapt to evolving risks and changing conditions. 

 Look for ways to include new stakeholders in mitigation capabilities. 

Coordinating Structures and Integration

Coordinating structures are composed of representatives from multiple departments or agencies, 

public and/or private sector organizations, or a combination of these. Coordinating structures are able 

to facilitate the preparedness and delivery of capabilities, and they provide guidance, support, and 

integration to aid in the preparedness of the whole community and building resilience at the local, 

regional, and national levels. They ensure ongoing communication and coordination among all 

parties involved in preparing and delivering capabilities. 

11 ICS is a standardized, on-scene, all-hazards incident management approach that allows for the integration of 

facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications operating within a common organizational 

structure; enables a coordinated response among various jurisdictions and functional agencies, both public and 

private; and establishes common processes for planning and managing resources.

26

 
National Mitigation Framework

At the Federal level, the Secretary of Homeland Security coordinates Federal preparedness activities, 

and multiple departments and agencies provide guidance, support, and integration in order to 

facilitate community preparedness by delivering core capabilities. Federal agencies facilitate the 

ongoing communication and coordination of all involved parties. The preponderance of the 

coordinating structures originates and is sustained at a regional and local scale.

The coordinating structures for mitigation should focus on creating a national culture shift that 

embeds risk management and mitigation in all planning, decision making, and development. 

Regardless of the level of the coordinating structure, consideration of risk management and 

mitigation will reduce the Nation’s risk and associated consequences. Coordinating structures at the 

national level, particularly the Federal Government, should always strive to make Federal programs 

most useful and reduce the time it takes to go through processes. Figure 5 illustrates examples of 

coordinating structures. 

Figure 5: Examples of Coordinating Structures

Local Coordinating Structures

Local communities have specific cultures, values, norms, and laws that reflect their history, residents, 

and geography. The Mitigation Framework seeks to use—not dismiss—the local organizations and 

entities within a community that can build resilience and community vitality. These include, but are 

not limited to: 

 Economic development commissions

 Public works agencies

 Private development enterprises

 Planning commissions 

 Community emergency response teams 

27
National Mitigation Framework

 Faith-based organizations 

 Citizen Corps Councils 

 Service groups 

 Voluntary organizations 

 Public and private schools 

 Resources and referral/advocacy agencies for children, families, and those with disabilities and 

others with access and functional needs

 Local mitigation committees.

It may be appropriate to establish neighborhood-level resilience teams that focus on long-term 

vitality across the systems that make up a community of economic, health and social, housing, 

infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources. 

Through multi-jurisdictional, state, sector, and national coordinating structures, specific efforts 

should be made to generate and sustain neighborhood and local coordinating structures, which, in 

turn, help to build a community’s economic vitality and sustainability.

Multi-jurisdictional, State, and Sector Coordinating Structures

Multi-jurisdictional, state, and sector coordinating structures adopt the character of the people and 

geography they serve. A set of structures has long been in place to advance mitigation. Through the 

National Mitigation Framework, efforts will be made to use and, where appropriate, expand the 

scope of existing structures to implement mitigation capabilities. National associations and hazardspecific coalitions offer particularly strong avenues to advance and coordinate mitigation capabilities. 

Existing structures that can advance elements of mitigation capabilities include: 

 State hazard mitigation planning committees

 Long-term recovery task forces 

 Domestic security groups 

 Water conservation boards 

 Coastal commissions

 Regional/Metropolitan planning organizations 

 Region healthcare coalitions 

 Mutual aid compacts.

State and major urban area fusion centers and Joint Terrorism Task Forces can take particular 

advantage of threat, hazard, risk, and resilience data generated through mitigation capabilities. 

Each of the Nation’s critical infrastructure sectors has a Coordinating Council structure that should 

attend to resilience and the deployment of mitigation capabilities. Leveraging the efforts of the State, 

Local, Tribal, and Territorial Government Coordinating Council, the Sector and Government 

Coordinating Councils can encourage multi-jurisdictional and cross-sector leadership and decision 

making. 

