Читать книгу Emergency Incident Management Systems - Mark Warnick S., Louis N. Molino Sr - Страница 34

Because the FIRESCOPE program began to show an amazing amount of promise in managing emergency incidents, it began to gain ground in various parts of the nation. Soon, an interagency task force of local, state, and federal agencies used the basic principles of FIRESCOPE and developed the Incident Command System (ICS). This creation of ICS was based on the FIRESCOPE structure and while not exact, it closely mimicked it. FIRESCOPE's success provided the platform for the ICS structure, and the ICS program was developed and is still widely in use in the United States today.

While the initial development of FIRESCOPE started in 1973, one year after the America Burning Report, it is important to realize that it took seven years of research and development to remedy complications found during the extensive field testing. Although a broad range of field testing was employed, it was realized that ICS would need to change as the incidents changed. After the adaption of this FIRESCOPE incident management system led to the ICS method, it was realized early on (in both programs) that the systems would need to be continually evolving.

While creating of this IMS method occurred nearly 50 years ago, the same holds true for the ICS method of today: as users of the ICS (now a component of the National Incident Management System [NIMS]), we need to realize that ICS is never complete due to the ever‐changing fluctuations in the environment that first responders work in. This means that there must be a constant and ongoing research and development that ensures ICS is current and meeting the needs of first responders.

Early in the Incident Command System development, five essential requirements became clear

 The method needed to meet the needs of first responder's and be a tool for them to better organize all types of response.

 It would have to be flexible in order to meet the needs of the organization, regardless of size, as well as supporting the mitigation of incidents of varying types and sizes.

 Agencies would need to be able to use the method on a day‐to‐day basis. This meant the method would have to meet the needs of daily use, as well as catastrophic emergencies and disasters.

 The method would need to be simple enough to use that personnel from an assortment of agencies and assorted geographic locations could swiftly merge into a common organizational structure.

 The method would need to be cost‐effective.

Once the structure of the system was completed, the ICS framework continued to change to meet the previously mentioned needs. The system began to evolve and gain acceptance, albeit slowly. It began to spread across the United States similar to the wildfires that it was designed to manage. Many larger agencies, and eventually states themselves, began to accept, perfect, and acclimate themselves with the work that originated in California for use in their agency.

In the mid‐to‐late 1980s, the National Fire Academy (NFA) began to fund regional classes that taught the Incident Command System to firefighters. These direct delivery classes typically utilized instructors that were already teaching fire classes. Usually, these instructors worked for a state training entity, to help create and integrate a standard for managing incidents. These instructors would usually teach the ICS classes on a county‐by‐county basis. By teaching ICS on a county‐by‐county strategy, the local firefighter would only have to travel to a class that was in their local county. Rather than going hundreds (if not thousands) of miles to receive training, they usually only had to travel under 30 miles. In most instances, one ICS class was offered per county, per year, throughout the United States.