State Homeland Security 

Program and Capability 

Review Guidebook 

Volume 1 

October 2005
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................4

OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................7

PURPOSE....................................................................................................................................................................7

STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW ...................................................................................7

THE INTERIM NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL AND THE PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW...............................8

THE PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW IN CONTEXT.............................................................................................9

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN.........................................................................10

GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW.......................................................11

CUSTOMIZED STATE ASSESSMENT, GRANTS, AND PROGRAM DATA REPORTS ........................................................11

SECTION I: PRIORITY CAPABILITY REVIEW..............................................................................................13

INTELLIGENCE / INFORMATION SHARING AND DISSEMINATION (PREVENT MISSION AREA) ....................................14

LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION AND OPERATIONS (PREVENT MISSION AREA)...............................................16

INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS (COMMON TARGET CAPABILITY)...................................................................18

CBRNE DETECTION (PREVENT MISSION AREA) .....................................................................................................19

EXPLOSIVE DEVICE RESPONSE OPERATIONS (RESPOND MISSION AREA) ................................................................21

WMD/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE & DECONTAMINATION (RESPOND MISSION AREA) ............................22

MEDICAL SURGE (RESPOND MISSION AREA) ..........................................................................................................23

MASS PROPHYLAXIS (RESPOND MISSION AREA).....................................................................................................25

SECTION II: ADDITIONAL CAPABILITIES .....................................................................................................26

COMMON TARGET CAPABILITIES ..................................................................................................................28

PLANNING................................................................................................................................................................28

CITIZEN PREPAREDNESS AND PARTICIPATION .........................................................................................................29

RISK MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................31

PREVENT MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES ....................................................................................32

INFORMATION GATHERING AND RECOGNITION OF INDICATORS AND WARNINGS....................................................32

INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS AND PRODUCTION...........................................................................................................33

PROTECT MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES ....................................................................................34

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION (CIP) .....................................................................................................34

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SAFETY AND DEFENSE ...................................................................................................35

PUBLIC HEALTH EPIDEMIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .................................................36

RESPOND MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES ....................................................................................38

ON-SITE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT ..........................................................................................................................38

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................39

CRITICAL RESOURCE LOGISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION ..............................................................................................40

VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT AND DONATIONS.........................................................................................................41

RESPONDER SAFETY AND HEALTH ..........................................................................................................................42

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY RESPONSE..............................................................................................................44

ANIMAL HEALTH EMERGENCY SUPPORT.................................................................................................................45

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND VECTOR CONTROL ................................................................................................46

FIREFIGHTING OPERATIONS/SUPPORT .....................................................................................................................48

CITIZEN PROTECTION: EVACUATION AND/OR IN-PLACE PROTECTION.....................................................................49

ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE .................................................................................................................................50

URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE..................................................................................................................................51

EMERGENCY PUBLIC INFORMATION AND WARNING................................................................................................52

TRIAGE AND PRE-HOSPITAL TREATMENT................................................................................................................53

MEDICAL SUPPLIES MANAGEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION..........................................................................................54
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

3

MASS CARE (SHELTERING, FEEDING, AND RELATED SERVICES) .............................................................................55

FATALITY MANAGEMENT........................................................................................................................................57

RECOVER MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES ...................................................................................59

STRUCTURAL DAMAGE AND MITIGATION ASSESSMENT..........................................................................................59

RESTORATION OF LIFELINES....................................................................................................................................60

ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY RECOVERY ...............................................................................................................61

SECTION III: PROGRAM REVIEW.....................................................................................................................62

OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................................................................62

DEFINING A HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM ........................................................................................................62

INCORPORATING THE OVERARCHING NATIONAL PRIORITIES ..................................................................................63

PROGRAM REVIEW AND OVERARCHING NATIONAL PRIORITIES DISCUSSION POINTS..............................................63

Expanded Regional Collaboration.....................................................................................................................63

Implement the National Incident Management System (NIMS) & National Response Plan (NRP)...................64

Implement the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) ...........................................................65

PROGRAM REVIEW COMPONENTS AND OUTPUTS ....................................................................................................66

Components to Consider in the Program Review ..............................................................................................66

APPENDIX A: CUSTOMIZED STATE PROGRAM, EXPENDITURE, AND CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 

DATA REPORTS......................................................................................................................................................69

OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................................................................69

STATE PROGRAM NARRATIVES ...............................................................................................................................69

EXPENDITURE DATA................................................................................................................................................69

CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT DATA ..........................................................................................................................69

APPENDIX B: CAPABILITY-BASED PLANNING PROCESS AND TOOLS .................................................70

CAPABILITIES-BASED PLANNING.............................................................................................................................70

National Scenarios.............................................................................................................................................70

Target Capabilities List .....................................................................................................................................70

Universal Task List ............................................................................................................................................71

APPENDIX C: NATIONAL PRIORITIES IN THE INTERIM NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL .......72

EXPANDED REGIONAL COLLABORATION.................................................................................................................72

IMPLEMENT THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) & NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN (NRP)......72

IMPLEMENT THE INTERIM NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PLAN (NIPP)...............................................72

STRENGTHEN INFORMATION SHARING AND COLLABORATION CAPABILITIES..........................................................73

STRENGTHEN INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES...........................................................................73

STRENGTHEN CBRNE DETECTION, RESPONSE, AND DECONTAMINATION CAPABILITIES........................................73

STRENGTHEN MEDICAL SURGE AND MASS PROPHYLAXIS CAPABILITIES................................................................74

Table of Figures 

FIGURE 1– NATIONAL PRIORITIES AND PRIORITY TARGET CAPABILITIES ......................................................................9

FIGURE 2– ONE-YEAR PROCESS OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................10
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

On March 31, 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued the Interim National 

Preparedness Goal (the Goal) and accompanying National Preparedness Guidance (NPG). The 

Goal represents a significant evolution in the way we approach preparedness and homeland 

security. The Goal presents a collective vision for national preparedness and establishes 

National Priorities that will help guide the realization of that vision. The vision set forth by the 

Goal encompasses the full spectrum of activities necessary to address a broad range of threats 

and hazards, including terrorism. 

The Program and Capability Review is intended to help States align their homeland security 

programs with the Goal, seven National Priorities, and eight priority target capabilities, and to 

ensure that their programs are effectively organized and managed in support of the Goal. 

Further, this review enables States to identify their current program and capability strengths and 

weaknesses across their entire homeland security program through a qualitative analytical 

process. The Program and Capability Review does not require States to submit to DHS an 

exhaustive list of State-wide capabilities, nor does it force a quantitative assessment process. 

Instead, States should complete a Program and Capability Enhancement Plan, which will be 

submitted as part of their FY 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) application. The 

Enhancement Plan does not replace the State Homeland Security Strategy. It is meant to 

complement the strategy and support decisions surrounding FY 2006 HSGP funding. 

The purpose of the State Homeland Security Program and Capability Review Guidebook Volume 

I is to serve as a reference tool to aid States in conducting a review of their statewide homeland 

security program and level of capabilities, as identified in the Target Capabilities List (TCL). 

This review will assist States in identifying and prioritizing their homeland security needs from a 

program and capability standpoint. The Program and Capability Review process builds upon the 

State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy update process currently underway and 

supports existing State efforts to strengthen homeland security programs. 

Capability Review 

The objective of the Capability Review is to aid States in evaluating strengths and weaknesses 

relative to the eight priority capabilities, listed in the TCL, that link directly to the four 

capability-specific National Priorities introduced in the Goal. Section I of this Guidebook 

addresses the eight priority capabilities that each State must assess. Section II of this Guidebook 

discusses the remaining 28 capabilities in the TCL. Also, States should evaluate the three to five 

State-priority capabilities, as identified in their homeland security strategies, in addition to 

evaluating the eight priority capabilities in Section I. 

This Guidebook provides the definition, outcomes, and high-level discussion points for each 

capability listed in version 2.0 of the TCL. The State can use this information while conducting 

the Capability Review to evaluate and identify current State levels of capability. States can also 

use this analysis as a means to prioritize State capability strengths and weaknesses. The outcome 

(identified capability strengths and weaknesses) of the Capability Review will lead into the 

development of a State Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

5

Program Review 

In the Program Review, States are essentially being asked to consider two high-level questions: 

1) Is the State program executing the appropriate activities to operate and manage the homeland 

security program? and 2) Has the State organized itself and established governance structures to 

effectively manage those activities? To answer these questions, States will evaluate current 

homeland security program management capacity, baseline operations, and future program 

needs. An effective homeland security program requires sound program management structures 

that help ensure the program is capable of conducting business across departments, agencies, and 

disciplines at all levels of government. Successful efforts to build capabilities hinge on effective 

homeland security program management and operations. Understanding program management 

challenges can help address homeland security needs that support statewide efforts to enhance 

and sustain capabilities. 

From a governance standpoint, a homeland security program involves the full lifecycle of 

program management including key components of processes, people, and tools with the crosscutting foundation of planning. These program management elements contribute to a framework 

for States to evaluate their program in a multi-dimensional fashion. As part of this process, 

States will analyze their homeland security programs to identify strengths and weaknesses and 

produce a comprehensive evaluation of program needs. The intended outcome of the Program 

Review is the development of corrective actions to enhance program management and strengthen 

operation areas that are most relevant to the State’s homeland security program. 

Program and Capability Enhancement Plan 

The analytical output of the Program and Capability Review will be captured in the Program and 

Capability Enhancement Plan. The Enhancement Plan is a comprehensive program management 

plan that looks at homeland security irrespective of preparedness funding streams. An 

Enhancement Plan Template, including instructions, is provided separately as Volume II of this 

Guidebook. The Enhancement Plan template will help States consolidate the analysis, strengths, 

and weaknesses that are generated from the Program and Capability Review. The Enhancement 

Plan will work in tandem with the State Homeland Security Strategy and will help the State 

direct its homeland security activities toward a holistic, interagency, interdisciplinary approach 

for their homeland security program. Furthermore, the Enhancement Plan will assist States in 

prioritizing initiatives they wish to implement using preparedness program funding. As such, the 

Enhancement Plan must be submitted with the FY 2006 Investment Justification for HSGP 

funding. States will receive the FY 2006 HSGP Program Guidance and Application Kit on 

December 2, 2005. Applications, including the FY 2005 Investment Justification, are to be 

submitted to DHS within 90 days of Guidance release. 

To further support the State’s understanding of the connection between the Program and 

Capability Review process and the criticality of developing an enterprise-wide Enhancement 

Plan, DHS is offering Program and Capability Review Technical Assistance (TA) to facilitate the 

review process amongst key stakeholders in a personalized setting. The TA will include a 

thorough step-by-step tool to walk States through the review process, as well as onsite 

workshops beginning in the fall of 2005. These workshops will frame the overall process in 

conducting the Program and Capability Review and completing a Program and Capability 

Enhancement Plan that identifies State priority capabilities. The TA service will also underscore 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

6

the importance of developing a homeland security program management plan to oversee and 

implement the initiatives identified in the Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

7

OVERVIEW

OVERVIEW 

Purpose 

On March 31, 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued the Interim National 

Preparedness Goal (the Goal) and accompanying National Preparedness Guidance (NPG). The 

Goal establishes a vision for a preparedness system that is based largely on a capabilities-based 

planning process. Key building blocks for that system include the National Planning Scenarios, 

Universal Task List (UTL), Target Capabilities List (TCL), and seven National Priorities. 

Accompanying the key building blocks is a series of reviews and assessments of the State and 

Urban Areas preparedness activities conducted this year. The reviews and assessments are a part 

of the overall process of implementing the Goal; this process begins with the State and Urban 

Area Homeland Security Strategy Update, and continues with a State Homeland Security 

Program and Capability Review. 

The purpose of the Program and Capability Review is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of 

the State homeland security program relative to the Goal, NPG, target capabilities, and program 

enhancement actions. As the TCL continues to evolve, the Program and Capability Review 

should be used as a tool for States in developing a comprehensive, enterprise-wide program 

management plan for homeland security, namely a Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 

The Enhancement Plan, which will be submitted as part of the FY 2006 HSGP application 

package, will guide the implementation of States preparedness initiatives funding through the FY 

2006 HSGP. 

This year marks a significant change in how HSGP funds are allocated. The State and Homeland 

Security Program (SHSP), the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), and the Law Enforcement 

Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) Grant programs will be allocated in-part based on risk 

and need. For each of these programs, there will be: 1) a baseline allocation component and 2) a 

risk- and need-based component. The need-based grant funding allocations will be determined 

through a competitive award process. Through this process, States will apply for supplemental 

funding based on critical need for capability improvements, enhancements, or sustainment to the 

State homeland security program. The Program and Capability Review will provide the 

foundation for States’ applications for needs-based funding. 

 

Stakeholders in the Program and Capability Review 

Each State should engage a diverse group of stakeholders in the Program and Capability Review 

to ensure the analysis and resulting Enhancement Plan represents a collaborative, multidisciplinary, and multi-jurisdictional approach to State-wide program and capability planning. 

An example of a multi-disciplinary, cross-jurisdictional group of stakeholders is the State Senior 

Advisory Committee, which has been required as part of the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and Health Resources and Services 

Administration (HRSA) Cooperative Agreement Guidance since FY 2003, and as part of the FY 

2005 DHS Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The Senior Advisory Committee 

provides an example forum through which Program and Capability Review discussions and 

analyses can occur. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

8

OVERVIEW

The vision of the National Preparedness 

Goal is: 

To engage Federal, State, local, and 

tribal entities, their private and nongovernmental partners, and the general 

public to achieve and sustain risk-based 

target levels of capability to prevent, 

protect against, respond to, and recover 

from major events in order to minimize 

the impact on lives, property, and the 

economy. 

Stakeholders involved in the Program and Capability Review should consist of multidisciplinary, multi-jurisdictional homeland security representatives who have an operational role 

relative to the State homeland security program and represent a wide range of functional area 

expertise. Recommended participants include senior agency officials who manage the State’s 

homeland security programs, such as: representatives from the SAA, the State HAS office, the 

State EMA; personnel from law enforcement, fire, public health, public works, agriculture, 

information technology; and other pertinent disciplines. The purpose of this regionally 

comprehensive group is to identify State capability needs, evaluate the State homeland security 

program management, and develop an Enhancement Plan. 

The Interim National Preparedness Goal and the Program and Capability 

Review 

The Goal represents a significant evolution in the way we approach preparedness and homeland 

security. The Goal presents a collective vision for national preparedness and establishes 

National Priorities that will help guide the realization of that vision. The vision set forth by the 

Goal encompasses the full spectrum of activities necessary to address a broad range of threats 

and hazards, including terrorism. 

