Читать книгу Emergency Incident Management Systems - Mark Warnick S., Louis N. Molino Sr - Страница 40

In order to make NIMS work, every agency that might be involved in almost any incident would need to work together, and they all needed to be on the same page. It did not matter what phase of the incident these responders were in (mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery), or if the incident was transitioning from one phase to another. What did matter was the seamless integration of all resources. NIMS accomplished this task. NIMS incorporates Non‐Governmental Organizations (NGO's), local governments, state government, and the federal government into a unified response.

NIMS was mandated for every federal agency except one. The only federal agency that was exempt was the Department of Defense (DOD). While the DOD was exempt from following NIMS, the Secretary of Defense was specifically tasked with creating a companion method that would seamlessly integrate a military response into a domestic incident. This would ensure that in instances where military support was needed, they could seamlessly integrate with the other agencies who utilized NIMS and the ICS Component of NIMS.

After being given their marching orders, the DHS and the DOD each created the plan that President Bush requested. A lot of time and thought was put into the program, and eventually a finished product was ready. There was however a problem, how would they get every agency who responded to incidents to begin using NIMS? This was complicated by the fact that it involved stakeholders across a myriad of funding types and who had differing organizational structures.

After the federal governments' mandate to implement NIMS (in March 2004), it became apparent that some local agencies, especially fire departments and police agencies, were not so keen to integrate the NIMS method into their local jurisdictional response. A multitude of reasons were given as to why they were resistant to this change. The most prevalent issue appeared to be a misunderstanding of what NIMS was, and how the method could work in their favor. While this was the concern of some stakeholders, other stakeholders were upset because they had been using a different type or method of IMS. As is often the case, most that were not happy with the new method were resistant to change, no matter what that change was. Many smaller agencies also had their naysayers, and a common phrase that was heard from the old‐timers who said “We ain't never done it that way before!” They were essentially saying that they did not see a reason to change, and they did not want, nor like, this change.

Had the federal government not insisted on mandating everyone to use NIMS, then the lack of total acceptance would have likely led to a hodgepodge of methods and more confusion during a response. This would most likely result in a lack of coordinated integration of resources, thereby making the response less effective. Because of the problems that could be caused by not adopting NIMS, the federal government decided they needed to find a way to entice organizations to willingly accept and operate under the NIMS Method.

Multiple methods were used to entice agencies to embrace the NIMS concepts and to become NIMS compliant. Perhaps the most effective was requiring any agency that provided emergency response (or supported emergency response), and who received government funding were required to become NIMS compliant in order to continue to receive federal funds (FEMA, 2004a; 2015a; 2008). Essentially, it was the concept of the “Golden Rule”: he who has the gold makes the rules.

The ability to receive, or to continue to receive, federal funds (or contracts) was contingent upon the agency becoming “NIMS Compliant.” This was first initiated in Fiscal Year 2006, shortly after Hurricane Katrina. It began with the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program. While the concept of being NIMS compliant to receive federal funds appeared to be sound, the implementation was not well received by all.

In 2005, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant had 20 972 applicants with approximately 5990 grants awarded, but in 2006, only 18 160 applied for the same grant with approximately 5000 receiving grants. The trend of fewer applications held steady through 2007 where only 18 170 applied for grants. It was not until 2008 that the number of applicants returned to over 20 000 (FEMA, 2014). No empirical evidence was ever submitted which might identify the reason for the decline in the AFG applications, but there are multiple theories.

There were several trends of thought from multiple agencies in the fire service. Some of these agencies believed that the NIMS requirement played a role in the lower number of grant applications, however, it should be realized this was only conjecture. If the requirements did deter fire departments from applying for AFG Grants during this time, it could also be speculated that a certain amount of fire departments were in the process of becoming NIMS compliant and therefore did not apply. It could also be surmised that some departments were defiant about the requirement, as was evident through numerous discussions on the Internet. Of course, there were also a few conspiracy theorists who were worried about “Big Brother” sticking their nose into the local volunteer fire departments business. No matter what the reason, it was obvious that something affected the number of applicants for the AFG Grants over a three‐year period, and it was likely some type of an aftereffect from the NIMS requirement.

Another way that the federal government inconspicuously pushed NIMS compliance was through a “No NIMS‐no play” policy. Essentially, if you wanted to participate in an exercise that involved federal resources, or you wanted to be involved in a disaster response, you could not do so unless you were NIMS compliant. The reasoning behind this policy was simple. If your agency was not trained and certified in the National Incident Management System, it would add more confusion and chaos to the incident, drill or exercise. While not articulated, part of the reasoning behind this policy may be due to a concern that non‐NIMS‐compliant agencies may not understand resource typing, they could have potentially responded with equipment that was not needed, or the wrong equipment altogether.

Similarly, law enforcement agencies were required to be NIMS compliant. The dangling carrot that led NIMS compliance in fire department was also used in law enforcement. In order to receive federal funds, or even federal reimbursement for services, it was required that the law enforcement agency be compliant with NIMS. Much like the fire departments, law enforcement agency had a “No NIMS‐No play” policy for law enforcement agencies.

This mandate also applied to the Superfund Amendment and Re‐authorization Act title III. In accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120(q), it was mandated that all first responders who responded to a hazardous materials emergency must be properly trained in ICS component and NIMS, and they must be equipped to the basic minimum standard of NIMS (United States Department of Labor, 2008). This standard was Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) way of recognizing and implementing the 2004 ICS/NIMS mandate.

Additionally, hospitals, nursing homes, community clinics, and all healthcare facilities were informed that they too must meet NIMS compliance. Much like other disciplines, it was mandated that a healthcare facility be compliant with NIMS to receive federal funding (FEMA, 2007; “Research Brief”, 2008). While the requirement of NIMS was not mandated to receive accreditation, or for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, it was still quite effective because numerous healthcare facilities and research centers received federal funds.

With the federal government taking a hard stance on NIMS, it quickly evolved into a mainstay of emergency mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. As a part of the Presidential Directive, it was required that NIMS change as the needs of public safety changed. To change with those needs, the Presidential Directive mandated that there should be ongoing research and development of the entire method, including the ICS component.

Even as this book was being written, changes were being considered to the NIMS method, and some changes were made. It is important to realize that NIMS is considered a living document, and a living system. This means that the system should change as the needs of those providing emergency services change. The NIMS method also changes as new research and systems advancements are modified.