Even with the value these existing structures offer, additional integrating structures may be 

necessary. For example, the Silver Jackets program developed through the U.S. Army Corps of 

28
National Mitigation Framework

Engineers serves as a prototype for this type of integrating structure at the state/regional level, though 

it will take on different forms, shapes, and names in each state or watershed. Effective and 

continuous collaboration among state and Federal agencies is critical to successfully reduce the risk 

of flooding and other natural disasters in the United States and enhance response and recovery efforts 

when such incidents do occur. No single agency has all the answers; however, multiple programs can 

often be combined to provide a cohesive solution. Each of these entities brings a cross-section of 

leadership from the whole community to work together on behalf of the people they serve. 

Federal Coordinating Structures

While the preponderance of mitigation activities and the investment therein flows from the local and 

regional level, Federal agencies play a critical role in supporting and incentivizing these actions 

through the use of Federal resources.

The President leads the Federal Government Mitigation efforts to prepare the Nation for all hazards, 

including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. Pursuant to Presidential 

directive, the Secretary of Homeland Security is the principal Federal official for domestic incident 

management. The Secretary is also responsible for coordinating preparedness activities12 within the 

United States to respond to and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.

Risk-based mitigation activities are a key component of preparedness. Consequently, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security developed the National Mitigation Framework as part of a series of integrated 

National Planning Frameworks designed to ensure effective domestic incident management. While 

local and state governments generally bear primary responsibility for executing mitigation activities, 

the Secretary’s broad responsibility to coordinate “preparedness activities” encompasses the 

coordination of the Federal unity of effort to protect against, prevent, and, when necessary, mitigate

terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. 

Federal unity of effort supports local, state, tribal, and territorial mitigation activities, as appropriate; 

does not interfere with the supervisory, command, or statutory authorities of relevant Federal 

departments and agencies; and ensures that Federal response and recovery operations and 

preparedness activities, such as mitigation, are complete, synchronized, and mutually supportive. 

National Coordinating Structures

The National Security Council (NSC) is the principal policy body for consideration of national 

security policy issues requiring Presidential determination. The NSC advises and assists the President 

in integrating all aspects of national security policy as it affects the United States—domestic, foreign, 

military, intelligence, and economic (in conjunction with the National Economic Council). Along 

with its subordinate committees, the NSC is the President’s principal means for coordinating 

Executive Branch departments and agencies in the development and implementation of national 

security policy. 

Another example of existing coordinating structures that support the Mitigation mission area is 

SSAs. The SSAs were created by Presidential directive in recognition of the statutory and/or 

regulatory authorities that exist in Federal departments and agencies to leverage expertise and 

institutional knowledge to enhance the protection and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure. 

In accordance with the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, the SSAs are tasked with building a 

safer, more secure, and resilient Nation by deterring, neutralizing, or mitigating the effects of 

12 Protection, prevention, and mitigation activities are preparedness activities. See PPD-8.

29

 
National Mitigation Framework

deliberate efforts by terrorists to destroy or exploit elements of the Nation’s critical infrastructure. 

The SSAs are also tasked with strengthening national preparedness, timely response, and rapid 

recovery of critical infrastructure in the event of an attack, natural disaster, or other emergency. The 

SSAs work with both public and private sector partners to develop protection and mitigation 

programs and resilience strategies. The SSAs also work with local, state, tribal, territorial, and 

Federal governments and nonprofit organizations. 

A Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) is being established to coordinate mitigation 

efforts across the Federal Government and to assess the effectiveness of mitigation capabilities as 

they are developed and deployed across the Nation. The MitFLG will include relevant local, state, 

tribal, and Federal organizations. It will be chaired by FEMA in consultation with Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) leadership. Consistent with PPD 1: Organization of the National Security 

Council System, the MitFLG will coordinate with the relevant National Security Council Interagency 

Policy Committees. The MitFLG will have a balance of non-Federal members to ensure appropriate 

integration of Federal efforts across the whole community. Private industry and nongovernmental 

coordination with the MitFLG will come through existing mechanisms, such as structures available 

to SSAs. 