The Goal also provides a common 

framework for a systems-based approach to 

build, sustain, and improve national 

preparedness. The Goal and other source 

documents—such as the National Incident 

Management System (NIMS), the National 

Response Plan (NRP), and the Interim 

National Infrastructure Protection Plan 

(NIPP)—define the mission areas of this 

framework as: prevent, protect, respond, and 

recover. 

At the core of this framework, success 

depends upon robust and adaptive collaboration—between the public and private sector, among 

different levels of government, throughout multiple jurisdictions, and amid departments and 

agencies within a single jurisdiction. Collaboration encompasses a wide range of planning, 

training, and operational activities aimed at coordinating the capabilities and resources of various 

agencies, organizations, and individuals. The common purpose of these activities is preventing, 

protecting against, responding to, and recovering from intentional as well as natural threats to 

people or property. As such, collaboration can be viewed as a critical element of success in all 

four mission areas. 

Throughout FY 2006, States should focus on significantly enhancing capabilities that most 

closely relate to the seven National Priorities outlined in the Goal. While the TCL is a guide for 

States to meet target capabilities, the seven National Priorities listed in the Goal are intended to 

guide the Nation’s preparedness efforts to meet its most urgent needs and capabilities, and fall 

into two categories: (A) three overarching priorities that contribute to the development of 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

9

OVERVIEW

multiple capabilities, and (B) four capability-specific priorities that focus on building selected 

capabilities for which the Nation has the greatest need. These four capability-specific priorities 

closely align to eight of the target capabilities in the TCL as shown in Figure 1 below. 

Figure 1– National Priorities and Priority Target Capabilities 

The Capability Review will address the capability-specific priorities through targeted analyses of 

the related eight priority capabilities. The Program Review will help States analyze their 

progress toward addressing the three overarching National Priorities and integrating them into 

the State homeland security program. 

The Program and Capability Review in Context 

Many processes, programs, and capabilities are already in place within the State homeland 

security programs that support the Goal. The State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy 

review and update is the first step that States are taking toward integrating these processes, 

programs, and capabilities into their preparedness goals and objectives. The purposes of a 

Homeland Security Strategy are: 1) to provide a blueprint for comprehensive, enterprise-wide 

planning for homeland security efforts and 2) to provide a strategic plan for the use of related 

Federal, State, local, and private resources within the State and/or Urban Area before, during, 

and after threatened or actual domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. 

States and Urban Areas are required to submit their strategy updates to DHS by October 31, 

2005 for verification and approval. 

The Program and Capability Review and Enhancement Plan development are the next key steps 

for States in aligning their homeland security activities with the Goal. The Program and 

Capability Review and resulting Enhancement Plan will help States in answering three 

fundamental questions: “How prepared are we?”, “How prepared do we need to be?”, and “How 

do we prioritize efforts to close the gap?” As part of the FY 2006 HSGP process, States will be 

required to assess their capability strengths and needs and use the Program and Capability 

Implement the National Incident Management 

System and National Response Plan System and National Response Plan

Information Sharing and 

Information Sharing and 

Dissemination

Mass Prophylaxis

Medical Surge

PRIORITY CAPABILITIES

(8 of 36)

Strengthen Information Sharing and 

Collaboration Capabilities Collaboration Capabilities Aligns

Strengthen Medical Surge and Mass

Prophylaxis Capabilities

Strengthen Medical Surge and Mass Aligns

Aligns

Expanded Regional Collaboration

Implement the Interim National Infrastructure 

Protection Plan

Implement the Interim National Infrastructure 

Strengthen Interoperable Interoperable Communications Interoperable Communications Communications Capabilities Aligns

Communications Capabilities

CBRNE Detection

Explosive Device Detection 

and Response Operations

Explosive Device 

Response Operations

WMD/Hazardous Materials 

Response & Decontamination Response & Decontamination

Aligns

Aligns

Aligns

Strengthen CBRNE Detection, Response, and 

Decontamination Capabilities

Program Review 

Capability Review

7 NATIONAL PRIORITIES

Law Enforcement Investigation 

and Operations 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

10

OVERVIEW

Enhancement Plan to develop a formal investment justification outlining major sub-State, 

Statewide, or interstate initiatives when they seek DHS grant funding. The lessons learned 

through the Program and Capability Review can guide the State’s future efforts to improve their 

homeland security program and enhance capabilities. In future years, States will participate in a 

capabilities assessment based on the TCL that will gauge their level of preparedness and identify 

statewide needs. 

Figure 2 provides an overview of this year’s State activities supporting the National 

Preparedness System for the first year of implementation. It illustrates the overall process 

beginning with the State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy Update and continuing 

with the Program and Capability Review. 

 

Figure 2– One-Year Process Overview 

Developing a Program and Capability Enhancement Plan 

A separate Program and Capability Enhancement Plan Template has been created to capture 

summary analysis of the Program and Capability Review discussions, and structure that analysis 

into an actionable plan. The Program and Capability Enhancement Plan will also serve as the 

foundation for completing a strong investment justification to request needs-based funding 

through the FY 2006 HSGP. 

Completing the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan is the first step in assessing needs for 

FY 2006 and developing an investment justification that outlines a plan for addressing that need. 

The FY 2006 HSGP Program Guidance and Application Kit, which States will receive on 

December 2, 2005, will include an investment justification template for States to complete – 

using the findings of their Program and Capability Review and Enhancement Plan – and submit 

to DHS within 90 days of Guidance release. 

Preparedness 

Grant Programs 

and Guidance

Preparedness 

Grant Programs 

and Guidance

Develop or

Sustain Initiatives

Develop or

Sustain Initiatives

Previous assessment and 

funding data 

Review Existing 

Strategies Review Existing 

Strategies

Review Existing 

Strategies

(July 22, 2005)

National Preparedness Goal (4 Mission Areas and 7 National Priorities)

National Preparedness Guidance

Guidance on Aligning Strategies with the National 

Preparedness Goal Update Strategies 

(Goals and Objectives)

Process steps

Input into process step

Investment 

Justification

Investment 

Justification

Review Homeland Security 

Programs and Capabilities

Review Homeland Security 

Programs and Capabilities

Identify Gaps 

and Deficiencies

Identify Gaps 

and Deficiencies

Update Strategies

(Goals & Objectives)

Update Strategies

(Goals & Objectives)

(ODP Information Bulletin #183, July 22, 2005)
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

11

OVERVIEW

Guidance and Instructions for the Program and Capability Review 

This Guidebook provides a framework to strategically evaluate State homeland security 

programs and capability levels, with a focus on program management structure and the seven 

National Priorities. States are encouraged to go above and beyond these requirements and 

address additional capabilities that are a priority for them based on their unique strategic goals 

and objectives as identified in their State Homeland Security Strategy. 

Sections I and II of the Guidebook together constitute the full Capability Review, which 

addresses all 36 capabilities from the TCL. Section I addresses the eight Priority Capabilities 

from the TCL that link directly to the four capability-specific National Priorities in the Goal. 

Section II reviews the additional 28 capabilities from the TCL. Definitions, outcomes, and a 

series of high-level discussion points are provided for each priority capability. States can use 

these tools in their evaluation. These capability discussion points are based on the critical tasks 

and associated performance measures included in the TCL version 2.0. 

Section III of the Guidebook, the Program Review, addresses program management from a 

governance standpoint. The Program Review involves the full lifecycle of program 

management, including key components of processes, people, and tools on top of the crosscutting foundation of planning. These program management elements contribute to a multidimensional framework for States to evaluate their homeland security program. The Program 

Review also addresses the three overarching national priorities that address regional 

collaboration, NIMS/NRP implementation, and Interim NIPP implementation. 

This exercise is intended to be qualitative, not quantitative, in nature. The evaluation process 

will not produce a score or grade. The purpose of the Program and Capability Review is to 

foster a multi-disciplinary discussion within the State on both priority capabilities and the overall 

effectiveness of the homeland security program. The outcome of these discussions will support 

the creation of a Program and Capability Enhancement Plan, as well as support the completion of 

an Investment Justification for FY 2006 HSGP funding. 

Customized State Assessment, Grants, and Program Data Reports 

DHS recognizes that States have already provided substantial data on both capabilities and 

expenditures that are relevant to the Program and Capability Review and Enhancement Plan 

process. Although this data pre-dates the release of the Goal, DHS is providing a State-specific 

report to help launch analysis of need based on capabilities and State homeland security efforts. 

This report, found in Appendix A, is based on three pillars of data that can further support the 

Program and Capability Review efforts: 1) homeland security program narratives submitted with 

the FY 2005 HSGP applications; 2) expenditure data from the December 2004 grants reporting 

submission; and 3) capabilities assessment data from the 2003 State Homeland Security 

Assessment and Strategy Process. 

The program narratives submitted by States with their FY 2005 HSGP applications have been 

compiled and analyzed to highlight general trends both statewide and nationally that may be of 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

12

OVERVIEW

interest to States as they review the structures and effectiveness of their homeland security 

programs. 

The 2003 State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy process includes tasks that various 

emergency response disciplines would be expected to complete following a Chemical Biological 

Radiological Nuclear Explosive (CBRNE) terrorism incident. DHS has mapped these tasks by 

discipline to one or more of the 36 capabilities and created a report that frames the State 

responses in the new context of the target capabilities. 

Similarly, each of the project types included in a recent grant reporting submission has been 

mapped to one or more of the 36 capabilities. Because of the timing of the fiscal year spending, 

the FY 2005 grants reporting submission provides a rough estimate of FY 2004 grant dollars that 

have been spent in support of building or sustaining a particular capability. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

13

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

SECTION I: PRIORITY CAPABILITY REVIEW 

Capabilities are a combination of resources that provide the means to achieve a measurable 

outcome. States must evaluate their current capacities against the eight priority capabilities. The 

links between the capability-specific National Priorities and eight Priority Capabilities are shown 

below: 

Capability-Specific National Priorities Priority Target Capabilities 

Strengthen Information Sharing and 

Collaboration Capabilities 

Intelligence/Information Sharing and 

Dissemination (Prevent Mission Area) 

Law Enforcement Investigation and 

Operations (Prevent Mission Area) 

Strengthen Interoperable Communications 

Capabilities 

Interoperable Communications (Common 

Target Capability) 

Strengthen CBRNE Detection, Response, 

and Decontamination Capabilities 

CBRNE Detection (Prevent Mission Area) 

Explosive Device Response Operations 

(Respond Mission Area) 

WMD/Hazardous Materials Response & 

Decontamination (Respond Mission Area) 

Strengthen Medical Surge and Mass 

Prophylaxis Capabilities 

Medical Surge (Respond Mission Area) 

Mass Prophylaxis (Respond Mission Area) 

Separate discussions are presented for each priority capability. Each discussion includes a 

capability definition, expected capability outcomes, and a series of high-level discussion points 

about the capability to assist States in conducting their Capability Review. The capability 

definition is a statement of the principle action or capability activity that a State must perform to 

be deemed capable in the specific preparedness area. The expected outcomes of each capability 

result from performance of one or more tasks, under specified conditions, and link to national 

standards. The high-level discussion points can be used while State working groups are 

evaluating the State’s capability strengths and weaknesses. 

The discussion points are based on critical tasks and performance measures included in TCL 

version 2.0. These points will serve as the basis for current capability level evaluation. This 

evaluation will then serve as a founding step in the Enhancement Plan development process. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

14

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

PRIORITY TARGET CAPABILITIES 

Intelligence / Information Sharing and Dissemination (Prevent Mission Area) 

Capability Definition

Intelligence / Information Sharing and Dissemination capabilities are necessary tools to enable 

efficient prevention, protection, response, and recovery activities. Intelligence /Information 

Sharing and Dissemination is the multi-jurisdictional, multidisciplinary exchange and 

dissemination of information and intelligence among the Federal, State, local and Tribal layers of 

government, the private sector, and citizens. The goals of sharing and dissemination are to 

facilitate the distribution of relevant, actionable, timely, and preferably declassified or 

unclassified information and/or intelligence that is updated frequently to the consumers that need 

it. More simply, the goal is to get the right information, to the right people, at the right time. 

An effective intelligence / information sharing and dissemination system will provide durable, 

reliable and effective information exchanges (both horizontally and vertically) between those 

responsible for gathering information, analysts, and consumers of the threat-related information. 

It will also allow for feedback and other necessary communications in addition to the regular 

flow of information and intelligence. 

Capability Outcome

Effective and timely sharing of information and intelligence occurs across Federal, State, local, 

Tribal, regional, and private sector entities to achieve coordinated awareness, preparedness, 

protection, prevention of, and response to terrorist activities. To meet the desired outcome the 

following objectives must be achieved: (1) All pertinent stakeholders across all disciplines are 

identified and incorporated into the information flow through a clearly defined information 

sharing system; (2) Information flows vertically (from the Federal level through regions, States, 

locals and Tribes and back) within Law Enforcement and other appropriate agencies in a timely 

and effective manner; (3) Information flows across disciplines (among fire departments, EMS 

(Emergency Management System) units, public works, the private sector, etc.) at all levels and 

across jurisdictions in a timely and efficient manner.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The way in which the current technical infrastructure in your State supports the receipt 

and dissemination of relevant homeland security information (and classified information 

if necessary). 

 The training and skills of personnel that support Intelligence / Information Sharing and 

Dissemination including whether or not they maintain the appropriate clearances to 

handle classified information if necessary. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

15

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

 Federal, State, local, tribal, regional, and private sector efforts to help establish or adopt 

national, standardized plans, protocols, and procedures for Intelligence / Information 

Sharing and Dissemination. 

 The systems and information that are provided for all affected State agencies that gather 

data on potential or current terrorist activities and all-hazards incidents. 

 The way in which training and exercises have been developed and executed for meeting 

the standards, protocols, and procedures, of the Intelligence / Information Sharing and 

Dissemination priority. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

16

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

Law Enforcement Investigation and Operations (Prevent Mission Area) 

Capability Definition

The broad range of activities undertaken by law enforcement and related entities to detect, 

examine, probe, investigate and conduct operations related to potential terrorist activities. 

Current and emerging investigative techniques are used, with emphasis on training, legal 

frameworks, recognition of indications and warning, source development, interdiction, and 

related issues special to antiterrorism activities. 

Capability Outcome

Successful deterrence, detection, disruption, investigation, and apprehension of suspects 

involved in criminal activities related to homeland security. To meet the desired outcome the 

following objectives must be achieved: (1) Law enforcement personnel are able to carry out 

effective investigations of criminal/suspicious activities potentially related to terrorism; (2) Law 

enforcement and other appropriate personnel effectively receive, develop, and share information 

to aid in the conduct of an investigation; (3) Law enforcement coordinate effectively with CI/KR 

and private sector officials to facilitate an investigation; (4) Law enforcement and related 

personnel develop and maintain incident response plans; (5) Specialized units/ personnel are 

utilized for search, seizure and/or intervention/interdiction operations; and (6) Appropriate 

investigative units and/or personnel are capable of functioning in potentially hazardous and 

CBRNE environments and situations. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The current State structure to conduct investigations related to potential terrorist activities 

and how this structure is coordinated across the State and local jurisdictions. 

