NECP Goal 2 Performance Report

STATE NAME

National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP)

Goal 2 Performance Report

OMB No.: 1670-NEW

Expiration Date: XX/XX/XXXX

National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP)

Goal 2 Performance Report

Submit to:
NECP Goals Inbox at [email protected]

Paperwork Reduction Act: The public reporting burden to complete this information collection is estimated at 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and the completing and reviewing the collected information.  The collection of this information is voluntary. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number and expiration date.  Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to DHS/NPPD/CS&C/OEC Ryan Oremland, 202-343-1679 ATTN: PRA [1670-New]

Overview

The National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) establishes a vision in which emergency responders can communicate as needed, on demand, and as authorized at all levels of government across all disciplines. To drive the Nation’s progress towards this vision, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) established three performance goals in the NECP:

Goal 1—By 2010, 90 percent of all high-risk urban areas designated within the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)¹ are able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications² within one hour for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies.

Goal 2—By 2011, 75 percent of non-UASI jurisdictions are able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies.

Goal 3—By 2013, 75 percent of all jurisdictions are able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within three hours, in the event of a significant incident as outlined in national planning scenarios.

To measure progress against Goal 1, high-risk urban areas were requested to demonstrate response-level emergency communications during a planned event in 2010. Additionally, as part of the SCIP Implementation Report update in 2010, States were required to report on their methodology for assessing Goal 2, which covered non-UASI jurisdictions.

To implement Goal 2, OEC is requesting that each non-UASI county, parish, or county equivalent³ within a State demonstrate response-level emergency communications. Response-level emergency communications for Goal 2 was defined in the NECP as the capacity of individuals with primary operational leadership responsibility to manage resources and make timely decisions during an incident involving multiple agencies, without technical or procedural communications impediments. The definition also consists of similar elements used for Goal 1 peer observations of UASIs in 2010. Counties are to conduct a self-assessment for Goal 2 using a real world incident, a planned event, or an exercise conducted after July 31, 2008 when the NECP was released.

The results from each county should be compiled by the Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) and submitted to OEC using the reporting form on the following page. One form should be completed for each county within the State.

Statewide Performance Results

Please provide the following data for each county/county-equivalent within the State. Actual county/county-equivalent names should be provided in place of “County 1, etc.,” and additional result sheets should be added if the number of counties exceeds the form below. Full instructions on each question are detailed on the following page, and a “sample” column is shown below.

	Sample	County 1	County 2	County 3	County 4	County 5	County 6	County 7
Event Type: What method was used to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within the county? (e.g., planned event, exercise, or after-incident report)	Exercise
Involved Agencies: Total number of Federal, State, local, or tribal agencies involved in the incident, planned event, or exercise.	12
Evaluation Criteria: Please mark the following: “None of the time,” “Some of the time,” “Most of the time,” or “All of the Time,” unless otherwise indicated.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Were established interagency communications policies and procedures followed throughout the incident, planned event, or exercise?	Some
Were COML roles and responsibilities carried out, either by the Incident Commander (or Unified Command), the COML, or another designee?	Most
Were more than one out of every 10 transmissions repeated due to failure of initial communications attempts amongst the primary operational leadership? (Yes / No)	No
Overall, was the primary operational leadership able to communicate adequately to manage resources during the incident, planned event, or exercise?	All
Response-Level Results: What was the result achieved during the incident, planned event, or exercise? Please select from the following: “Advanced,” “Established,” “Early,” or “Not Demonstrated.”	Established

Statewide Performance Results Instructions

Use this Statewide Performance Results form to submit the results of response-level communications demonstrated within the State. All questions must be answered for each county unless otherwise indicated. Upon completion, please submit the report to OEC via email to the NECP Goals Inbox at [email protected].

Question 1 – Event Type:

To allow agencies maximum flexibility, performance results can be gathered through the assessment of real world incidents, planned events, or exercises. Any selected event must include multi-agency, multi-discipline participation; be managed using the principles of the National Incident Management System (NIMS)/Incident Command System (ICS); and have occurred after July 31, 2008. Please indicate whether the demonstration data are based on an:

• Incident - A review of a real world emergency response such as a vehicle collision, hostage situation, non-catastrophic natural disaster.