The MitFLG will be a coordinating structure for integrating Federal efforts. Related councils, task 

forces, and committees will coordinate through the MitFLG. Nothing about the formation and 

operation of the MitFLG is intended to alter or impede the ability of Executive Branch departments 

and agencies to carry out their authorities or perform their responsibilities under law and consistent 

with applicable legal authorities and other Presidential guidance.

30
National Mitigation Framework

Mitigation Framework Leadership Group

Local, state, tribal, and territorial representatives. 

Federal membership includes, but is not limited to:

 Department of Agriculture

 Department of Commerce

 Department of Defense

 Department of Energy

 Environmental Protection Agency

 General Services Administration

 Department of Health and Human Services

 Department of Homeland Security

 Department of Housing and Urban Development

 Department of the Interior

 Department of Justice

 Small Business Administration

 Department of Transportation. 

Integration

While the Mitigation Framework focuses on risk rather than incidents, the mitigation capabilities 

serve critical roles that inform prevention, protection, response, and recovery efforts. During 

incidents, the focus should be on public safety and response, yet mitigation resources are still present 

and will align with the coordinating structures in place for the response phase through the Response 

mission area. In the immediate aftermath of an event, there is tremendous opportunity to obtain new 

hazard data, as well as develop and implement mitigation techniques in preparation for potential 

future incidents. After an event, there is political will, immediate experience, and strong 

opportunities for education that promote mitigation strategies and successful practices. The 

coordinating structures should take advantage of this to ensure that the opportunities available during 

this unique time are captured and used. 

As the transition from response to recovery occurs, mitigation resources will move from the response 

coordinating structures to the recovery coordinating structures. The transition ensures that mitigation 

activities are embedded in the recovery process and that every opportunity is taken to rebuild 

stronger and smarter in a way that increases the resilience of communities and sustains the economic 

vitality that is developed before—and recovered after—an incident. 

Relationship to Other Mission Areas

Mitigation reduces the impact of disasters by supporting protection and prevention activities, easing 

response, and speeding recovery to create better prepared and more resilient communities. As a 

critical component of national preparedness, Mitigation capabilities should inform and support the 

other four mission areas. Many, if not all, frameworks could be in effect simultaneously across the 

full spectrum of operations. Mitigation depends on successful coordination and collaboration with 

each of the mission areas.

31
National Mitigation Framework

Planning, Operational Coordination, and Public Information and Warning are the core capabilities 

that span all five mission areas. Within the Mitigation Framework, the Planning capability builds 

upon existing processes, focusing on the incorporation of risk information to inform decision makers. 

Planning for critical infrastructure will be coordinated between the Protection and Mitigation mission 

areas to support shared objectives. Pre- and post-disaster recovery planning will also build on the 

community-based planning performed under mitigation. Under the Operational Coordination 

capability, mitigation works effectively as part of all operational environments and brings riskinformed decisions to support activities across the whole community of national preparedness. This 

can include being a part of command and control structures during response and recovery and part of 

decentralized structures during steady-state operations. For mitigation, the Public Information and 

Warning capability focuses on sharing information and communicating risk awareness and mitigation 

messages among elements of the whole community.

Mitigation activities exist in all of the national preparedness mission areas. Risk management and 

resilience activities take different forms for different mission areas but are based on the same 

mitigation principles and practices. In particular, threat and hazard identification and risk assessment 

products become the basis for each of the other mission areas, providing a clear understanding of the 

impacts from threats and hazards and providing an assessment of risk and resilience in the built 

environment and community before, during, and after an event. Insights and lessons learned from the 

other mission areas can be used to inform mitigation activities and resilience building efforts. 

Prevention Mission Area

Threats and hazard identification and risk assessment information provides decision makers with 

awareness of and context for a threat or hazard event. Once specific threats and risks are ascertained, 

communities can then devise appropriate measures for mitigating those threats, thereby ultimately 

reducing vulnerability. Since prevention is the shared responsibility of all levels of government, the 

private and nonprofit sectors, and individuals, the risk management process is the means by which all 

stakeholders can integrate their insights and expertise and collaborate for long-term sustainability and 

overall community resilience. 