 The State’s processes and procedures for identifying and reporting suspicious activities 

and persons – related to suspected terrorist activity – to appropriate authorities using 

appropriate channels. 

 The information sharing channels established with key federal, State, and local entities 

for investigative efforts. 

 The State’s plans and procedures in place for securing and preserving an incident scene 

(i.e., consider the processes in place for gathering, cataloging, and preserving evidence, 

including laboratory analysis). 

 The ways in which law enforcement investigation and operations processes and 

procedures are exercised. 

 The State’s process for obtaining security clearances and if a lack of security clearances 

adversely affects the State’s ability to investigate and intervene in potential terrorist 

activity. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

17

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

18

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

Interoperable Communications (Common Target Capability) 

Capability Definition

Communications interoperability is the ability of public safety and service agencies to talk within 

and across entities and jurisdictions via radio and associated communications systems, 

exchanging voice, data and/or video with one another on demand, in real time, when needed, 

when authorized. 

Capability Outcome

A continuous flow of critical information is maintained as needed among multi-jurisdictional and 

multi-disciplinary emergency responders, command posts, agencies, and governmental officials 

for the duration of the emergency response operation in compliance with National Incident 

Management System (NIMS). To accomplish this, the jurisdiction has a continuity of operations 

plan for public safety communications to include the consideration of critical components, 

networks, support systems, personnel, and an appropriate level of redundant communications 

systems in the event of emergency. 

Capability Discussion Points

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The emergency response communication plans that are in place which incorporate 

management structures following NIMS and NRP guidance (i.e., discuss how these plans 

ensure uninterrupted flow of critical communication). 

 Communications systems that exist and how they operate reliably throughout the 

jurisdiction’s response area (for example, how communications identify “dead spots” and 

how alternate strategies are in place to maintain effective communications in “dead spot” 

areas). 

 Efforts to train personnel to use communications systems and equipment. 

 Communications systems in terms of a) Interoperability across jurisdictions b) Security c) 

Redundancy d) Fault tolerance 

 The ways in which existing State plans and systems developed are being tested in 

exercises. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

19

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

CBRNE Detection (Prevent Mission Area) 

Capability Definition

The capability to protect against weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through deployment of 

systems that ensure early detection of the import, transport, manufacture or release of chemical, 

biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive materials. The CBRNE Detection target 

capability is not just about technology, but rather the ability to recognize and resolve potential 

CBRNE threats through equipment, education, and effective protocols. The importance of 

training, communication, and close coordination with the intelligence community (with special 

attention to fusion centers and processes) was recognized as critical enabling elements of the two 

performance objectives. However, only the CBRNE detection specific tasks to these crosscutting elements have been identified in this capability. The CBRNE Detection target capability 

does not include actions taken to mitigate the consequences of a CBR (Chemical, Biological, 

Radiological) release or activities to render any CBRNE device safe. The needs of these 

important functions are identified in other target capabilities.

Capability Outcome

Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and/or explosive (CBRNE) materials are rapidly 

detected, identified and safely managed at borders, critical locations, events and incidents. To 

meet the desired outcome the following objectives must be achieved: (1) CBRNE detection at 

key interdiction points. This objective has a primary focus on fixed locations where federal, 

tribal, state, or local entities have authority to inspect people and/or goods for safety or security 

reasons. Examples include customs inspections at points of entry and weigh stations or 

agricultural inspection points within the U.S. (2) CBRNE surveillance. This objective refers to 

general area monitoring, ad hoc inspection points, or targeted area search. Examples include 

community, venue, or mass transit system monitoring for CBR release, explosives screening of 

vehicles and personnel entering an event, and searches to locate unauthorized radioactive 

material in a venue or community.

Capability Discussion Points

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The adequacy of plans, policies, and procedures for CBRNE detection, response, and 

decontamination capabilities. 

 Mutual aid agreements, both intra-State and inter-State for CBRNE detection, response, 

and decontamination capabilities. 

 Procurement plans in place that ensure response communities are properly equipped with 

detection, response, and decontamination equipment. 

 Whether or not appropriate disciplines are being trained at suitable levels in a regional 

approach across disciplines and jurisdictions. 

 The ways in which training plans are improving CBRNE detection, response, and 

decontamination capabilities within the State. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

20

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

 How the CBRNE plans, policies, and procedures address potential public disorder, 

isolated/widespread violence, and other security issues. 

 How the plans, policies, and procedures address the integration of public health 

surveillance activities with/for CBRNE detection and response 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

21

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

Explosive Device Response Operations (Respond Mission Area) 

Capability Definition

The capability to coordinate, direct, and conduct IED (Improvised Explosive Device) and/or 

explosive device response operations after initial alert and notification. Coordinate intelligence 

fusion and analysis, information collection, and threat recognition, assess the situation and 

conduct appropriate Render Safe Procedures (RSP). Conduct searches for additional devices and 

coordinate overall efforts to mitigate CBRNE threat to the incident site.

Capability Outcome

Conduct threat assessments and Render Safe Procedures.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The adequacy of plans, policies, and procedures for explosives detection and response as 

well as the ability to render safe and disposal (for example, is the State capable of 

addressing simultaneous incidents?). 

 The number of personnel trained and equipped for explosive detection and response 

adequate for the jurisdiction (i.e., if personnel are not trained and equipped, what are 

State plans to address this deficiency?). 

 The number of personnel trained and equipped for trauma management, specifically as 

related to explosions and mass casualties (for example: personnel are not trained and 

equipped, what are State plans to address this deficiency?) 

 Regional collaboration or mutual aid assets that could assist in explosive device response 

operations. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

22

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

WMD/Hazardous Materials Response & Decontamination (Respond Mission 

Area) 

Capability Definition

The capability to assess the incident, including: test and identify all likely hazardous substances 

on-site; provide protective clothing and equipment to responders; conduct rescue operations to 

remove affected victims from the hazardous environment; conduct geographical survey searches 

of suspected sources or contamination spreads and establish isolation perimeters; contain and 

fully decontaminate the incident site, victims, responders and equipment; manage site restoration 

operations, including collection of all hazardous substances; and implement standard evidence 

collection procedures.

Capability Outcome

Rapidly identify, contain, and mitigate a hazardous materials (HAZMAT) release; rescue, 

decontaminate and treat victims exposed to the hazard; limit and restore the affected area; and 

effectively protect responders and at-risk populations. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The status of HAZMAT plans and procedures in your State. 

 Response times for: dispatch to first HAZMAT capable unit’s arrival on scene; dispatch 

to full initial alarm assignment of HAZMAT capable teams; and, time to detect 

HAZMAT type and source. 

 The ways in which the State has reduced its time in containing and controlling solids, 

liquids, vapors, and gases. If times have not been decreased, consider why and what 

future plans are in place to address, maintain, and/or improve HAZMAT response times. 

 The status of the purchase and/or distribution of protective clothing and equipment. The 

determination of which first responders should receive WMD/HAZMAT equipment and 

training. 

 The status of training and exercising WMD/HAZMAT response personnel. 

 Plans in place to communicate information and conditions to appropriate authorities – 

including hospitals and other medical care facilities. 

 The regional response plan/mutual aid agreements that have been established. If none 

have been established, explore plans to enter into these agreements. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

23

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

Medical Surge (Respond Mission Area) 

Capability Definition

The capability to provide triage and then to provide medical care. This includes providing 

definitive care to individuals at the appropriate clinical level of care, within sufficient time to 

achieve recovery and minimize medical complications. The capability applies to an event 

resulting in a number or type of patients that overwhelm the day-today acute-care medical 

capacity. Medical Surge is defined as the increased need of personnel (clinical and non-clinical), 

support functions (laboratories and radiological), physical space (beds, alternate care facilities) 

and logistical support (clinical and non-clinical supplies) in a coordinated fashion. 

Capability Outcome

After the first event, minimize new cases due to preventable exposure to disease, contamination 

or injury. This will include exposure from communicable diseases and/or injuries which are 

secondary to the primary event. The at-risk population receives the appropriate protection 

(countermeasures) and treatment in a timely manner.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The adequacy of current medical surge plans. 

 Whether adequate personnel and resources are in place to include triage, treatment, 

transportation, communications, and security. 

 Medical surge plans which include patient tracking from event site, through treatment 

and post treatment. 

 The ways in which medical surge plans identify current and future State resource 

requirements appropriately. 

 The organizational structure and personnel roles and responsibilities to ensure adequate 

Medical Surge capability. 

 The types and frequencies of exercises used to gauge and improve Medical Surge 

capability. 

 The way in which the State identifies the adequate amount of Personal Protective 

Equipment (PPE) to protect current and additional healthcare workers.

 The broader issue of responder safety and health of family members with respect to PPE, 

prophylaxis for caregivers and family members, decontamination of victims before they 

enter the facility, and security surrounding the treatment facility. 

 The way in which medical surge plans address the interface between hospitals, 

Emergency Medical Service, public health, and private physicians. 

 The legal and credentialing issues surrounding the use of out-of-state medical and alliedhealth personnel. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

24

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

25

SECTION I:

PRIORITY 

CAPABILITY 

REVIEW

Mass Prophylaxis (Respond Mission Area) 

Capability Definition

The capability to protect the health of the population through administration of critical 

interventions in response to a public health emergency to prevent the development of disease 

among those who are exposed or are potentially exposed to public health threats. 

This capability includes the provision of appropriate follow-up and monitoring of adverse events 

medical care, as well as risk communication messages to address the concerns of the public.

Capability Outcome

Appropriate drug prophylaxis and vaccination strategies are implemented in a timely manner 

upon the onset of an event, to prevent the development of disease in exposed individuals. Public 

information strategies include recommendations about specific actions individuals can take to 

protect their family, friends and themselves. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The adequacy of mass prophylaxis and vaccination plans, with consideration to rate of set 

up and throughput. 

 Whether or not these plans identify current and future resource requirements 

appropriately – such as the number, skill level, and availability of medical personnel, the 

impact of a nearby, secondary CBRNE/natural disaster, and the expiration of 

prophylactic supplies. 

 The way in which public information messages are prepared and disseminated, how they 

provide information regarding how to protect oneself and how they should receive 

prophylaxis or vaccination (discuss how special emphasis is placed on reaching 

disenfranchised populations). 

 Plans to enlist supplemental providers and volunteers. If no plans exist, consider how the 

State will enlist supplemental providers, security, and volunteers. 

 Any legal issues that may arise with regard to standards of care in a mass prophylaxis 

campaign versus standards of care in a “normal” environment – i.e., immediate (licensing 

and credentialing), long-term (patients/public rights to recourse to adverse medical 

outcome), and occupational (needle stick injury to provider) legal issues should be 

addressed. 

 The means/timing/technological requirements/technological barriers related to the 

delivery of public information messages. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

26

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

SECTION II: ADDITIONAL CAPABILITIES 

The following section addresses the remaining 28 capabilities in the TCL version 2.0. In the 

TCL, capabilities are assigned to five target preparedness areas: Common Target Capabilities, 

Prevent Mission Area, Protect Mission Area, Respond Mission Area, and Recover Mission Area. 

The first four capabilities listed are the Common Target Capabilities. The remaining capabilities 

fall into the four Mission Areas – Prevent, Protect, Respond, and Recover, as follows: 

COMMON TARGET CAPABILITIES

• Planning 

• Interoperable Communications (priority capability)

• Citizen Preparedness and Participation 

• Risk Management 

PREVENT MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES 

• Information Gathering and Recognition of Indicators and Warnings 

• Intelligence Analysis and Production 

• Intelligence / Information Sharing and Dissemination (priority capability)

• Law Enforcement Investigation and Operations (priority capability)

• CBRNE Detection (priority capability)

PROTECT MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES

• Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) 

• Food and Agriculture Safety and Defense 

• Public Health Epidemiological Investigation and Laboratory Testing 

RESPOND MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES 

• Onsite Incident Management 

• Emergency Operations Center Management 

• Critical Resource Logistics and Distribution 

• Volunteer Management and Donations 

• Responder Safety and Health 

• Public Safety and Security Response 

• Animal Health Emergency Support 

• Environmental Health and Vector Control 

• Explosive Device Response Operations (priority capability)

• Firefighting Operations/Support 

• WMD/Hazardous Materials Response and Decontamination(priority capability)

• Citizen Protection: Evacuation and/or In-Place Protection 

• Isolation and Quarantine 

• Urban Search & Rescue 

• Emergency Public Information and Warning 

• Triage and Pre-Hospital Treatment 

• Medical Surge (priority capability)
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

27

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

• Medical Supplies Management and Distribution 

• Mass Prophylaxis(priority capability) 

• Mass Care (Sheltering, Feeding, and Related Services) 

• Fatality Management

RECOVER MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES 

• Structural Damage and Mitigation Assessment 

• Restoration of Lifelines 

• Economic & Community Recovery

As discussed previously, each capability discussion includes a capability definition, expected 

outcomes, and a series of high-level discussion points to assist States with their capability 

reviews. The capability definition is a statement of the principle action or capability activity that 

a State must perform. The expected outcomes result from performance of one or more tasks, 

under specified conditions, and link to national standards. The high-level discussion points are 

provided for use while evaluating capability strengths and weaknesses. 

The discussion points are based on the critical tasks and associated performance measures 

included in the TCL version 2.0. These points will serve as the basis for current capability level 

evaluation. This evaluation will then serve as a founding step in the Enhancement Plan 

development process. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

28

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

COMMON TARGET CAPABILITIES 

Planning 

Capability Definition

This capability is the foundation on which all other capabilities are developed and enhanced. 

Specifically, all hazards planning is a mechanism to develop, validate, and maintain plans, 

policies and procedures describing how the federal, state, local and tribal governments will 

prioritize, coordinate, manage, and support personnel, information, equipment and resources to 

prevent, protect, respond to and recover from incidents such as those described in the National 

Planning Scenarios.

Capability Outcome

The planning capability ensures the ability to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover 

from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies. The planning process and the 

resultant plans incorporate an accurate hazard analysis and risk assessment.

Capability Discussion Points

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The adequacy of the planning process for statewide homeland security programs and 

processes. 

 The sufficiency of staff to manage planning efforts. 

 Updates of all hazards plans, policies, and procedures, as well as frequency of the review 

of documentation and whether these updates and reviews are consistent with 

recommendations to update – at least annually. 

 Mutual aid agreements and regional collaboration efforts in place to coordinate planning 

effectively across jurisdictions and/or regions. 

 Additional planning needed to achieve goals identified in the State/UASI strategy. 

