National Planning 

System 

February 2016

National Planning System

 1 

Introduction

Planning is fundamental for our national preparedness. We use planning to engage the whole 

community in the development of executable strategic, operational, and tactical approaches to 

meet defined objectives. The National Planning System provides a unified approach and 

common terminology to plan for all-threats and hazards and across all mission areas of 

Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery.1 In addition, a shared understanding 

of the types and levels of planning will enable the whole community to think through potential 

crises, determine capability requirements and address the collective risk identified during the risk 

assessment process. 

This document contains an overview of the National Planning System and includes: 

 The Planning Architecture, which describes the strategic, operational, and tactical levels 

of planning and planning integration; and

 The Planning Process, which describes the steps necessary to develop a comprehensive 

plan, from forming a team to implementing the plan. 

The current homeland security environment is complex and involves an increasing number and 

type of partners who must work together to meet preparedness objectives. The National Planning 

System enables a consistent approach to planning across multiple organizations, facilitating 

better collaboration, situational awareness, and unity of effort while remaining flexible and 

adaptable to changing conditions. The architecture and process contained in the National 

Planning System integrates elements of the entire National Preparedness System. 

Planning Architecture

A plan is a set of intended actions through which one expects to achieve a goal. Communities 

and organizations use plans to guide action; these plans need review and adjustment to address 

changes over time.2

 The National Planning System architecture consists of three levels of 

planning: strategic, operational, and tactical. 

 Strategic-level planning sets the context and expectations for operational planning; 

 Operational-level planning provides the tasks and resources needed to execute the 

strategy; and

 Tactical-level planning shows how to apply resources in order to complete the 

operational tasks within a given time frame. 

All three levels of planning involve the whole community. Through the three levels of the 

planning processes, planners develop an understanding of threats, hazards, risks, and capabilities, 

which assist them in the development of plans and planning products, based on mission, purpose, 

and stakeholder needs. Plans are not limited to emergency response plans. Homeland security 

strategies, strategic urban development plans, mitigation plans, recovery plans, and incident 

action plans (IAPs) are examples of plans that support one or more mission area. 

 

1 Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness describes the Nation’s approach to national preparedness. 

The National Preparedness Goal is the cornerstone for the implementation of PPD-8. Identified within it are the 

Nation’s core capabilities across five mission areas: Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery. 

2 Changes over time can include those related to risk, capability, resources, and organizational or political changes.
National Planning System

2 

The architecture is the foundational element of the Planning to Deliver Capabilities component 

of the National Preparedness System. Included in this architecture are the National Planning 

Frameworks, the Federal Interagency Operational Plans (FIOPs), and other operational plans. 

Strategic-Level Planning

Strategic-level planning provides a framework for guiding homeland security activities. This 

level of planning allows stakeholders the opportunity to focus on the longer term and articulate, 

monitor, and evaluate efforts to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from 

all-threats and hazards that might affect a jurisdiction or an organization. Strategic-level planning 

is also a mechanism for unifying the efforts of multiple organizations or components of an 

organization in support of a comprehensive and effective approach to homeland security. Elected 

or appointed officials of a jurisdiction or organization play a critical role by providing the vision 

and priorities for the planning process. The results of this planning provide a foundation for 

policy, operational planning, and resource decisions. 

Leadership guidance also defines priorities and provides direction for addressing the capability 

requirements identified through the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 

(THIRA)3 process and the State Preparedness Report4

—two key elements of the National 

Preparedness System. In addition to jurisdiction or organizational strategic-level planning, 

stakeholders may choose to focus on a significant issue or mission area (e.g., climate change, 

cybersecurity, Prevention). These strategies establish the basic conceptual structure—such as 

governance, priorities, doctrine, and desired end-state—for a particular issue or mission. 

Strategic-Level Planning Examples

National Strategies. These plans identify a national vision for a specific threat or hazard. 

They typically establish national-level goals, objectives, and potential challenges while 

establishing national priorities to achieve the desired goals. As an example, the National 

Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy outlines new approaches to coordinate 

and integrate efforts to prepare communities for fire season and better address the 

Nation’s wildland fire threats.

State Homeland Security Strategy. These plans establish the priorities and processes 

by which a state will build, sustain, and prepare to deliver the core capabilities identified 

in the National Preparedness Goal. Leadership intent, policy and legal requirements, and 

an understanding of risk drive these priorities. 

Local Hazard Mitigation Strategy. These plans establish a community’s strategy for 

addressing risk and reducing losses based on local vulnerability analyses and risk 

assessments, such as the Hazards Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA). These 

plans describe mitigation goals and objectives and identify existing and necessary 

capabilities and resources to support the goals. 