Protection Mission Area

Activities in the Mitigation and Protection mission areas are typically performed in a steady-state or 

well before an incident. Protection places particular attention on security and deterrence of threats, 

while mitigation emphasizes achieving resilience by reducing vulnerabilities. Both seek to minimize 

consequences and have a shared focus on critical infrastructure. Addressing the security of that 

infrastructure falls within the Protection mission area, and addressing the resilience of the 

infrastructure falls within the Mitigation mission area. Threat, hazard, and risk analysis is necessary 

to effectively design successful strategies for mitigation and protection. Integration of risk 

information, planning activities, and coordinating structures reduces duplication of effort and 

streamlines risk management actions in both mission areas. 

Response Mission Area

Effective community mitigation efforts directly limit the impact of an emergency or disaster, thereby 

reducing the required scale of response operations and associated costs of response. Threat and 

hazard information and risk assessment data can trigger crucial lifesaving and life-sustaining 

operations, particularly during natural disasters. Tools, such as inundation mapping for flood events, 

can be used to plan and determine appropriate lifesaving actions. Most importantly, these data can be 

used to develop a better understanding of the situation in order to deliver information for decision 

32
National Mitigation Framework

making while easing transition to recovery. When incidents impede the ability to communicate 

effectively or develop impact assessments, risk analysis and hazard modeling can provide operational 

assumptions for first responders to help them understand more about the situation and better prepare 

to respond. 

Recovery Mission Area

The Mitigation and Recovery mission areas share a focus on a sustainable economy and overall 

resilience. Both use the same community systems considerations—economic, health and social 

services, housing, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources (see Figure 3). Cross-mission

area integration activities, such as planning, are essential to ensuring that risk avoidance and risk 

reduction actions are taken during the recovery process. Integrating mitigation actions into pre- and 

post-disaster recovery plans will provide systematic risk management after the incident, with 

effective strategies for an efficient recovery process. During the recovery process, actions can be 

taken to address the resilience of the economy and housing, natural and cultural resources, 

infrastructure, and health and social services. Lessons learned during the recovery process also 

inform future mitigation actions. Linking recovery and mitigation breaks the cycle of damage-repairdamage resulting from rebuilding without mitigation following disasters.

During recovery, effective planning-related mitigation actions can include moratoriums on 

reconstruction or development until the vulnerabilities have been accurately assessed 

and the need for higher or additional regulatory standards to reduce those vulnerabilities 

has been explored and approved.

Operational Planning

The National Planning Frameworks explain the role of each mission area in national preparedness 

and provide the overarching strategy and doctrine for how the whole community builds, sustains, and 

delivers the core capabilities. The concepts in the frameworks are used to guide operational planning, 

which provides further information regarding roles and responsibilities, identifies the critical tasks an 

entity will take in executing core capabilities, and identifies resourcing, personnel, and sourcing 

requirements. Operational planning is conducted across the whole community, including the private 

and nonprofit sectors and all levels of government. At the Federal level, each framework is supported 

by a mission area-specific Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP). Comprehensive 

Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 provides further information about the various types of plans and 

guidance on the fundamentals of planning. 

The following sections outline how operational planning is applied within the Mitigation mission

area.

Mitigation Operational Planning

The goal of the FIOP is to address critical tasks; responsibilities; and resourcing, personnel, and 

sourcing requirements necessary to achieve the desired end-state for the Mitigation mission area as 

described in the National Preparedness Goal. The FIOP addresses the enabling and delivery of the 

core capabilities described in this Framework. Critical tasks based on the capability targets listed in 

the National Preparedness Goal are included in the FIOP. Building on the relationships and 

coordination mechanisms developed while preparing the Framework, whole community engagement 

will continue during the implementation of the Framework and FIOP. In addition to including diverse 

representation (e.g., seniors and people with disabilities and others with access and functional needs) 

during the planning process, the FIOP addresses the unique needs of these specific populations and 

33
National Mitigation Framework

demonstrate a commitment to delivering core capabilities that will serve all members of the whole 

community. 

Synchronization and integration of the Mitigation FIOP with the remaining mission area FIOPs is 

critical to achieving a unified system and approach. This includes horizontal and vertical integration 

across plans and among core capabilities. Synchronizing core capabilities across mission areas 

should address three integrating and coordinating factors: risk; command, control, and coordination; 

and resources. In addition to aligning and integrating plans, the FIOP describes processes for ongoing 

interagency coordination, planning, information sharing, and coordinated program implementation. 