 The sufficiency or insufficiency of the current planning staff. Consider reasons why or 

why not to hire additional full time or part time planers. 

 Plans in place to ensure connectivity with other efforts, such as hazard mitigation, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Health Resources and Services 

Administration etc. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

29

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Citizen Preparedness and Participation 

Capability Definition

The American public has the capability (i.e., the necessary information, knowledge, skills, and 

abilities) to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from all threats and hazards. 

Requirements to achieve this capability include collaboration among all levels of government, 

emergency responders, the private sector, civic organizations, faith-based groups, schools, and 

the public; public education in preparedness, prevention, and mitigation; training for citizens in 

life saving first aid, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), response skills, and surge capacity 

roles; and citizen participation in exercises, volunteer programs, and surge capacity support. 

Citizen preparedness and participation is segmented into appropriate levels of engagement, but 

all employ some degree of planning, organizations, equipment, training, and exercises. 

There are “Universal (U)” capabilities that everyone in America should have for the four mission 

areas of all-hazards preparedness: prevent, protect, respond, and recover. There are also 

“Specialized (Sp),” or advanced skills, knowledge, and abilities needed for those that live in 

high-threat areas (the terrorism threat in urban areas, natural hazard areas); for those whose 

personal circumstances require additional preparedness requirements (those with disabilities, 

those with language barriers, those with low income); and for those who volunteer year round to 

support local emergency responders and community safety efforts. Finally there are citizens who 

have a response or “Surge (Su)” capacity role, who will have the highest level of training and 

equipment. 

Capability Outcome

Everyone in America is credibly educated about threats to their safety and property, is prepared 

for all-hazards, takes relevant mitigation measures, practices evacuation drills, employs 

prevention and deterrence tactics, is trained in first aid and emergency response skills, practices 

shared responsibility for neighborhood and community disaster planning, and responds to an 

incident with appropriate and practical steps to safeguard their own health and property while 

helping others. 

Citizens who live in a high-threat area or who have personal circumstances that require 

additional needs (such as cognitive or physical disabilities, language barriers, low income, live or 

work in high rise buildings, take public transportation frequently) have an appropriately higher 

level of preparedness, training, approaches to prevention, participation in exercises, and first aid 

and response skills. 

An adequate number of citizens also provide year round volunteer support to augment public 

education, training, local emergency responder efforts and community safety initiatives, and 

contribute to community emergency planning and exercises. An adequate number of citizens also 

have training in surge capacity roles, are an integral component of incident response and 

recovery, and perform appropriately when deployed. Private sector resources are an integral part 

of the response and recovery plan and execution.
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

30

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Capability Discussion Points

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The plans and support structure in place to ensure citizen preparedness and participation 

and the inclusion of any established programs such as Citizen Corps. 

 The roles that have been recognized for citizens in exercises, volunteer programs and 

surge capacity response. 

 The types of training programs developed to educate the public about threats, 

preparedness, prevention, first aid, and emergency response and how this training is 

communicated to solicit involvement. 

 The types of communication vehicles that are being utilized to raise public awareness for 

citizens regarding preparedness and response measures. 

 The ways in which standards and measures are being developed to ensure appropriate 

education - related to preparedness and response - has occurred for citizens. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

31

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Risk Management 

Capability Definition

The capability to identify and measure risk prior to an event, based on threats/hazards, 

vulnerabilities, and consequences, and to manage the exposure to that risk through the 

prioritization of risk-reduction strategies.

Capability Outcome

Federal, state, local, tribal and private sector entities have the ability to (1) identify and assess 

risks, (2) prioritize and select appropriate protection, prevention, and mitigation solutions based 

on reduction of risk, and (3) monitor the outcomes of allocation decision and undertake 

corrective actions.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The State hazard analysis/risk assessment process, how that process encompasses all 

hazards, and how the process is maintained and updated. 

 The State’s definition of risk. 

 The leveraging of threat and vulnerability assessments in the identification and 

prioritization of risks and how these results are incorporated into response plans and 

procedures. 

 The ways in which results from threat and vulnerability assessments are used to guide 

funding priorities. 

 The State process for establishing risk profiles for critical assets and key resources and 

how the State engages infrastructure sectors in the development of these profiles. 

 The mitigation strategies in place, how those strategies were developed and how they are 

updated. 

 The mitigation strategies in place for all hazards, how those strategies were developed 

and how they are updated. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

32

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

PREVENT MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES 

Information Gathering and Recognition of Indicators and Warnings 

Capability Definition

Information Gathering entails the gathering, consolidation, and retention of raw data from 

sources including human-source, observation, and open-source. Unlike intelligence collection, 

Information Gathering is the continual gathering of only pure, unexamined data, not the targeted 

collection traditionally conducted by the intelligence community or targeted investigations. 

Recognition of Indicators and Warnings is the ability to see in this gathered data the potential 

indications and/or warnings of terrorist activities or planning against U.S. citizens, land, 

infrastructure, and/or allies. 

Capability Outcome

Locally generated threat and other terrorism-related information is gathered, identified, provided 

to appropriate analysis centers. To meet the desired outcome the following objectives must be 

achieved: (1) Information needs are clearly established and communicated to and from all levels 

of government; (2) Gather information that could be used to identify terrorist operations (in 

addition to “all-hazards”/”all crimes”) from all sources (i.e. Law Enforcement, public health, 

public works, transportation, fire, emergency medical entities, etc.) through routine activities; (3) 

Law Enforcement, public safety, the general public, and/or private sector personnel recognize 

and identify suspicious circumstances or indicators and warnings associated with planning, 

support, and operations related to potential terrorism; and (4) Information is received, 

authenticated and screened for relevance at the supervisory level in a timely manner. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The types of personnel positions and organizations utilized to perform Information 

Gathering and Recognition of Indicators and Warnings and their roles and 

responsibilities. 

 The types and levels of training offered and training requirements to ensure personnel are 

following procedures. 

 The ways information collection and dissemination procedures are evaluated and 

validated for accuracy, efficiency, and appropriate distribution. 

 The utilization of information systems to collect and store information securely. 

 The updating of information regarding threats to ensure timely data. 

 The integration of various disciplines (including local law enforcement), agencies, and 

organizations into the Information Gathering and Recognition of Indicators and Warnings 

process. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

33

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Intelligence Analysis and Production 

Capability Definition

Intelligence Analysis and Production is the merging of data and information for the purpose of 

analyzing, linking, and disseminating timely and actionable intelligence with an emphasis on the 

larger public safety and homeland security threat picture. This process focuses on the 

consolidation of analytical products among the intelligence analysis units at the Federal, State, 

Local, and Tribal levels for tactical, operational, and strategic use. This capability also includes 

the examination of raw data to identify threat pictures, recognize potentially harmful patterns, or 

connect suspicious links to discern potential indications or warnings.

Capability Outcome

Produce timely, accurate and actionable intelligence/information products in support of 

prevention, awareness, deterrence, response, and continuity planning operations. To meet the 

desired outcome the following objectives must be achieved: (1) Each Region must establish a 

multi-disciplinary, all-source information/intelligence fusion enter/process which undertakes an 

“all-hazards” and “all crimes” approach; (2) Fusion center/processes and capabilities are staffed 

with individuals with the appropriate training and expertise during all operational hours to handle 

the receipt, analysis and dissemination of intelligence; (3) Intelligence analysts at Fusion 

center/process have access to and receive collected information; (4) Fusion center/process 

integrates and analyzes relevant information/intelligence; and (5) Analytic products developed 

by Fusion center/processes are consumer-tailored, clear, objective and support the development 

of performance-driven, risk-based prevention, protection, and response programs at all levels.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The staffing levels, types of personnel positions, and organizations (with their associated 

roles and responsibilities) to ensure Intelligence Analysis and Production is performed 

adequately. 

 The collaboration process among information sources into the Intelligence Analysis and 

Production process. 

 The types and levels of training and training requirements offered to ensure personnel are 

following procedures and able to perform analysis. 

 The ways in which intelligence analysis and production procedures are evaluated and 

validated for accuracy, efficiency, and appropriate distribution. 

 The ways in which information systems are utilized to collect, analyze, report, and store 

information securely. 

 The gathering, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence information. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

34

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

PROTECT MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES 

Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) 

Capability Definition

The capability of public and private entities to identify, assess, prioritize, and engage in 

protecting critical infrastructure and key resources (CI/KR) in order to detect, prevent, deter, 

degrade, and mitigate deliberate efforts to destroy, incapacitate, or exploit the critical 

infrastructure and key resources. 

Capability Outcome

Critical infrastructure is identified; risk assessments are conducted, documented, and 

standardized; assets are prioritized; decisions are made regarding protective and preventative 

programs; protective and preventative plans are implemented; and the risk to, vulnerability of, 

and consequence of attack to critical infrastructure is reduced. 

Capability Discussion Points

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The decision making process utilized to identify critical infrastructure, including 

collaboration with federal agency, public sector, State and other personnel. 

 The training and exercises developed for various types of critical infrastructure. 

 The way in which vulnerability assessments of critical infrastructure are standardized to 

ensure that a consistent methodology is applied. 

 The risk management approach for measuring high risk targets and reducing threats and 

vulnerabilities. 

 The organizational structure in place to support critical infrastructure protection and the 

plan for sustaining and evolving processes. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

35

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Food and Agriculture Safety and Defense 

Capability Definition

The capability to prevent, protect, respond, and recover against pathogens, chemical, biological 

and radiological contaminants, and other hazards that affect the safety of food and agricultural 

products. This includes the timely eradication of outbreaks of crop diseases/pests, assessments of 

the integrity of the food producing industry, the removal and disposal of potentially 

compromised materials from the U.S. food supply, and decontamination of affected food 

manufacturing facilities or retail points of purchase or service. This also includes appropriate 

laboratory surveillance to detect human illness or food product contamination. It is accomplished 

concurrent to protecting public health and maintaining domestic and international confidence in 

the U.S. commercial food supply. Additionally, the public is provided with accurate and timely 

notification and instructions related to the event and appropriate steps to follow with regard to 

disposal of affected food products and appropriate decontamination procedures. 

Capability Outcome

Prevent, mitigate and eradicate threats to food and agriculture safety, strive to restore trade in 

agriculture products, dispose of affected products, decontaminate affected facilities, maintain 

confidence in the U.S. food supply, and protect public and animal health, and effectively 

communicate with all stakeholders. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The plans that are in place to support the identification and elimination of threats to food 

and agriculture safety. 

 The integration of personnel and various disciplines that are designed to maintain food 

and agriculture safety support capabilities and their responsibilities. 

 The ways the State supports developing standards and protocols to ensure protection of 

food and agriculture safety and responding to potential events. 

 The ways training and exercises have been developed and executed for meeting necessary 

standards related to food and agriculture safety. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

36

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Public Health Epidemiological Investigation and Laboratory Testing 

Capability Definition

This capability comprises three distinct elements: 

1. Public Health Laboratory Testing (Chem Lab): The capability to conduct public health 

laboratory testing. It includes exposure and disease (both deliberate release and naturally 

occurring) detection, reporting, and laboratory confirmation. 

2. Public Health Epidemiological Investigation: The capability to rapidly conduct 

epidemiological investigations and public health laboratory testing. It includes exposure and 

disease (both deliberate release and naturally occurring) detection, rapid implementation of 

active surveillance, maintenance of ongoing surveillance activities, epidemiologic investigation, 

and recommendations for the implementation of control measures. 

3. Laboratory Focused: Public Health Epidemiological Investigation and Laboratory Testing: 

The capability to conduct public health laboratory testing. It includes exposure and disease (both 

deliberate release and naturally occurring) detection, reporting, and laboratory confirmation. 

Capability Outcome

For a chemical incident, potential exposure and disease will be identified rapidly, reported to 

multiple locations immediately, investigated promptly, and accurately confirmed to ensure 

appropriate preventive or curative countermeasures are implemented. Additionally, public health 

laboratory testing and epidemiological investigation is coordinated with law enforcement and 

other appropriate agencies. 

For the Public Health Epidemiological Investigation, potential exposure and disease will be 

identified rapidly (determine exposure, mode of transmission and agent, and interrupt 

transmission to contain the spread of the event and reduce number of cases). Confirmed cases 

will be reported immediately to all relevant Public Health, Food Regulatory and Law 

Enforcement agencies. Suspected cases will be investigated promptly, reported to relevant Public 

Health authorities, and accurately confirmed to ensure appropriate preventive or curative 

countermeasures are implemented. The Public Health investigation will involve defining and 

characterizing the outbreak, determining the number of new cases on an ongoing basis, tracking 

the sources of exposure, identifying the methods of transmission, and recommending effective 

mitigation measures. Laboratories will identify the causative agent. Additionally, public health 

laboratory testing and epidemiological investigation will be coordinated with law enforcement 

and other appropriate agencies. 

Capability Discussion Points

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 Plans in place to support epidemiological investigation, laboratory response, and disease 

surveillance and reporting. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

37

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

 The integration of personnel and various disciplines that are designed to ensure adequate 

epidemiological investigation and laboratory testing capabilities. 

 The way training and exercises have been developed and executed for meeting necessary 

standards related to epidemiological investigation and laboratory testing. 

 Plans to ensure proper coordination between law enforcement and HAZMAT. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

38

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

RESPOND MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES 

On-Site Incident Management 

Capability Definition

The On-Site Incident Management capability to effectively direct and control the incident 

management activities through the use of the Incident Command System (ICS) consistent with 

the National Incident Management System (NIMS)

Capability Outcome

Achieve effective and efficient incident management, integrating the facilities, resources 

(personnel, equipment, supplies, and communications) and procedures using a common 

organizational structure which is ICS.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The staffing levels, types of personnel positions, and organizations (with their associated 

roles and responsibilities) to ensure on-site incident management is performed 

adequately. 

 The adequacy of incident action plans and whether these plans incorporate management 

structure in accordance with NIMS/NRP. 

 The types and levels of training offered and training requirements to ensure personnel are 

following procedures and able to perform on-site incident management. 

 Mutual aid agreements and other plans in place to coordinate on-site incident 

management effectively across jurisdictions and/or regions. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

39

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Emergency Operations Center Management 

Capability Definition

The capability to provide multi-agency coordination for incident management through the 

activation and operation of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), consistent with the 

requirements of the NIMS for Multi-Agency Coordination Systems, including EOC activation, 

notification, staffing, and deactivation; management, direction, control, and coordination of 

response and recovery activities; providing public information and warning; and maintaining 

information and communication necessary for response and recovery activities.

Capability Outcome

The EOC is activated, staffed, and managed for a pre-planned or no-notice event; 

multi/interagency activities, such as communications (including direct and indirect voice and 

data interoperability), resource management, and mutual aid, are coordinated; incident action 

planning activities within the EOC are conducted at regular periodic intervals. Situation reports 

are produced at regular periodic intervals. The EOC could be deactivated as the emergency 

transitions into the recovery phase.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The plan for integration/collaboration of disciplines and organizations to activate an 

Emergency Operations Center. 