 

3 For more information on the THIRA process, please see Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201: Threat 

and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Guide (http://www.fema.gov/threat-and-hazard-identification-andrisk-assessment). 4 Mandated by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 for all states/territories receiving 

Federal preparedness assistance, the State Preparedness Report is an annual capability assessment completed by 

states and territories.
National Planning System

 3 

Operational-Level Planning

Operational-level planning is influenced by the objectives and priorities identified through 

strategic-level planning and an understanding of the risks that affect an organization or 

jurisdiction. Operational plans describe roles and responsibilities, tasks, integration requirements, 

actions, and other expectations of an organization or jurisdiction during actual or potential 

incidents. These plans may also address the delivery of capabilities in support of steady-state 

activities (e.g., risk management plans, physical security plans). Operational plans may include 

the coordination and integration of activities and resources from other departments, agencies, and

organizations within a jurisdiction and across the whole community. 

Operational plans can apply to all-threats and hazards and contain both the governing authorities 

and actions expected by particular organizations. Elaboration on specific issues and requirements 

for a given threat or hazard will typically reside in an annex, appendix, or supplemental plans, as 

needed (e.g., a Biological Incident Annex to a State Emergency Operations Plan). In addition, 

functional annexes contain implementation actions, roles, and responsibilities that are specific to 

a function (e.g., public information and warning). Operational-level planning products should be 

flexible, adaptable, integrated with other plans, and based on the best available risk assessments.5

Operational-Level Planning Examples

Federal Interagency Operational Plans. The FIOPs describe the Federal Government’s 

concept of operations for each mission area, including how the Federal Government 

supports local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area plans. Federal interagency plans 

may also exist to address risks for a particular region, sector, or function.

Department and Agency Operational Plans. Department and agency operational plans 

are deliberate plans that fulfill the department or agency’s responsibilities. Each 

department or agency determines whether its components need to develop additional

operational plan(s).

Local, State, Tribal, Territorial, and Insular Area Mitigation Plans. Mitigation plans 

developed at the local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area government levels identify 

the natural hazards that affect a geographical area or individual jurisdiction. These plans 

identify policies and actions that an organization can implement over the long term to 

reduce risk and future losses.6

State Emergency Operations Plans. Emergency Operations Plans are plans for 

managing a wide variety of potential threats and hazards. These plans detail who is 

responsible for carrying out specific actions; identify personnel, equipment, facilities, 

supplies, and other resources available; and outline how actions will be coordinated.

Pre-disaster Recovery Plans. Businesses, communities, and governments develop predisaster recovery plans to establish priorities, set roles and expectations, and coordinate 

resources to assist the timely restoration, strengthening, and revitalization of assets and 

services following a disaster.

 

5 See CPG 101 for additional information about the structure and content of operational plans; 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/divisions/npd/CPG_101_V2.pdf. 6 For more information, visit http://www.fema.gov/multi-hazard-mitigation-planning. 
National Planning System

4 

Nongovernmental and Private Sector Organization Plans. Nongovernmental and 

private sector plans describe how an organization will respond to disasters and 

emergencies (e.g., shelter-in-place plans, business continuity plans). Ready Business, an 

extension of the Ready campaign, provides guidance for the development, 

implementation, and sustainment of all-threats and hazards plans for businesses.7

Individual and Family Plans. Individuals and families need to engage in planning 

processes as well. Individuals and families should identify threats and hazards that have 

occurred or could occur in their area and plan for the unique actions needed for each.

These plans can include how to get to a safe place, how to contact one another, and how

the family reunites following a disaster.8

Tactical-Level Planning

Tactical plans focus on managing resources such as personnel and equipment that play a direct 

role in an incident or event. Pre-incident tactical planning, based upon existing operational plans, 

provides the opportunity to pre-identify personnel, equipment, and other execution needs. 

Tactical plans often outline the detailed actions necessary to accomplish goals identified in an 

operational plan. An example of this type of planning occurs for special events or venues, 

wherein planners determine resource assignments, routes, and staging for potential incidents in 

advance. Planning teams then fill identified gaps through various means, such as mutual aid.

Tactical plans can integrate the capabilities and resources of multiple stakeholders.

Real-time tactical planning occurs in the short-term or immediate operational period and takes 

into account the circumstances of an actual incident, risk, or threat. One example of tactical 

planning in real-time is the development of an IAP to support response activities. The incident 

action planning process is time-constrained and happens as an incident unfolds to execute 

specific actions and to direct resources. The IAP may include a comprehensive listing of the 

actions, resources, and support needed to accomplish each incident objective over a single 

operational period. 

Tactical-Level Planning Examples 

Event Plans. Organizations and jurisdictions develop pre-incident event plans to prepare 

for a variety of tactical activities to address a potential threat or actual incident. 

Incident Action Plans. Incident managers develop IAPs in real-time to provide overall 

priorities, objectives, strategies, and tactics for the management of an incident.