• Planned Event – A review of a sporting event, parade, or gathering which requires a coordinated emergency communications response.

• Exercise – A review of a DHS Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program-compliant full scale or functional exercise designed to evaluate a minimum response-level communications.

Question 2 – Involved Agencies:

Please provide a numeric value for the total number of Federal, State, local, tribal and/or non-governmental organizations which actively participated in the emergency communications response. Agencies that did not utilize emergency communications assets and/or did not need to be accounted for in an ICS 205 Communications form should not be included in the total.

Question 3 – Evaluation Criteria:

For each sub-question, as directed, please provide either a Yes / No response or a qualitative (how well) measure using the following options:

• N one of the time

• Some of the time

• Most of the time

• All of the time

In determining whether to select between “Some of the time” or “Most of the time,” consider “Half of the time” as the dividing line between those two options. For example, if something did happen, but happened less than half of the time, choose “Some.” If it happened more frequently, but not always, choose “Most.”

Question 3a – Interagency Policies and Procedures: Determines if communications policies exist and were appropriately followed. Written policies and procedures may exist in higher level strategic documents, such as memoranda of understanding and interagency agreements, or procedures adopted commonly at an operational or tactical level.

Question 3b – Communications Unit Leader (COML): Determines if the integration of communications with the response and action plan was carried out. The COML responsibilities include determination of need for resources, preparation, and maintenance of an incident radio communications plan, and obtaining and supporting needed resources. COML roles and responsibilities continue to rest with the Incident Commander unless and until delegated.

Question 3c – System Communications: Determines if the equipment used to carry out communications is effective. Any number of technical, procedural, and even environmental factors may lead to the need for repeated transmissions. The need itself would be difficult to directly assess, but conclusions can be drawn indirectly based on the apparent proportion of repeated transmissions. Responders to the incident or planned event, as well as participants and observers in exercises, may be in the best positions to assess whether retransmissions were necessary due to an initial failure, regardless of cause.

Question 3d – Resource Management: Determines if the primary operational leadership communicated adequately to manage resources and make timely decisions. The primary operational leadership of a multi-agency incident response is described by the NECP as the ICS Operations Section Chief and first-level subordinates. This is considered likely to be where the highest level of interagency communications occurs.

Question 4 – Results:

Please provide the result that best describes the event response from the levels listed on the following page.

Advanced Demonstration

Response indicative of county’s capability to consistently provide response-level emergency communications during routine incidents and events involving multiple jurisdictions, disciplines, and agencies and effectively address a significant incident were it to occur. Indicators may include:

• Jurisdictions demonstrated strong communications planning using established policies and procedures.

• Communications systems were effectively utilized and back-up solutions were available if needed.

• Operational leadership was able to manage resources and make timely decisions without communications impediments.

Established Demonstration

Response indicative of county’s capability to consistently provide response-level communications during routine incidents and events involving multiple jurisdictions, disciplines, and agencies. Indicators may include:

• Jurisdictions demonstrated some communications planning using policies and procedures, whether documented or ad hoc.

• Communications systems were utilized with few difficulties and backup solutions were available if needed.

• Operational leadership was able to manage resources and make timely decisions without significant communications impediments.

Early Demonstration

Response indicative of county’s capability to consistently provide response-level communications for planned events, but communications and coordination were largely ad hoc, with few documented plans or procedures. Other indicators may include:

• Communications systems faced technical difficulties, and little consideration was given to reliable back-up methods.

• Operational leadership was able to manage resources and make decisions despite communications impediments.

Did Not Demonstrate

The jurisdictions involved did not demonstrate response-level emergency communications during the observed event due to communications impediments arising from a lack of planning, established policies and procedures, technical solutions, or a combination thereof.

1 As identified in FY08 Homeland Security Grant Program

2 Response-level emergency communication refers to the capacity of individuals with primary operational leadership responsibility to manage resources and make timely decisions during an incident involving multiple agencies, without technical or procedural communications impediments.

3 County refers to county, parish, or county equivalent.