 The ways in which individuals are trained to ensure personnel capable of making and 

implementing decisions from all appropriate functions 

 The communications plan used to ensure that the Emergency Operations Center is 

activated in a timely manner and information reaches the target audience and is 

understood and acted upon appropriately. 

 The standards used to direct and evaluate Emergency Operations Center Management. 

 The location and linkages to the Joint Information Center (JIC) (if not integral to the 

EOC) to ensure provision of accurate and timely information to the Joint Information 

System (JIS). 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

40

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Critical Resource Logistics and Distribution 

Capability Definition

The capability to identify, dispatch, mobilize and demobilize, and accurately track and record 

available human and material critical resources throughout all incident management phases. 

Critical resources are those necessary for preservation of life, safety, and security.

Capability Outcome

Critical resources are a) inventoried and tracked, b) available to incident managers and 

emergency responders upon request for proper distribution and necessary response efforts to aid 

disaster victims in a cost effective and timely manner, and c) demobilized as necessary.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The State plans that are in place to ensure critical supplies, equipment, and personnel are 

available to incident managers and emergency responders upon request. 

 Any support agreements in place for receiving shared resources and if these agreements 

are formal or informal. 

 The organizational structure, including position descriptions, responsibilities, and 

personnel assignments (temporary or permanent) in place to manage identification, 

dispatch, mobilization and demobilization resources throughout all emergency 

management phases of an incident. 

 The types of training provided to personnel to support identification, dispatch, 

mobilization and demobilization of available resources throughout all emergency 

management phases of an incident. 

 The ways in which availability of resources, including critical supplies, equipment, and 

personnel are determined and ensured for emergency responders across various types of 

incidents. 

 The types of inventory management processes that are in place to ensure proper 

availability of supplies and equipment to emergency responders. 

 Any exercises conducted to ensure protocols are followed and compliance to procedures 

are anticipated. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

41

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Volunteer Management and Donations 

Capability Definition

The capability to effectively mange unaffiliated volunteers and unsolicited donations in support 

of domestic incident management, including identifying and determining uses for effectively 

managing and deploying volunteer support and donations before, during and after an incident. 

This capability is consistent with and supports the existing volunteer/donations Management 

Annex to the National Response Plan.

Capability Outcome

The value of volunteers and charitable donations is maximized and does not hinder the response 

and recovery activities. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The protocols in place to manage and deploy volunteer support and donations. 

 The communication planning efforts to ensure volunteers are available and mobilized 

adequately. 

 Training types and levels provided to volunteers to ensure their incident-specific roles 

can be executed successfully. 

 The way in which information and information systems support the effort to maintain 

volunteer data, incident affected worker data, and relevant historical records. 

 The coordination of volunteer efforts among entities, including relief organizations. 

 The ways volunteers can be effectively tracked, directed, and managed using available 

volunteer centers and managers 

 The management process for volunteer donations to ensure appropriate collection, 

prioritization, and dissemination. 

 The use of exercises to gauge and improve volunteer management operations. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

42

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Responder Safety and Health 

Capability Definition

Responder safety and health is a critical component of overall emergency management. The 

response to the scenarios provides a multitude of highly technical hazards. The definition of 

“First Responder” includes police, fire, emergency personnel, as well as emergency 

management, public health, clinical care, public works and other skilled support personnel (such 

as equipment operators). This extended definition includes a very broad set of workers and a 

wide range of likely response activities that may be performed by “first responders,” resulting in 

an increased number of potential hazards and exposures. The ability to protect all of the 

responders from all of the hazards is a substantial undertaking involving prevention, 

preparedness, response, and recovery. This capability supports both the Safety Officer position 

identified in the National Incident Management System (NIMS)/Incident Command System 

(ICS) and the Worker Safety and Health Support Annex to the National Response Plan (NRP). 

The Type 1 Safety Officer described in this capability has yet to be fully defined (to include 

managing all of the hazards likely to be faced by all first responders); rather the concept used is 

the same as the “Disaster Safety Manager” described in Protecting Emergency Responders: 

Safety Management in Disaster and Terrorism Response (NIOSH, 2004). In addition, the list of 

services critical for this capability is consistent with the actions specified under the Worker 

Safety and Health Support Annex and in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

Guidelines for HazMat/WMD Response, Planning and Prevention Training (FEMA, 2003). 

During the response to any incident, employers are primarily responsible for the safety and 

health of their employees. However, the ICS creates a unified safety and health organization 

under the Safety Officer. In large-scale incidents, because of the number and varieties of hazards 

and workers, the safety officer would be utilized more as a “safety manager.” This technical 

capability therefore does not prescribe a certain level of preparedness for any particular 

organization, rather it specifies the need for personal protective equipment (PPE), Safety 

Officers, etc. and allows the local entity to determine the best way to obtain the needed resource 

(e.g. through mutual aid, state resources, federal resources, etc.) for the first 72 hours of the 

response operations. This capability ensures that adequate personnel and resources are available 

at the time of an incident to protect the safety and health of on-scene first responders, 

hospital/medical facility personnel (first receivers), skilled support personnel and, if necessary, 

their families through the creation and maintenance of an effective safety and health program. 

This program needs to be integrated into the incident command system and include training, 

personal protective equipment, health and safety planning, risk management practices, medical 

care, decontamination, infection control, vaccinations for preventable diseases, adequate work 

schedule relief, psychological support, and follow-up assessments. 

This capability identifies the critical personnel, equipment, training, and other resources needed 

to ensure the protection of all workers from “All Hazards” including fire (heat), chemical, 

biological, radiological/nuclear, electrical, collapsed structures, debris management, and others. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

43

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Capability Outcome

No additional illnesses in or injury to any first responder, first receiver, medical facility staff 

member, or other skilled support personnel resulting from a preventable exposure to secondary 

trauma, chemical/radiological release, infectious disease, or physical and emotional stress after 

the initial incident or during decontamination and incident follow-up.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The incident management procedures that are planned that coordinate among disciplines 

to protect any first responder, first receiver, hospital staff member, etc. from exposure to 

secondary trauma, chemical release, infectious disease, or stress after the initial event and 

respond to any experienced physical and emotional stress. 

 The types of equipment that are planned for use to ensure the safety of first responders 

from secondary trauma, chemical release, and infectious disease after the initial event. 

Consider how this capacity is planned to ensure adequate supply and timely availability. 

 The ways in which exercises are used to gauge the effectiveness of planned protocols and 

equipment to protect first responders after the initial event. 

 The types of training opportunities and requirements that exist to promote health and 

safety planning for first responders. Consider the personnel positions, disciplines that 

provide and receive training. 

 The follow-up process in place to review events with exposed first responders to a) 

ensure their continued recovery and b) make improvements to protective processes. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

44

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Public Safety and Security Response 

Capability Definition

The capability to reduce the impact and consequences of an incident or major event by securing 

the affected area (in coordination among law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services 

[EMS]), safely diverting the public from hazards, providing security support to other response 

operation, and sustaining operations from response through recovery. 

Capability Outcome

Successful assessment of the incident and coordination of public safety resources needed to 

secure the incident scene, manage access control, provide security support to other response 

operations (and related critical locations, facilities and resources), and aid in emergency public 

information while continuing to protect first responders and mitigating any further effect to the 

public at risk. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The policies, plans, or procedures in place to manage public safety incident response. 

 The ways in which HAZMAT, fire/rescue, and law enforcement personnel have been 

included in the development of the public safety response plan. 

 The way these policies, plans, and procedures have been exercised. 

 The number of sites the State is prepared to secure at any given time based upon trained 

personnel and equipment. 

 The State’s on-scene management and personnel accountability system. 

 The response plan’s consistency with NIMS. 

 ICS implementation at the scene. 

 Cross discipline communications and consider any weaknesses. 

 The way an incident perimeter and security zone would be identified and secured. 

 The way force protection would be accomplished. 

 Contingency plans for a situation where all existing resources are maximized. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

45

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Animal Health Emergency Support 

Capability Definition

The capability to protect, prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from threats and incidents that 

would result in the disruption of U.S. livestock, other domestic animals, including companion 

animals, wildlife and related industries, endanger the food supply, public health, and domestic 

and international trade. It includes the capability for responding to large-scale national and 

regional emergencies as well as to smaller-scale incidents through rapid determination of the 

nature of the event, initiation of the appropriate response, containment of the disrupting effects, 

and facilitation of recovery. These capabilities are for a wide range of incidents and emergencies 

including: accidental or deliberate disease outbreaks, natural disasters, nuclear and conventional 

events; as well as other biological, chemical, or radiological agents.

Capability Outcome

Prevent foreign animal disease from entering the United States by protecting our critical 

infrastructure and key assets. In the event of an incident, to detect animal disease as early as 

possible, implement immediate and humane actions to eradicate the outbreak, maintain 

continuity of agriculture and related business, limit economic damage, and protect public and 

animal health and the environment. Develop, coordinate, and execute plans to maintain and/or 

restore trade in agriculture products, domestic and international confidence in the US food 

supply, and agricultural industries to their prior productivity, including replenishing the domestic 

livestock and other domesticated animals. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The plans that are in place to support the identification and elimination of outbreak of 

diseases in animals. 

 The integration of personnel and various disciplines that are designed to maintain animal 

emergency health support capabilities and their responsibilities. 

 The way in which the State is developing standards and protocols to ensure protection of 

outbreaks from animal diseases and containing and responding to potential incidents. 

 The way in which training and exercises have been developed and executed for meeting 

necessary standards related to animal health emergency support. 

 Plans, policies, and procedures associated with collaboration, pre-event education, and 

stakeholder buy-in with national associations to maintain confidence in the U.S. food 

supply both at home and abroad. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

46

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Environmental Health and Vector Control 

Capability Definition

The capability to provide ground and aerial vector control and environmental health services in 

support of public health protection. Vector control includes elimination of organisms, such as 

fleas, mosquitoes, and rodents that can spread disease to humans. Provide subject matter experts 

to: advise, provide rapid needs assessment, identify health capabilities, deploy/institute a victim 

exposure registry, disseminate physician education for treatment of victims, coordinate 

specialized medical care, provide liaison and communications support to regional ESF8 groups, 

appropriate sample collection, advise on protective action guidelines, analyze and communicate 

results, and provide occupational safety and health.

Capability Outcome

Improvised Nuclear Device: 

Classical environmental health services (safe water, sewage disposal, and vector control) will be 

gravely disrupted in an Improvised Nuclear Device (IND) scenario therefore a spike in new cases 

of communicable diseases can be anticipated within the initial weeks following the event. Cases 

of radiation sickness will increase for the first 30 days as cases of Acute Radiation Syndrome 

(ARS) are recognized by the public health reporting system. Additional cases will continue to 

occur due to added radiation exposure to external radiation and internalized fallout. 

• Minimizing new cases due to preventable exposure to disease and contamination will pose 

significant challenges in the post disaster environment. 

• Victim registries will need to be started immediately and linked to centralized coordination 

of limited clinical (radiation injury management) expertise to direct local health care 

providers. 

• Minimizing exposures experienced the by at risk population and emergency responders will 

require coordinated efforts to provide clean water, sewage disposal, and guidance to 

minimize radiation exposures. 

Nerve Agent: 

Local Emergency Medical Service (EMS) and Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) teams rapidly 

identify the class of chemical agent in use, and immediately inform receiving hospitals and local 

incident command, ensuring that appropriate medical countermeasures are employed without 

delay. Survivors are triaged and decontaminated in the field before transport to hospitals. There 

is no loss of life to field responders or people receiving casualties for decontamination, transport, 

emergency stabilization, and definitive medical care. Epidemiologists are brought in to establish 

an emergency registry of victims and other exposed/ potentially exposed persons such as 

decontamination and sampling teams, and medical “first receivers”. 

Food Contamination: 

After the first event, a marked reduction in new cases due to preventable exposure to disease or 

contamination will occur. The at-risk population receives the appropriate protection in a timely 

manner. 

New cases are prevented through intervention methods listed below: 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

47

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

• Public Health Education – Fact Sheets, Guidelines, Public Service Announcements (PSA) 

• Contaminated Product Removal 

• Contaminated Facilities and Equipment Cleaned or Removed 

• Proper Disposal of Contaminated Items 

• Eliminating spread of disease by vectors 

• Coordinated effort with public health, law enforcement at local, state and federal levels 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The organizational structure – including integration of disciplines, organizations, and 

agencies – to protect public health and ensure vector control. 

 The plan for determining the appropriate action to protect the public and evaluating the 

effectiveness of those actions to minimize further threats to public health. 

 The way in which exercises support the evaluation to determine if facilities, equipment, 

and personnel are able to operate accordingly. 

 The communication plan to ensure the public is adequately informed of the threat and 

educated on necessary actions. 

 The need for inter and intra state agreements related to environmental health and vector 

control. 

 The need for possible mass evacuation related to insurmountable environmental 

conditions. 

 The need for, use of, and collaboration with, possible outside resources, such as the use 

of US military equipment for spraying. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

48

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Firefighting Operations/Support 

Capability Definition

The capability to coordinate and conduct fire suppression operations; including, scene size up, 

resource assignment, establishing an incident command system consistent with National Incident 

Management System (NIMS), communicating the status of the situation, requesting additional 

resources, establishing a safe perimeter, and conducting fire cause determination. This capability 

further includes support necessary to prepare the community and reduce vulnerabilities in the 

event of an incident of national significance.

Capability Outcome

Dispatch of the initial alarm assignment occurs within the response time objectives designed by 

the authority having jurisdiction. Initial arriving unit initiates the Incident Command System, 

conducts assessment of the incident scene, communicates the situation, and requests appropriate 

resources. Firefighting activities are conducted safely and the fire(s) is/are contained, controlled, 

and managed in accordance with emergency response plans and procedures.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The plans and policies in place for firefighting operations and how they are maintained 

and updated. 

 The establishment of an incident command system consistent with NIMS. 

 The ways in which integration activities with multiple areas and resource sources are 

incorporated into the planning and execution processes (including mutual aid 

agreements). 

 The way firefighting operations outcomes are evaluated for effectiveness. 

 The standards employed to guide firefighting operations/support. 

 The ability of firefighters to talk to other units and disciplines 

 What is being done or could be done to improve interoperable communications between 

fire and police. 

 The use of exercises to gauge and improve firefighting operations/support. 

 The training program used to support personnel in firefighting operations/support. 

 The procedures in place to ensure personnel have the appropriate resources and 

equipment necessary to perform firefighting operations/support 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

49

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Citizen Protection: Evacuation and/or In-Place Protection 

 

Capability Definition

 

The capability to plan for and immediately execute the safe and effective sheltering-in-place of 

an at-risk population; or an organized and managed evacuation of the at-risk population to areas 

of safe refuge in response to a potential or actual dangerous environment, and the safe and 

organized re-entry of the population.