Pre-positioning Plans. Organizations produce pre-positioning plans to provide resource 

management expectations in anticipation of response and recovery needs for an 

imminent or ongoing event. 

The three levels of planning typically fall into two categories: deliberate planning and incident 

action planning. Deliberate planning involves developing strategic, operational, and tactical 

plans to prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover from a 

jurisdiction’s threats or hazards. Incident action planning occurs in a time-constrained 

 

7 For more information, please visit http://www.ready.gov/business. 8 For more information, please visit http://www.ready.gov. 
National Planning System

 5 

environment to develop or rapidly adapt operational and tactical plans in response to an 

imminent or ongoing incident. Figure 1 illustrates how these planning levels and categories relate 

to each other.

Figure 1: National Planning System Architecture 

Integration of Planning Efforts 

The process of coordinating and integrating plans across multiple organizations facilitates unity 

of effort through a common understanding of relevant capabilities, relationships, objectives, and 

resource requirements. The use of the National Planning System promotes a unified approach to 

planning through vertical and horizontal integration of plans across the whole community. 

Vertical integration is the incorporation of planning across various scales within a specific 

function. For example, representatives from state and Federal Emergency Support Functions and 

other disciplines should coordinate to ensure common planning expectations for their functions 

(e.g., law enforcement, emergency management, public health) or particular capabilities (e.g., 

critical transportation planning). This integration allows an organization to include all aspects of 

an activity in their planning efforts. 

Horizontal integration refers to the incorporation of planning across various functions, mission 

areas, organizations, and jurisdictions—allowing supporting partners to develop plans that meet 

their internal needs or legal requirements. Taken together, vertical and horizontal planning helps 

ensure coordination of incident management expectations across the various functions and 

capabilities required for all-threats and hazards. 

The National Planning System emphasizes the need for planners to work together to determine 

how to plan for risks, how to coordinate operational structures, and how to share resources 

effectively. Mutual aid across the whole community is an important principle within national 
National Planning System

6 

preparedness and requires that stakeholders have a common understanding of the resources and 

services available from other organizations. Organizations may share planning resources through 

mutual aid, both for steady-state efforts and during an incident or event (e.g., one jurisdiction 

providing a Planning Section Chief to another). It is important that whole community 

stakeholders have a common understanding of the procedures for accessing and integrating other 

planning resources. 

Integrated Planning Example – Natural Disaster

Planning for natural disasters provides an example of how family, household, community, 

private sector, local, state, and Federal plans integrate into a planning system. This 

example demonstrates the need for a coordinated/integrated National Planning System.

Household/Family Plans. These plans should include steps on how the family will 

communicate during disasters and how to ensure all family members will be located, 

reunited, and protected. These plans are dependent on local emergency planners to 

provide information on types of natural disasters the area is prone to and steps to take to 

evacuate or shelter-in-place. 

Local and Community Emergency Plans. These plans typically identify types of natural 

disasters the area is prone to and steps a community will take to communicate with, 

evacuate, and/or shelter-in-place the public. However, these plans may be dependent on 

private sector support (e.g., media, local retail businesses), nongovernmental 

organization sector (e.g., local religious organizations), and state and Federal agencies 

during response to significant disasters.

Private Sector/Business Plans. These plans need to include steps on how to protect 

workers during a disaster and how the business will continue during and after the 

disaster. The plans also need to identify what resources and services the organization 

depends upon local responders to provide and whether local responders are dependent 

upon any of its services and products (e.g., gas stations).

Nongovernmental Organization Plans. These plans are similar to private-sector plans 

but may provide unique services for the local community (e.g., shelter). These plans need 

to align with local and other government plans.

State Emergency Operations Plans. These plans outline how states organize their 

resources and services and the steps local governments can take to request services, as 

well as how to address conflicts for resources.

National Planning Frameworks. These plans identify specific roles and responsibilities, 

coordinating structures, and practices for managing incidents that range from those 

managed locally to larger-scale incidents, including catastrophic natural disasters.

The system of plans developed by all levels of government, the private sector, nongovernmental 

organizations, and individuals is an integrated way for whole community partners to understand 

each other’s capabilities and the means to obtain additional resources from fellow stakeholders. 

By providing a common understanding of terms and approach to planning, the National Planning 

System supports vertical integration across the various levels of government and horizontal 

integration across the whole community and across the five mission areas. 
National Planning System

 7 

Planning Process

Knowing which plans are necessary—and in what order to develop or revise plans—is key to the 

success of planning activities. Planning activities involve two parts: 1) ensuring support of 

applicable parties, and 2) conducting a common planning process. 