FIOP Structure and Contents

The FIOP begins with a list and brief description of planning assumptions that establish context for 

the Concept of Operations, Authorities and References, and Annexes sections. Next, the Concept of 

Operations section will describe how Federal capabilities that support mitigation activities 

throughout the whole community will be integrated, synchronized, managed, and delivered. 

A concept of operations is a written or graphic statement that clearly and concisely explains what the 

decision maker/leader intends to accomplish in an operation using the available resources. The 

concept of operations will describe how an organization (or group of organizations) accomplishes a 

mission or set of objectives in order to reach a desired end-state. It will include organizing and 

assigning responsibilities and will identify primary and supporting Federal departments and agencies 

based on existing authorities. Critical tasks, responsibilities, assignments, and resources and a 

supporting resource structure for executing those tasks with detailed resource, personnel, and 

sourcing requirements will be identified for each Federal department and agency consistent with 

existing statutes and authorities. 

The FIOP will describe the specific roles and responsibilities for the representatives of the MitFLG. 

The MitFLG may be implemented in phases as the group is developed to begin coordinating 

mitigation efforts across the Federal Government. 

Responsibilities of specific coordinating structures required to ensure delivery of mitigation core 

capabilities will be identified and the roles of these structures during the steady-state, response, and 

recovery phases will be explained. For the support mitigation capabilities provided during response 

and recovery, thresholds for activation will be identified. The FIOP will describe how structures that 

deliver mitigation core capabilities and resources during response and recovery will be integrated 

with and support the established coordinating structures of those mission areas. 

After describing the concept of operations, the FIOP will list relevant authorities and references to 

other resources, including laws, statutes, ordinances, executive orders, regulations, and formal 

agreements relevant to mitigation. The list should specify the extent and limits of the authorities 

granted, including the conditions under which these authorities become effective. 

FIOP Review Cycle

The FIOP will describe a review cycle with a clear frequency and timeline, monitoring process, and 

assigned roles and responsibilities. It should identify a responsible entity and process for recording 

and documenting lessons learned from exercises, disasters, and other incidents that have made a 

significant impact on the Mitigation mission area. The section describing the review cycle will also 

assign roles and responsibilities to all Federal departments and agencies that will review, adjudicate 

policy level issues, and approve the Mitigation FIOP. To ensure continued vertical integration, the 

whole community will be involved in the review cycle.

34
National Mitigation Framework

Department-level Operational Planning

Each Federal executive department and agency will develop and maintain department-level 

operations plans, as deemed necessary by the respective department or agency. Department-level 

operations plans describe how the organization will deliver mitigation core capabilities to fulfill their 

statutory responsibilities and authorities as described in the Framework and FIOP. Existing plans, 

standard operating procedures, or guides may be used for the development of these plans. The 

department-level plan should contain the level of detail necessary to clearly identify the department’s 

or agency’s specific critical tasks, responsibilities, and resources required to fulfill its mission area 

tasks. The frequency for reviewing and updating these plans will depend on each department’s or 

agency’s internal business practices. 

Planning Assumptions

 Federal funding exists at current levels. No new funding sources are created by the Framework. 

 The Framework is based upon a broad definition of mitigation provided by PPD-8 within the 

context of national preparedness that extends beyond its definition in the Stafford Act. Mitigation 

activities and actions are not limited to what is eligible within the Stafford Act.

 Current authorizations and legislative language remain in effect. The Mitigation Framework does 

not create new requirements for the whole community. The term community resilience is 

purposefully used with two distinct meanings. 

• Community Resilience is an inclusive, informed process that addresses social, economic, 

natural and cultural, technical, and organizational dimensions within a community—

preparing a community to consciously mitigate rather than ignore risks. 

• Resilience is an outcome—the state of being able to adapt to changing conditions and then 

withstand and rebound from the impacts of disasters and incidents. 