Capability Outcome

Affected and at-risk populations are safely sheltered-in-place and/or relocated to safe refuge 

areas, provided sheltering and essential services and effectively and safely reentered into the 

impacted area (if appropriate). 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The plans in place for citizen relocation, the criteria and other processes utilized for the 

development of the plan. 

 The types of training and exercises developed to support planning protocols for 

successful relocation. 

 The assignment and acceptance of roles and responsibilities of transportation and other 

related industry members and disciplines involved to ensure successful coordination for 

citizen evacuation and relocation processes. 

 The organizational structure in place to support citizen relocation. 

 The ways in which developed plans will ensure citizen awareness and coordination 

during evacuation and relocation procedures. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

50

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Isolation and Quarantine 

Capability Definition

The capability to protect the health of the population through the use of isolation and/or 

quarantine measures in order to contain the spread of disease to themselves or others. Isolation of 

ill individuals may occur in homes, hospitals, designated health care facilities, or alternate 

facilities. Quarantine refers to the separation and restriction of movement of persons who, while 

not yet ill, have been exposed to an infectious agent and may become infectious. Successful 

implementation will require that sufficient legal, logistical, and informational support exists to 

maintain these measures.

Capability Outcome

Separation, restriction of movement, assurance that basic necessities of life are available, and 

health monitoring of individuals who are ill, exposed, or likely to be exposed, in order to limit 

the spread of a newly introduced contagious disease (pandemic influenza). Legal authority for 

these measures is clearly defined and communicated to the public. Logistical support is provided 

to maintain measures until danger of contagion has elapsed. Most experts feel that isolation and 

quarantine will not stop the outbreak and that if used, the focus will be on cases that might 

introduce the disease into the state or other geographic area.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 Staffing levels, types of personnel positions, and organizations (with their associated 

roles and responsibilities) that exist to ensure isolation and quarantine is performed 

adequately. 

 The established isolation and quarantine plans. 

 The way legal authority is defined within State statutes and regulations and integrated 

into local, regional and State response plans. 

 The types and levels of training and training requirements offered to ensure personnel are 

following procedures and able to perform isolation and quarantine capability. 

 The establishment of shelter-in-place plans, arrangements for additional isolation and 

quarantine housing, and public information messages. Consider the adequacy of these 

plans, procedures and processes. 

 The need for order and security, commutation and supply with a quarantined or isolated 

area and sanitation or isolated areas. 

 The legal issues related to isolation and quarantine at the state and local level. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

51

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Urban Search and Rescue

Capability Definition

The capability to coordinate and conduct search and rescue (US&R) response efforts for all 

hazards including locating, accessing, extricating and providing on-site medical treatment to 

victims trapped in damaged or collapsed structures, or other national significant events

Capability Outcome

US&R activities are conducted as safely and efficiently as possible, with the greatest numbers of 

victims rescued in the shortest amount of time while maintaining rescuer safety at all times.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 Plans, policies, and procedures in place for urban search and rescue operations and 

support, including local dispatch and operating procedures, memoranda of agreement 

(MOAs), and procedures for activating and coordinating with national US&R task 

force(s). 

 The integration of personnel and various disciplines that are designed to ensure adequate 

search and rescue capabilities. 

 The ways in which training and exercises have been developed and executed for meeting 

necessary standards related to urban search and rescue operations. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

52

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Emergency Public Information and Warning 

Capability Definition

The capability to develop and coordinate the release of accurate alerts, warnings and other 

emergency information to the public prior to an impending emergency. To contribute to the well 

being of the community during and after an emergency by disseminating accurate, consistent, 

timely and easy-to-understand information about emergency response and recovery processes.

Capability Outcome

Members of the public receive prompt, accurate and useful information regarding threats to their 

health, safety and property. Additionally, the public receives clear, consistent information and 

periodic updates outlining protective measures that can be taken by individuals and their 

communities. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The plan for integration/collaboration of disciplines and organizations to qualify, issue, 

and communicate alerts. 

 The management plan used to analyze data to ensure alerts are accurate and timely. 

 The ways in which personnel are trained to ensure alerts are accurate and timely and 

communication is relayed throughout the life cycle of the event as needed. 

 The communications plan that is used to ensure the alert message reaches the target 

audience and is understood and acted upon appropriately. 

 The standards used to direct and evaluate the Emergency Public Information and 

Warning operation. 

 The way exercises are performed to gauge performance of the Emergency Public 

Information and Warning operation and make improvements. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

53

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Triage and Pre-Hospital Treatment 

Capability Definition

The capability to appropriately dispatch emergency medical services resources; to provide 

feasible, suitable, and acceptable pre-hospital triage and treatment of patients; to provide 

transport as well as medical care en-route to an appropriate receiving facility; and to track 

patients to a treatment facility. 

Capability Outcome

Emergency medical service resources are effectively and appropriately dispatched, and are able 

to provide pre-hospital triage, treatment, transport, tracking of patients, and documentation of 

care appropriate for the incident, while maintaining the capabilities of the emergency medical 

services system for continued operations.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The personnel and disciplines involved and the communications plan to ensure 

information is available to rapidly triage, diagnose and transport casualty victims. 

 The types of exercises that are performed to ensure protocols for triage, stabilization, and 

safe transportation of casualty victims are in place and effective. 

 The type of training that is required for disciplines involved in casualty triage and prehospital training, and identify if there is a required frequency for refresher training. 

 The type of equipment that is inventoried and maintained to support triage and prehospital treatment of casualty victims. 

 The type of organizational structure that exists to ensure equipment is distributed 

effectively during an incident. 

 Mutual aid agreements that exist to support triage and pre-hospital treatment of casualty 

victims. 

 Coordination efforts with mortuary services. 

 The plans for conducting decontamination as needed, the levels of equipment to support 

decontamination, and the types of personnel and training to ensure effective 

decontamination. 

 The way in which transportation is managed during a casualty to ensure victims are 

reached quickly and can be moved rapidly to treatment facilities. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

54

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Medical Supplies Management and Distribution 

Capability Definition

The capabilities to procure and maintain pharmaceuticals and medical materials prior to an 

incident and to transport, distribute, and track these materials during an incident. 

Capability Outcome

Critical medical supplies and equipment are appropriately secured, managed, distributed and 

restocked in a timeframe appropriate to the incident. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The staffing levels, types of personnel positions, and organizations (with their associated 

roles and responsibilities) to ensure medical supplies management and distribution is 

performed adequately. 

 The adequacy of emergency public health and medical distribution and hazard-specific 

response plans. Explain how these plans appropriately identify and prioritize resource 

needs. 

 The adequacy of plans for special needs populations to receive medical supplies in an 

emergency. 

 The types and levels of training offered and training requirements to ensure personnel are 

following procedures and able to perform Medical Supplies Management and 

Distribution. 

 Mutual aid agreements and other plans in place to coordinate Medical Supplies 

Management and Distribution effectively across jurisdictions and/or regions. 

 The logistical process used to pre-identify and plan for projected medical supply needs. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

55

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Mass Care (Sheltering, Feeding, and Related Services) 

Capability Definition

The capability to provide mass care services, to include immediate shelter, feeding, basic first 

aid, bulk distribution of needed items and other related services to persons affected by the 

incident, including special needs populations. People with special needs include individuals who 

need medical attention/personal care beyond basic first aid due to physical or mental impairment. 

Other populations may require special planning for certain needs, such as non-English speaking 

populations. The capability also provides for pet care/handling through local government and 

appropriate animal-related organizations. Mass care is usually performed by non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs), such as the American Red Cross, while special needs populations are 

generally the responsibility of local government, with medical needs addressed by the medical 

community for alternate care facilities. 

Capability Outcome

Rapid provision of mass care services for the affected general population, services for special 

needs populations, and services for animals within the affected area.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The staffing levels, types of personnel positions, and organizations (with their associated 

roles and responsibilities) to ensure Mass Care is performed adequately. 

 The collaboration process among information sources into local government evacuation 

plans and shelter agreements. 

 The types and levels of training offered and training requirements to ensure personnel are 

following procedures and able to perform analysis? 

 The adequacy of shelter both in the affected area and within the relocation area. 

 The adequacy of transportation. What other means of transportation may be available? 

(i.e. Amtrak, Ferries, etc) 

 Accommodations in place for people with special needs and the adequacy of plans to 

address this population. 

 Collaboration efforts with NGOs to ensure Mass Care could be provided efficiently and 

effectively. 

 Plans or programs that are in place to ensure regional interface in a situation where mass 

care capabilities from one region are needed to provide mass care services for a incident 

that occurs in another region. 

 The security of those being provided Mass Care. 

 The need for a liaison role among NGOs and to and from multiple levels of government 

(e.g. a feedback loop from NGO’s and all levels of government involved). 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

56

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

57

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Fatality Management 

Capability Definition

The capability to effectively perform scene documentation; the complete collection and recovery 

of the dead, victim’s personal effects, and items of evidence; decontamination of remains and 

personal effects (if required); transportation, storage, documentation, and recovery of forensic 

and physical evidence; determination of the nature and extent of injury; identification of the 

fatalities using scientific means; certification of the of cause and manner of death; processing and 

returning of human remains and personal effects of the victims’ to the legally authorized 

person(s), (if possible); and interaction with and provision of legal, customary, compassionate, 

and culturally competent required services to the families of deceased within the context of the 

family assistance center. All activities should be sufficiently documented for admissibility in 

criminal and/or civil courts. To be incorporated in the surveillance and intelligence sharing 

networks to identify sentinel cases of bioterrorism and other public health threats. Complete 

daily non-event demands of the community.

Capability Outcome

Fatality management operations are conducted through a unified command structure as safely, 

timely, and efficiently as possible. Complete documentation and recovery of human remains, 

personal effects, and items of evidence will be done (except in cases where the health risk posed 

to personnel outweigh the benefits of recovery of remains and personal effects). Remains receive 

surface decontamination (if indicated) and, unless catastrophic circumstances dictate otherwise, 

are examined and identified, and released to the next-of-kin’s funeral home with a complete 

certified death certificate. Reports of missing persons and ante mortem data are efficiently 

collected. Victims’ family members will receive updated information prior to the media release. 

All hazardous material regulations are reviewed and any restriction on the transportation and 

disposition of remains are made clear by those with the authority and responsibility to establish 

the standards. All personal effects are made safe to return to next-of-kin unless contraindicated 

by catastrophic circumstances. Law Enforcement agencies will be given all the information 

needed to investigate and prosecute the case successfully. Families will be provided incident 

specific support services.

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The ways in which procedures for mass fatalities and personal property processing are 

included appropriately in an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). 

 The organizational structure developed to coordinate fatalities management – including 

integration and collaboration among personnel, disciplines and organizations. 

 The way physical facility capacity availability is ensured to conduct fatality management 

operations (laboratory services, storage, etc). 

 The way training efforts support forensic collection and analysis. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

58

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

 The ways in which communications are planned and executed to ensure information is 

provided to survivors appropriately. 

 The use and frequency of exercises to gauge fatality management. 

 The evaluation of fatality management operations. 

 The ways in which resources are provided to ensure personnel can effectively perform 

fatality management tasks, including the provision of protective equipment to minimize 

the occurrence of additional fatalities. 

 The use of mutual aid to prepare for and execute fatality management tasks. 

 Determination of responsibility for Family Assistance Center(s) (FAC) (particularly, who 

is in charge of the overall FAC operations) and various representatives who will staff it. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

59

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

RECOVER MISSION AREA TARGET CAPABILITIES 

Structural Damage and Mitigation Assessment 

Capability Definition

The capability to conduct damage and safety assessment of civil, commercial and residential 

infrastructure, and to perform structural inspections, debris removal, and mitigation activities. 

The capability includes being able to provide contractor management, construction management, 

cost estimating, technical assistance and other engineering services to support and manage 

response and recovery operations. 

Capability Outcome

Accurate situation needs and damage assessments occur. Mitigation projects to lessen the 

impacts of similar future events are identified, prioritized, and conducted. The full-range of 

engineering, building inspection, and enforcement services are implemented, managed, and 

coordinated in a way that maximizes the use of resources and aids emergency response and 

recovery operations. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The adequacy of structural damage and mitigation assessment plans. 

 The procedures utilized to ensure that a jurisdiction maintains situation and damage 

assessment plans in Recovery Annex and that a jurisdiction conducts code enforcement, 

permitting, and inspection activities. 

 The organizational structure and personnel roles and responsibilities to ensure adequate 

structural damage and mitigation assessment analysis. 

 The ways structural damage and mitigation assessment procedures are evaluated for 

effectiveness. 

 Zoning regulations which may impact recovery/restoration. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

60

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Restoration of Lifelines 

Capability Definition

The capability to manage clearing and restoration activities (e.g. demolition, repairing 

reconstruction, etc.). This includes the restoration of essential gas, electric, oil, communications, 

water, wastewater and sewer, transportation and transportation infrastructure, and other utilities. 

This also includes clearing debris from lifelines. 

Capability Outcome

Restoration of lifelines (e.g. transportation, communications, and public/private utilities) to 

facilitate emergency response and recovery activities, and to re-establish essential lifeline 

services for the impacted population. 

Capability Discussion Points 

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The plan for identifying critical sites and resources. Consider how or if those sites are 

already identified. If those sites are not identified, further explore what plans are in place 

to move forward with that identification. 

 The prioritization of assets for restoration and reconstitution efforts. 

 The State restoration plan, and steps which were taken to engage the private sector, 

volunteer groups, and other stakeholders in the development of this plan. 

 Efforts to establish mutual aid agreements to assist in restoration and reconstitution 

efforts. 

 The State’s emergency contracting capabilities for bringing in aid to support critical 

activities on a rapid basis. 

 Contingency plans for a situation where all existing resources are maximized. 

 The depth of Continuity of Government (COG) statues, as well as Continuity of 

Operations (COOP) plans. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

61

SECTION II:

ADDITIONAL 

CAPABILITIES

Economic and Community Recovery 

Capability Definition

The capability to implement short-term and long-term recovery processes after an incident. This 

will include identifying the extent of damage caused by an incident, through post-event 

assessments, and by determining and providing the support needed for recovery and restoration 

activities. 

Capability Outcome

Recovery and relief plans are implemented and coordinated with all levels of government, the 

private sector and nongovernmental organizations. Economic impact is estimated. Priorities are 

set for recovery activities. Business disruption is minimized. Individuals and families are 

provided with appropriate levels and types of relief with minimal delay. 

Capability Discussion Points

When discussing and analyzing the State’s homeland security preparedness capabilities, 

stakeholder participants should consider the following: 

 The way in which economic and community recovery plans ensure coordination across 

government agencies and relief organizations. 