Before beginning the planning process, organizations should establish their planning 

architecture. This entails identifying the desired combination of strategic-, operational-, and 

tactical-level planning based on direction from community and organizational leaders and by 

using the results of risk assessment. Community and organizational leaders should be included at 

the beginning of the planning process to capture their understanding of the policy environment 

and planning priorities while also ensuring their support of the planning process. These decisions 

about the planning architecture and other influence from community and organizational leaders 

provide the basis for stakeholders to adapt their planning process. If planning time is constrained, 

stakeholders and teams can compress planning steps or conduct some steps simultaneously to 

accelerate the process based on identified planning gaps. This section provides a summary of 

each step in the planning process (see Figure 2). For a more detailed discussion of the planning 

process, please refer to CPG 101.9

Figure 2: The Planning Process

Step 1: Form a Collaborative Planning Team. The whole community approach to planning 

produces an informed, shared understanding of risks, needs, and capabilities; an increase in 

capabilities through the empowerment of whole community members; and, in the end, a more 

secure and resilient Nation. The most realistic and complete plans are prepared by a diverse and 

integrated planning team. Obtaining a clear understanding of leadership intent and their 

participation in the planning effort ensures the necessary level of support and involvement 

needed from all partners. 

Step 2: Understand the Situation. Planning is fundamentally a method to manage risk.10 Risk 

management is a process by which stakeholders define context; identify and assess risks; and 

analyze, decide, implement, and evaluate courses of action for managing those risks to build, 

sustain, and deliver the necessary capabilities. By understanding the risk landscape, planning 

teams can make better decisions regarding the management of risk and the development of 

capabilities. The THIRA process—including the capability estimation component—is one 

method for understanding the risk landscape and making informed decisions.

Step 3: Determine Goals and Objectives. The planning team uses previously identified 

requirements to establish priorities, goals, and objectives. Priorities indicate a desired end-state, 

often based on the vision communicated by senior officials. Goals are broad, general statements 

that indicate the intended methods for achieving the mission, meeting priorities, and specifying 

desired results. Objectives are more specific and identifiable actions carried out during the 

 

9 For more information, please visit http://www.fema.gov/plan. 10 Risk is the potential for an unwanted impact resulting from a threat or hazard, as determined by its likelihood and 

associated consequences.
National Planning System

8 

operation. Clear definition of priorities, goals, and objectives enables unity of effort and 

consistency of purpose among the multiple groups and activities involved in executing the plan.

Step 4: Plan Development. When developing the plan, the planning team should first develop 

and analyze possible solutions, or courses of action, for achieving the goals and objectives 

identified in Step 3. The planning team then assesses a variety of criteria (e.g., the acceptability, 

adequacy, assumed risk, feasibility, flexibility, cost, benefit) of each course of action against the 

goals and objectives. Based on this comparison, planners can select the preferred courses of 

action to continue the planning process. Senior officials approve course of action decisions 

during plan development as appropriate. 

Step 5: Plan Preparation, Review, and Approval. Step 5 turns the stakeholder-developed 

courses of action under Step 4 into a plan. The planning team develops a rough draft of the plan, 

including appendices and annexes and revises them as necessary, adding tables, charts, graphics, 

and other content. The team prepares a final draft and circulates it for comment to organizations 

responsible for implementing the plan. The team should check the written plan for conformity to 

applicable legal requirements and standards and for its usefulness in practice. Once the team 

validates the plan, usually through an exercise or actual event, the appropriate parties sign and 

distribute it (as specified by applicable law) to appropriate stakeholders. 

Step 6: Plan Implementation and Maintenance. Plan refinement may be triggered through the 

identification of corrective actions from an exercise or actual incident; routine scheduled 

maintenance (e.g., annually, biannually); changes in risk posture; or changes in law, policy, or 

doctrine. Planning teams should establish a recurring process for reviewing and revising the plan. 

Organizations use training events, exercises, and real-world incidents to assess the effectiveness 

of plans.

Conclusion

The National Planning System provides a common approach to planning consistent with widely

accepted planning principles and processes while also encouraging collaboration and integrated 

planning among stakeholders. As the National Planning System matures, it will remain flexible 

and adapt to the needs of all stakeholders. The Federal Government will collect stakeholder 

feedback, best practices, and lessons learned that drive revisions to the National Planning System 

and its supporting elements through a variety of means, including technical assistance 

interactions, online feedback submission, and focused data collection efforts. 

The elements of the National Planning System may require periodic updates to incorporate new 

executive guidance, statutory and procedural changes, and lessons learned from exercises and 

actual incidents. The National Planning Frameworks and the FIOPs will undergo a review and 

update every five (5) years. The review and maintenance process of the FIOPs may include 

developing incident-specific and classified annexes, which include the delivery schedule for 

federally coordinated assets and resources, as appropriate. 

The Nation faces complex and evolving threats and hazards. The implementation of the National 

Planning System, with supporting standardized tools, guidance, education, training, and other 

resources will effectively enhance the Nation’s ability to manage and address our security and 

resilience against these challenges.