Читать книгу Emergency Incident Management Systems - Mark Warnick S., Louis N. Molino Sr - Страница 41

In 2008, ongoing research into the utility of NIMS led to changes that made the system more integrated and more useful. Many of these changes were made based on the identified difficulties that users faced in major incidents. These incidents included Hurricane Katrina, the September 11 attacks, and various other major (and minor) disasters.

The new proposed changes to NIMS did not modify the basic purpose, scope, or principles of NIMS. The reason that these were not changed was because they were deemed sound and effective principles. The changes that were made did however adjust the organization and the readability of the NIMS document, plus it put more of an emphasis on the importance of preparedness. While these were the mainstay of the 2008 changes, research and development continued well beyond the new implementations and led to additional changes in 2017.

It is important to realize that the research and development of NIMS was, and is, ongoing, and extremely important to keeping up with the changing times. Every year, new tools, and new innovative technologies are created that changes the way personnel respond. It would only seem to make sense that the NIMS method would become antiquated if it did not keep up with the changes in public safety. For years, crusty old firefighters have stated that “If you aren't keeping up with changes, you are falling behind.” This statement could never be truer because public safety changes in some way from day to day, month to month, and year to year. Research and development of NIMS helps to keep the system current to the ever‐changing times in public safety.

When the first changes to NIMS occurred in 2008, those changes appeared to facilitate better integration with nongovernmental organizations (including the private sector) as well as a more complete relationship between the newly implemented National Response Framework (NRF) and NIMS. While the majority of changes were straightforward and appeared to be a natural progression, one area revealed that NIMS was not only extremely important for natural disasters but also for manmade disasters as well.

With the recollections of 11 September 2001, terrorist attacks, the daunting challenges faced during the response and recovery to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and other criminal and terrorist events in mind, NIMS added the ability of intelligence and investigations to hold its own position as a major (General Staff) section in the ICS component. In the previous version of the ICS component of NIMS, this function was not previously talked about or acceptable. The change was specifically added so that during a terrorist attack or a criminal event that the Incident Commander, at his or her discretion, could have more flexibility to create an Intelligence and Investigations as a section of the command method.

This gave the Incident Commander the flexibility they needed to either incorporate Intelligence and Investigations as part of planning section (as it was originally placed), or they could create a separate General Staff position for this function (FEMA, 2013c). Additionally, efforts were taken to ensure that those with different specialties or different fields in mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, could seamlessly work together without encountering major problems. These changes advanced the method to allow more elasticity in how it was set up based on the needs of the response. If the Intelligence and Investigations taking place were a minimal part of the response, it could stay where it was initially envisioned within the ICS component. On the other hand, if the incident was a major incident that revealed that a large contingency of personnel were needed in Intelligence and Investigations, then that could be accommodated as well.

NIMS could be used in major unexpected emergencies such as an earthquake, tornado, or hurricane, or NIMS could be used to manage planned events such as concerts, fairs, or visits from heads of major countries or businesses. It could be used in criminal or terrorist attacks, or it could be used to manage a major (or minor) investigations. The ability to use NIMS to manage almost any type of emergency soon drove the system to be more and more used, even beyond withholding funds. No matter what was being faced, it could, and did, assist in managing the task at hand.

Training was an important aspect of NIMS updates in the 2008 revisions. Both the Emergency Management Institute and the National Fire Academy offered NIMS training and certifications. In conjunction with other agencies that developed NIMS advancements, the 2008 update suggested more advanced training in using NIMS and the ICS component. In the 2008 update, NIMS was required to be inclusive of all public safety agencies. It was also strongly suggested that all agencies and individuals should receive NIMS training, with certain individuals within an agency receiving more advanced training. Beyond federal agencies that should be trained in NIMS, recommendations were released to include other agencies and government entities that should take NIMS training, including the following:

 Law enforcement

 Fire departments

 Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

 Hospitals

 Public health agencies

 Public works agencies

 Utility companies

 Skilled support personnel for the previously mentioned agencies

 All emergency management response, support and volunteer personnel.

 Local and state governments (including mayors, administrators, and city managers)

 NGOs

NIMS guidance did not stop there. The research and development team also made recommendations for nonemergency response individuals that should receive NIMS training. This guidance recommended that local, state, territorial, and tribal nations should provide training to:

 All managing supervisors

 Those with mission critical positions

 Individuals in charge of professional development

 Human resource managers (including those that oversee personnel policies)

 Individuals responsible for training and credentialing

It was also suggested that all federal policymakers, including elected and appointed officials, receive the training. While this may seem like an extensive list, there were multiple reasons that led to this decision. The primary reason revolved around the fact that when a major incident occurs, outside resources are usually needed. The NIMS training programs, and the NIMS document, was designed to support and create integrative collaboration among people who do not usually work together and/or may not even know each other. By these outside resources utilizing NIMS, these agencies and individuals improved their capacity to seamlessly respond to, and recover from, a disaster. It also allowed elected and appointed officials to understand what was involved in the processes, so they did not have unrealistic expectations or in the event of a disaster, they did not go outside of established standards which thereby created problems for response agencies.

Thousands of changes have been made to NIMS since HSPD‐5 and HSPD‐8 were first implemented. Some of those have occurred since the 2008 updates. In some instances, those changes were only a modification in the names used for resource typing (standardized names for specific equipment), while in other instances, moderate revisions were made to the NIMS Document. This includes items like the previously mentioned Intelligence and Investigation used to manage a crisis. The 2008 changes superseded the NIMS 2004 document, and most changes were integrated rather seamlessly and without issue.