 The procedures utilized to prioritize the recovery of business and economic assets. 

 The organizational structure, personnel roles, and responsibilities used to ensure adequate 

economic and community analysis and post-events response. 

 The types and frequencies of exercises used to support gauging and improving recovery 

activities. 

 The way in which economic and community recovery procedures are evaluated for 

effectiveness. 

Please note that these are discussion points. States are not expected to answer each question or write a lengthy narrative 

about each point. These discussion points are provided as a tool to help identify capability strengths and weaknesses 

and inform the analysis included in the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

62

SECTION III:

PROGRAM 

REVIEW

SECTION III: PROGRAM REVIEW 

Overview 

The homeland security Program Review is a mechanism for strengthening State homeland 

security program management. The Program Review should involve a working group of 

homeland security program managers who will use the provided National Priority and program 

management discussion points to capture program strengths and weaknesses. Once strengths and 

weaknesses are identified, they will be used to complete an effective homeland security 

Enhancement Plan. 

The intent of the Program Review is to encourage States to self-assess and gauge current 

program capacity, baseline operations, and future program needs. Successful efforts to build 

capabilities hinge on effective homeland security program operations. Understanding program 

management challenges can help address needs that support statewide efforts to enhance and 

sustain capabilities. As part of the Program Review process, States are essentially considering 

two high-level questions: 1) Is the State program executing the appropriate activities to operate 

and manage the homeland security program? and 2) Has the State organized itself and 

established governance structures to effectively manage those activities? 

The guidelines and discussion points contained in this section of the Guidebook are not a 

mandated management approach intended to supplant existing and effective systems and 

processes. Instead, the Program Review is intended to be used as a mechanism for identifying 

program management strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately, sound program management will 

help States develop, coordinate, and maintain the capabilities that will make the Nation better 

prepared to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major 

disasters, and other emergencies. 

Discussion topics are provided in the following pages stimulate thought and identify strengths, 

weaknesses, improvement opportunities, and corrective actions in the areas that are most relevant 

to a State’s ability to operate and manage an effective homeland security program. State multidisciplinary working groups do not have to submit answers to the discussion points but should 

use them as a starting point to complete this exercise with an eye toward identifying management 

strengths and weaknesses within their organizational structures. 

Defining a Homeland Security Program 

In general, a program is defined as a collection of 

organizational resources including processes, 

people, and tools, which are geared to 

accomplish one overarching goal or set of 

mutually supporting goals, and may be an 

organization as well as a system. The State 

homeland security program should support and 

seek to achieve the overarching goal of 

preparedness: “to achieve and sustain risk-based 

target levels of capability to prevent, protect 

The homeland security program 

management objective is: 

To strategically manage and 

effectively coordinate major 

initiatives in support of State 

homeland security preparedness. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

63

SECTION III:

PROGRAM 

REVIEW

against, respond to, and recover from major events in order to minimize the impact on lives, 

property, and the economy.”1

 The State homeland security program should support the four 

homeland security mission areas outlined in the Goal: prevent, protect, respond, and recover. 

From a governance standpoint, a homeland security program should involve the full lifecycle of 

key program management dimensions of processes, people, and tools. These elements contribute 

to a framework for States to assess their program in a multi-dimensional fashion and identify the 

program’s strengths and weaknesses. 

An effective homeland security program hinges on sound program governance structures that 

help ensure the program is capable of conducting business across departments, agencies, and 

disciplines at all levels of government. Homeland security is a particularly challenging issue 

from a governance standpoint because such a wide spectrum of stakeholders are involved in 

efforts to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from major events. Although a lead 

State agency is required from a functional standpoint to manage the overall homeland security 

program, the scope of the program transcends agencies and demands collaboration among all key 

constituencies in order to achieve success. 

Incorporating the Overarching National Priorities 

The Program Review provides States with the opportunity to gauge progress toward the three 

overarching National Priorities included in the Goal and identify gaps to address and efforts to 

sustain. The three overarching National Priorities are: Expanded Regional Collaboration, 

Implement the National Incident Management System (NIMS) & National Response Plan 

(NRP), and Implement the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). These 

priorities are cross-cutting in nature, involving multiple disciplines, jurisdictions, and agencies at 

the State and local levels. The achievement of the homeland security program goals requires an 

integrated, strategic, enterprise-wide approach undertaken by an efficiently managed homeland 

security program. Specific analytical discussion points relevant to each of the three overarching 

National Priorities are included in the following section. 

Program Review and Overarching National Priorities Discussion Points 

State working groups are encouraged to consider the following discussion points and priority 

discussions as part of the Program Review in exploring how the overarching National Priorities 

are incorporated in the State homeland security program, identifying the level of involvement of 

multiple disciplines and agencies at all levels of government with the State, and gauging the 

State homeland security program’s progress toward fully implementing the three overarching 

National Priorities. 

Expanded Regional Collaboration 

Major events will invariably have cross-geographic consequences and impact. The expanded 

regional collaboration priority highlights the need for embracing partnership across multiple 

jurisdictions, regions, and States in building capabilities cooperatively. Successful regional 

collaboration allows for a multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary approach to building 

capabilities for all four mission areas, spreading costs, and sharing risk across geographic areas. 

This approach increases opportunities to create efficiency and leverage capabilities across the 

country. Regional collaboration focuses on expanding mutual aid and assistance compacts 

 

1

 National Preparedness Goal. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

64

SECTION III:

PROGRAM 

REVIEW

among contiguous State, local, and tribal entities, and their private and non-governmental 

partners, and extending the scope of those compacts to include pre-incident preparedness 

activities (i.e., planning, training, exercising). The intent is to locate capabilities strategically to 

maximize coverage of the U.S. population and the Nation’s high priority critical infrastructure 

and key resources. The Goal does not mandate that State and local governments adopt a regional 

governmental structure, but it does require that all levels of government embrace a regional 

approach to building capabilities. 

Consider the following discussion points when assessing the current state of the Expanded 

Regional Collaboration efforts: 

Expanded Regional Collaboration discussion points: 

▪ Satisfaction with existing statewide collaboration efforts. 

▪ The State concept for regionalization and its methodology for addressing unique needs of 

tribes and major metropolitan areas. 

▪ The State plan for integrating operational systems from multiple disciplines and 

jurisdictions for all homeland security mission areas as part of the State’s strategic vision 

for enhanced regional collaboration. 

▪ The criteria for determining regional, State, or jurisdiction needs and for approving those 

needs at the State level. 

▪ The extent to which contiguous State, local, and tribal entities are working together to 

share funding for a specific purpose that affects all the entities. 

▪ The extent to which border security issues are addressed in the State’s regionalization 

concept. 

Implement the National Incident Management System (NIMS) & National Response Plan 

(NRP) 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (HSPD-5), “Management of Domestic Incidents,” 

mandated the creation of the NIMS and NRP. The NIMS provides a consistent framework for 

entities at all jurisdictional levels to work together to manage domestic incidents, regardless of 

cause, size, or complexity. To promote interoperability and compatibility among Federal, State, 

local, and tribal capabilities, the NIMS includes a core set of guidelines, standards, and protocols 

for command and management, preparedness, resource management, communications and 

information management, supporting technologies, and management and maintenance of NIMS. 

The NRP, using the template established by the NIMS, is an all-discipline, all-hazards plan that 

provides the structure and mechanisms to coordinate operations for evolving or potential 

Incidents of National Significance. Incidents of National Significance are major events that 

“require a coordinated and effective response by an appropriate combination of Federal, State, 

local, tribal, private sector, and nongovernmental entities.” 

Consider the following discussion points when assessing the current state of the NIMS/NRP 

efforts: 

Implement NIMS/NRP discussion points: 

▪ Incorporation of the NIMS into emergency operations, plans, policies, procedures, 

incident and resource management, training, and exercises. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

65

SECTION III:

PROGRAM 

REVIEW

▪ The statewide implementation strategy for ensuring NIMS compliance at the State, local, 

and tribal levels by established deadlines (acknowledging that different Federal funding 

streams – i.e., DHS, HHS, etc. – have differing deadlines). 

▪ Promotion of intrastate and interagency mutual aid agreements, including private sector 

and non-governmental organization agreements. 

▪ Incorporate a thorough understanding of, and necessary linkages to functions and 

organizations of, the NRP into emergency plans, policies, procedures, incident and 

resource management, trainings, programs, and exercises. 

▪ Integrated regional operational systems based on NIMS concepts and principles. 

▪ Integrated regional operational systems based on NRP support. 

Implement the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) 

The Interim NIPP outlines how DHS will exercise leadership and work with State, Tribal, and 

local governments, and the private sector to implement HSPD-7 “Critical Infrastructure 

Identification, Prioritization, and Protection,” to produce a risk management framework that 

fosters a more secure environment for our nation’s citizens and infrastructure. With the 

inclusion of the Interim NIPP implementation as a National Priority, efforts to develop and 

implement a critical infrastructure protection program are a required component of both States 

and Urban Areas strategy updates and State Program and Capability Reviews. Thus, NIPP forms 

a key pillar of the overarching homeland security program. 

Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource (CI/KR) sites are potential terrorist targets deemed most 

crucial in terms of national-level public health and safety, governance, economic and national 

security, and public confidence consequences. Protecting CI/KR sites is a shared responsibility 

requiring cooperation among all levels of government – Federal, State, local, and tribal – and the 

involvement of the private sector. Effective security involves plans that define, identify, and set 

priorities for the most critical structures and assets that are potential targets for terrorist attacks. 

From a functional standpoint, the responsibility for creating and managing a critical 

infrastructure protection program entails building a program that can implement the risk 

management framework outlined in the Interim NIPP, to include: identifying critical assets; 

assessing risks; normalizing and prioritizing across infrastructure sectors; implementing 

protective programs; and measuring effectiveness of risk reduction measures. In the aggregate, 

these functions form the basis of an infrastructure protection program and are elements that 

support the implementation of relevant infrastructure protection-related goals and objectives. 

Consider the following discussion points when assessing the current state of the NIPP efforts: 

Implement the Interim NIPP discussion points: 

▪ Steps taken to build a statewide critical infrastructure protection program that implements 

the risk management framework outlined in the Interim NIPP: identifying critical assets; 

assessing risks; normalizing and prioritizing across infrastructure sectors; implementing 

protective programs; and measuring effectiveness of risk reduction measures. 

▪ State efforts to engage all relevant intergovernmental coordination points to ensure a 

comprehensive approach to critical infrastructure protection across all appropriate levels 

of government and across both public and private sectors. 

▪ Steps that are being taken to identify, prioritize, and assess CI/KA. 

▪ Efforts to incorporate cyber security protection efforts across all sectors of CI/KA. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

66

SECTION III:

PROGRAM 

REVIEW

Program Review Components and Outputs 

To complete a Program Review, the State should focus on assessing homeland security program 

management activities and resources using a combination of targeted discussion points, or topics, 

about the three main components of program management that cross all dimensions of an 

effective homeland security program: processes, people, and tools. The results of the Program 

Review will provide the State with strategic perspective, maintainable strengths, and identified 

weaknesses of the State’s management of its homeland security program. 

Components to Consider in the Program Review 

In the context of effective program management, processes, people, and tools are defined below. 

Process – Activities and component steps that need to occur to achieve the mission. 

People – Organizational entities, staff, working groups, and committees that are 

accountable for and participate in carrying out processes. 

Tools – Resources other than people that are used in carrying out processes. Tools can 

 be information technology, related components, and policies. 

 

When discussing and analyzing effective State homeland security program management 

activities in regard to process, people, and tools, State working groups should consider the 

following: 

Process Discussion Points: 

▪ The current State evaluation process to evaluate program management activities. 

▪ The way in which the State prioritizes funding for initiatives. 

▪ The process to facilitate the disbursement of funds, once grants are awarded. 

▪ States efforts underway to mitigate potential delays in the disbursement of funds. 

▪ The State’s efforts in identifying non-monetary resources and promising practices to 

support management activities. 

▪ How the State incorporates legal and programmatic policies, requirements, standards, and 

regulations that impact program management. 

▪ Whether plans and/or work breakdown structures have been developed for program 

management, in terms of cost and schedules, and whether these plans have been 

communicated, implemented and/or managed. 

▪ Existence of statewide collaboration processes and how they are managed 

▪ Whether or not specific program managers have been assigned to manage initiatives 

within the homeland security program and other managers in the State are aware of who 

is responsible for managing the initiatives. 

People Discussion Points: 

▪ Organizational entities, working groups, or committees accountable for implementing, 

conducting, and planning preparedness initiatives, grants allocation, and program 

assessments. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

67

SECTION III:

PROGRAM 

REVIEW

▪ The role of the Senior Advisory Committee, or similar statewide coordination body, with 

regard to planning, allocating, monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the 

homeland security program. 

▪ The degree to which appropriate human resources are available to the State to conduct 

preparedness activities, allocation and management of funds, and assessing and managing 

homeland security programs. 

▪ Types of training that homeland security staff have undergone to support the program 

initiatives, allocation and grants management, and monitoring and assessment efforts. 

▪ Internal initiative management training for staff 

Tools Discussion Points: 

▪ Whether or not initiative management lessons learned are documented and incorporated 

in initiative management guides, policies, and procedures. 

▪ The State’s tracking data for performance evaluation and reporting and the sources of 

data that are used to drive the assessment process. 

▪ Any oversight policies that have been established for the management of funding plans, 

expenditures, funding transfers, etc. 

▪ Whether or not quality control plans have been established which include a system of 

policies, guidelines, and processes that ensure initiatives will meet all cost schedule, 

technical and usability requirements. 

▪ State policies, information technology, regional collaboration, and other such resources 

that are in place to support the grant allocation process. 

▪ The tools that are used and the way in which the State is promoting information sharing 

through integrated systems and how data quality is ensured. 

▪ State efforts to ensure infrastructure protection, to include the security, availability, and 

reliability of systems and networks supporting preparedness. 

▪ The level of satisfaction with the State’s information technology and the infrastructure 

resources to monitor, assess, and manage preparedness initiatives. 

While processes, people, and tools are essential components of a program, using a strong 

management plan that incorporates the goals and objectives of the State Homeland Security 

Strategy is a good foundation for effective program management. The components of processes, 

people, and tools should be used in conjunction with the foundation of planning to analyze the 

management of State programs. For example, when discussing and analyzing State planning 

efforts, it is important to understand planning procedures, who is responsible for those planning 

efforts, and what tools are used in the process. In the context of effective program management, 

planning is defined below: 

Planning – Analyzing program data, making decisions, and formulating plans for action 

in the future, aimed at achieving the program objective and the goal of State homeland 

security preparedness. Planning involves the process of anticipating future occurrences 

and problems, exploring their probable impact, and detailing policies, goals, objectives, 

strategies, and resources to solve the problems. 