Framework Application

The Mitigation Framework can advance operational planning throughout the whole community by 

facilitating the goal of a secure and resilient Nation. It offers a comprehensive approach to reducing 

the loss of life and property by reducing the impact of disasters through the development, 

implementation, and coordination of seven mitigation core capabilities. NGOs, private sector entities, 

local governments, and state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments can draw upon the 

Framework as a reference when creating or revising the capabilities described in their own 

operational planning efforts. The Framework can serve as a resource for the whole community to 

ensure that mitigation efforts are appropriately integrated and synchronized across mission areas. 

Supporting Resources

To assist National Mitigation Framework users, FEMA will coordinate the development of a 

Resource Center, an online repository that will contain electronic versions of the National Mitigation 

Framework documents, as well as information, training materials, and other tools to assist mitigation 

partners in understanding and executing their roles under the National Mitigation Framework. 

Conclusion

While the National Mitigation Framework is new, mitigation has long existed at every level—from 

the family that creates a sheltering plan in case of a tornado, to corporate emergency plans for 

35
National Mitigation Framework

opening manufacturing plants to the community, to local codes and zoning that systemically address 

risks in a community’s buildings. Building widespread resilience throughout communities, however, 

is a priority for the Nation. Responsibility is shared by individuals; businesses; nonprofit 

organizations; and local, state, tribal, territorial, and Federal governments. Drawing upon the support 

and guidance of the whole community, risk and vulnerability can be managed and community 

residents can feel confident knowing they live in safer, more secure, and resilient communities.

Working together, risks can be recognized and addressed through a culture of preparedness and 

mitigation that is built and sustained over time. This begins with a comprehensive understanding of 

risk that is translated into plans and actions through partnerships. Aiming toward the ultimate goal of 

sustainability and resilience, mitigation requires a process of continuous learning, adapting to change, 

managing risk, measuring successes, and evaluating progress. 

In implementing the National Mitigation Framework to build national preparedness, partners are 

encouraged to develop a shared understanding of broad-level strategic implications as they make 

critical decisions in building future capacity and capability. The whole community should be 

engaged in examining and implementing the strategy unifying principles and doctrine contained in 

this Framework, considering both current and future requirements in the process. This means that this 

Framework is a living document, and it will be regularly reviewed to evaluate consistency with 

existing and new policies, evolving conditions, and the experience gained from its use. The first 

review will be completed no later than 18 months after the release of the Framework. Subsequent 

reviews will be conducted in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Framework on a quadrennial 

basis.

DHS will coordinate and oversee the review and maintenance process for the National Mitigation 

Framework. The revision process includes developing or updating any documents necessary to carry 

out capabilities. Significant updates to the Framework will be vetted through a Federal senior-level 

interagency review process. This Framework will be reviewed in order to accomplish the following: 

 Assess and update information on the core capabilities in support of Mitigation goals and 

objectives

 Ensure that it adequately reflects the organization of responsible entities 

 Ensure that it is consistent with the other four mission areas 

 Update processes based on changes in the national threat/hazard environment

 Incorporate lessons learned and effective practices from day-to-day operations, exercises, and 

actual incidents and alerts

 Reflect progress in the Nation’s Mitigation mission activities and the need to execute new laws, 

executive orders, and Presidential directives, as well as strategic changes to national priorities 

and guidance, critical tasks, or national capabilities. 

The implementation and review of this Framework will consider effective practices and lessons 

learned from exercises and operations, as well as pertinent new processes and technologies. Effective 

practices include continuity planning, which ensures that the capabilities contained in this 

Framework can continue to be executed regardless of the threat or hazard. Pertinent new processes 

and technologies should enable the Nation to adapt efficiently to the evolving risk environment and 

use data relating to location, context, and interdependencies that allow for effective integration across 

all missions using a standards-based approach. 

36
National Mitigation Framework

America’s security and resilience work is never finished. While the Nation is safer, stronger, and 

better prepared than a decade ago, the commitment to safeguard the Nation against the greatest risks 

it faces, now and for decades to come, remains resolute. By bringing the whole community together 

to support the collective and integrated action needed now to address the shared future needs, the 

Nation will continue to ensure its preparedness to face whatever challenges unfold. 

37
National Mitigation Framework

This page intentionally left blank. 

38