When discussion and analyzing the State’s homeland security program management activities in 

regard to planning, State working groups should consider the following: 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

68

SECTION III:

PROGRAM 

REVIEW

Planning Discussion Points: 

▪ The identified State planning stakeholders. 

▪ How the State planning working group is assembled. 

▪ The communication efforts between planning stakeholders. 

▪ How often the State conducts an assessment to develop planning priorities. 

▪ When the State develops a planning approach for new initiatives. 

▪ The effectiveness of the planning budget and how it affects overall program management
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

69

APPENDIX A:

CUSTOMIZED 

STATE 

PROGRAM, EXPENDITURE, AND 

CAPABILITY 

ASSESSMENT 

DATA 

REPORTS

APPENDIX A: CUSTOMIZED STATE PROGRAM, EXPENDITURE, AND 

CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT DATA REPORTS 

Overview 

Appendix A provides customized reports that contain State-specific data, which is based on 

existing assessment and grant data. The reports, which include caveats and assumptions, were 

designed to aid States with the Program and Capability Review. The reports convey existing 

State data in the context of the Target Capability List and demonstrate how DHS utilizes the 

information that States submit. 

State Program Narratives 

This section includes State-specific homeland security program narratives, which were submitted 

with the 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program applications. These narratives outline support 

systems and processes (planned or in place) to administer State homeland security programs. By 

drawing attention to statewide and national trends, the narratives can assist States in reviewing 

the structures and effectiveness of their homeland security programs. 

Expenditure Data

This section includes expenditure data from the December 2004 Biannual Strategy 

Implementation Report (BSIR) submission. The BSIR is due at six month intervals over the 

period of performance for each grant award. The report is used as an effort to outline how State, 

urban area, local, and other Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) grant funding is being used 

to meet the strategic goals and objectives outlined in the State and Urban Area Homeland 

Security Strategies and related strategies. For this assessment, BSIR grant dollars are broken 

down by target capability, project type, and associated funding. State users must select one of 

several pre-defined project types that best relates to the project that they created and allocated 

funding towards in their BSIR. Project types from the BSIR are mapped to one or more of the 36 

target capabilities in order to estimate the quantity of FY 2004 grant dollars that have been spent 

to build a particular capability. 

 

Capabilities Assessment Data

This section includes capabilities assessment data from the Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) 

Tasks by Discipline section of the 2003 State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy 

Process, which enabled jurisdictions and states to indicate the ability of their first responders to 

perform approximately 200 WMD-related tasks across the five solution areas (planning, 

organization, equipment, training, and exercises) for each of the five hazards (chemical, 

biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

has mapped the tasks by discipline from the 2003 assessment to one or more of the 36 

capabilities and has created charts that report the responses as provided by the entities within 

each state or territory that completed the 2003 assessment for the tasks that align to the target 

capabilities. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

70

APPENDIX B:

CAPABILITY-BASED 

PLANNING 

PROCESS AND 

TOOLS

APPENDIX B: CAPABILITY-BASED PLANNING PROCESS AND TOOLS 

At the national level, the challenge is to not only identify the components of the capability 

planning process but also define how all the components will work together to set measurable 

readiness priorities and targets across the nation. The challenge for the States then becomes 

understanding how they are meeting those priorities and targets. The Capability-Based Planning 

process, and its components, are defined further in the sections below. 

Capabilities-Based Planning 

In the Interim National Preparedness Goal, Capabilities-Based Planning (CBP) is defined as 

“planning, under uncertainty, to provide capabilities suitable for a wide range of threats and 

hazards while working within an economic framework that necessitates prioritization and 

choice.” The CBP process allows for the comparison of current levels of capability to 

established performance targets by involving stakeholders in a continuous cycle of risk analysis 

and risk management. This process helps inform and optimize decision making at all levels of 

government by linking resource allocation to capabilities that must perform a wide range of 

assigned missions and tasks. The planning tools being developed to facilitate the CapabilitiesBased Planning process include: National Planning Scenarios, Universal Task List, and Target 

Capabilities List. 

National Scenarios 

While much preparedness applies across the all-hazards spectrum, the National Strategy attaches 

special emphasis to preparing for catastrophic threats with “the greatest risk of mass casualties, 

massive property loss, and immense social disruption.” To address this requirement, a Federal 

interagency working group developed fifteen National Planning Scenarios to illustrate the 

potential scope, magnitude, and complexity of a plausible range of major events, including 

terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The scenarios are not intended to be 

exhaustive or predictive; rather, they are meant to illustrate a broad range of potential terrorist 

attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies and their related impacts. Scenarios provide the 

foundation for a risk-based approach to minimize the impact on lives, property, and the 

economy. These scenarios should guide CBP State efforts and will be referenced in the State 

Program and Capability Review. 

Target Capabilities List 

At the heart of the Goal is the Target Capabilities List (TCL). The TCL identifies 36 national 

preparedness capabilities, provides a description of each capability, and presents guidance on the 

levels of capability that Federal, State, local, and tribal entities will be expected to develop and 

maintain. Each level of government or geographical area will not be expected to develop and 

maintain all 36 capabilities at the same level. The expectation will vary based upon the risk and 

needs of different levels of government and geographic area. For example, basic capability 

levels may be expected of a rural, low-population jurisdiction, while more advanced levels of 

capability may be expected of a group of jurisdictions, an entire State, or the Federal 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

71

APPENDIX B:

CAPABILITY-BASED 

PLANNING 

PROCESS AND 

TOOLS

government. These levels should be identified through capability-based planning and during the 

Program and Capability Review. 

Universal Task List 

The Universal Task List (UTL) provides a menu of tasks that may be performed in major events 

such as those illustrated by the fifteen National Planning Scenarios. Identifying a menu of tasks 

is a step toward identifying dependencies and critical tasks among disciplines, entities, and levels 

of government. Critical tasks are defined as those prevention, protection, response, and recovery 

tasks that require coordination among an appropriate combination of Federal, State, local, tribal, 

private sector, and non-governmental entities during a major event to minimize the impact on 

lives, property, and the economy. Critical tasks, with associated conditions and performance 

standards, provide the foundation for developing target levels of capability. Most importantly, 

they serve as the source for learning objectives used in the design, development, conduct and 

evaluation of training and exercise events. Over time, the UTL will include a list of conditions 

derived from the National Planning Scenarios and other sources that affect the way to perform 

the tasks. The UTL will also include performance measures and criteria associated with each 

task. The measures and criteria can be used to help define performance standards. Performance 

standards, when linked to conditions, provide a basis for evaluating how well tasks are 

performed in operations, training, and exercises. As part of capability-base planning, the UTL 

can help a State to further understand the basic steps or tasks to complete on the road to 

preparedness. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

72

APPENDIX C:

NATIONAL 

PRIORITIES IN THE INTERIM 

NATIONAL 

PREPAREDNESS 

GOAL

APPENDIX C: NATIONAL PRIORITIES IN THE INTERIM NATIONAL 

PREPAREDNESS GOAL 

Expanded Regional Collaboration 

Major events, especially terrorism, will invariably have cross-geographic consequences and 

impact. The expanded regional collaboration priority highlights the need for embracing 

partnership across multiple jurisdictions, regions, and States in building capabilities 

cooperatively. Successful regional collaboration allows for a multi-jurisdictional and multidisciplinary approach to building capabilities for all four mission areas, spreading costs, and 

sharing risk across geographic areas. This approach increases opportunities to create efficiency 

and leverage capabilities across the country. Regional collaboration focuses on expanding 

mutual aid and assistance compacts among contiguous State, local, and tribal entities, and their 

private and non-governmental partners, and extending the scope of those compacts to include 

pre-incident preparedness activities (i.e., planning, training, exercising). The intent is to locate 

capabilities strategically to maximize coverage of the U.S. population and the Nation’s high 

priority critical infrastructure and key resources. The Goal does not mandate that State and local 

governments adopt a regional governmental structure, but it does require that all levels of 

government embrace a regional approach to building capabilities. 

Implement the National Incident Management System (NIMS) & National 

Response Plan (NRP) 

HSPD-5, “Management of Domestic Incidents,” mandated the creation of the NIMS and NRP. 

The NIMS provides a consistent framework for entities at all jurisdictional levels to work 

together to manage domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size, or complexity. To promote 

interoperability and compatibility among Federal, State, local, and tribal capabilities, the NIMS 

includes a core set of guidelines, standards, and protocols for command and management, 

preparedness, resource management, communications and information management, supporting 

technologies, and management and maintenance of NIMS. The NRP, using the template 

established by the NIMS, is an all-discipline, all-hazards plan that provides the structure and 

mechanisms to coordinate operations for evolving or potential Incidents of National 

Significance. Incidents of National Significance are major events that “require a coordinated 

and effective response by an

appropriate combination of Federal, State, local, tribal, private sector, and nongovernmental 

entities.” 

Implement the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) 

The Interim NIPP outlines how DHS will exercise leadership and work with State, Tribal, and 

local governments, and the private sector to implement HSPD-7 “Critical Infrastructure 

Identification, Prioritization, and Protection,” to produce a risk management framework that 

fosters a more secure environment for our nation’s citizens and infrastructure. With the 

inclusion of the Interim NIPP implementation as a National Priority, efforts to develop and 

implement a critical infrastructure protection program are a required component of both States 

and Urban Areas strategy updates and State Program and Capability Reviews. Thus, NIPP forms 

a key pillar of the overarching homeland security program. 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

73

APPENDIX C:

NATIONAL 

PRIORITIES IN THE INTERIM 

NATIONAL 

PREPAREDNESS 

GOAL

Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource (CI/KR) sites are potential terrorist targets deemed most 

crucial in terms of national-level public health and safety, governance, economic and national 

security, and public confidence consequences. Protecting CI/KR sites is a shared responsibility 

requiring cooperation among all levels of government – Federal, State, local, and tribal – and the 

involvement of the private sector. Effective security involves plans that define, identify, and set 

priorities for the most critical structures and assets that are potential targets for terrorist attacks. 

From a functional standpoint, the responsibility for creating and managing a critical 

infrastructure protection program entails building a program that can implement the risk 

management framework outlined in the Interim NIPP, to include: identifying critical assets; 

assessing risks; normalizing and prioritizing across infrastructure sectors; implementing 

protective programs; and measuring effectiveness of risk reduction measures. In the aggregate, 

these functions form the basis of an infrastructure protection program and are elements that 

support the implementation of relevant infrastructure protection-related goals and objectives. 

Strengthen Information Sharing and Collaboration Capabilities 

The NIMS identifies establishing an effective process for gathering, sharing and managing 

information and intelligence as a key characteristic of effective incident management. Likewise, 

the NRP identifies collection, analysis and application of intelligence and other information as a 

key component of mission performance. The Goal reflects the consensus of the homeland 

security community regarding how to achieve appropriate levels of proficiency and the required 

supply of capabilities for these missions and processes through the Information Sharing and 

Collaboration National Priority. 

Effective “information sharing and collaboration” efforts depend on the ability of State, local, 

and tribal governments to collect, analyze, disseminate, and use homeland security-related 

intelligence, a capacity that has come to be known as “intelligence/information fusion.” 

Accordingly, the establishment of this fusion capacity is one of the top components of the 

Information Sharing and Collaboration Priority for State, local, and tribal governments. 

Strengthen Interoperable Communications Capabilities 

The lack of interoperable wireless communication systems is an issue that continues to affect 

public safety agencies in communities across the country. In many cases, agencies are unable to 

communicate or share critical voice and data information with other jurisdictions or disciplines 

during major events or even day-to-day operations. Interoperable Communications, the ability to 

provide an uninterrupted flow of critical information among responding multi-disciplinary and 

multi jurisdictional agencies at all levels of government before, during, and after an event, is a 

capability-specific priority. Communications interoperability underpins the ability of Federal, 

State, local, and tribal entities to work together effectively to prevent, protect against, respond to, 

and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. 

Strengthen CBRNE Detection, Response, and Decontamination Capabilities 

As noted in the National Preparedness Guidance, this National Priority “leverages efforts 

throughout the government to develop robust capabilities to detect, neutralize, contain, 

dismantle, and dispose of CBRNE materials, and decontaminate exposed personnel and 
PROGRAM AND CAPABILITY REVIEW GUIDEBOOK 

74

APPENDIX C:

NATIONAL 

PRIORITIES IN THE INTERIM 

NATIONAL 

PREPAREDNESS 

GOAL

property.” This National Priority links with the several other priorities, including Strengthen 

Interoperable Communications Capabilities, Expanded Regional Collaboration, and Strengthen 

Information Sharing and Collaboration Capabilities. Establishing effective detection, response, 

and decontamination capabilities will require a regional approach; successful detection, response, 

and decontamination operations will necessitate operational integrated regional systems. 

Strengthen Medical Surge and Mass Prophylaxis Capabilities 

Establishing an effective medical surge and mass prophylaxis capability requires embracing a 

multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional collaborative approach. These capabilities should be 

supportive of integrated regional operational systems being established in support of the 

expanded regional collaboration priority, and demonstrate effective integration among public 

health, healthcare services, and other appropriate disciplines (e.g., emergency management, 

emergency medical services, etc.). Much work in these areas has already been accomplished 

through programs administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

These accomplishments and ongoing efforts should be leveraged in further strengthening and 

broadening medical surge and mass prophylaxis capabilities. 

As noted in the National Preparedness Guidance, the Nation’s healthcare system, particularly 

hospitals, must be able to handle large numbers of patients requiring immediate care following a 

major incident. Emergency-ready hospitals, working collectively, must be able to handle 

different types of injuries, including trauma and burns, infections, or chemical- or radiationinduced injury. The medical provider community must have the capability to rapidly 

accommodate an influx of supplemental healthcare assets from mutual-aid partners, as well as 

the State and Federal government. Additionally, local public health and public safety agencies 

must develop capabilities and coordination capacity throughout the local and regional health and 

medical community. Because most of the Nation’s medical assets are privately owned, 

capability-building must close the public-private gaps, as well as integrate multiple disciplines 

and levels of government. 

Also noted in the National Preparedness Guidance, public health threats and emergencies can 

ensue from a myriad of infectious agents, some of which can be mitigated by administration of 

immunizations and/or antibiotics and antiviral drugs. Although a wide variation exists among the 

disease and prophylaxis protocols, they all share a need for rapid deployment, distribution, and 

administration of the countermeasures. Local public health departments have the responsibility to 

develop and maintain (through exercises and drills) the capability to carry out first response and 

ongoing (Federally-assisted) mass antibiotic dispensing and vaccination campaigns tailored to 

the local population. States are responsible for providing support and assuring coordinated multijurisdictional responses. Federal assets and resources are intended to augment local and regional 

first response capability.