paper

National response plan

Abstract: - The research is about the National Response Plan. It is divided into six sections. The first section is the background of the Plan. The section highlights the developments that led to coming up with the National Response Plan. The second part is the purpose of the plan while the third part highlights the scope and applicability of the National Response Plan. The fourth part is about incident management activities while the fifth part explains the parallel implementation of other plans. Part six of the research paper is the conclusion.

Background

The National Response Plan was a national plan by the United States to respond to emergencies such as terrorist attacks and natural disasters. The plan came into effect in December 2004 and was superseded by the National Response Framework on March 22, 2008. The first time the federal government actively participated in emergency management was by passing the Congressional Relief Act of 1803 (Bass & Dalal-Clayton, 2012). The law provided relief after a devastating fire in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The federal government then took a reactive role in responding to emergencies until the enactment of the Federal Civil Defence Act of 1950 (Bass & Dalal-Clayton, 2012).

There was no comprehensive plan for the federal emergency response before 1979. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed an order that created the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The agency was first mandated to absorb emergency response duties from many other organizations that had disjointed plans. The Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act became law in 1988. The law required all states to prepare individual Emergency Operations Plan as well as establishing a method of federal assistance to state and local governments (Amoroso, 2012). The law also authorized the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to prepare a Federal Response Plan.

The main aim of the Federal Response Plan was to assist states with disaster preparedness and response by bringing together multiple organizations. Through the National Contingency Plan, the federal government helped the state, and local officials protect the environment and public health in the event of a hazardous material release or any emergency (Cullingworth & Caves, 2013).

The domestic incident management landscape of the nation changed dramatically after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011. The threat to the environment includes both the traditional spectrum of human-made and natural hazards such as floods and oils spills as well as the deadly and devastating terrorist arsenal of high explosive weapons. The emerging and sophisticated threats and risks required a unified and coordinated national approach to domestic incident management.

The homeland security agencies established clear objectives for a rigorous national effort to prevent attacks in the Nation and lessen its vulnerability to major disasters, terrorism, and other emergencies. They also aimed at minimizing the damage and recover from major catastrophes, attacks and other emergencies that would occur (Kettl, 2012). Achieving the objectives required a bold adjustment and establishment of structures, processes, and protocols. The National Response Plan was developed as a result of these efforts.

The National Response Plan and the National Incident Management System brought together the resources and capabilities of various jurisdictions of the government and emergency response disciplines, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations into a cohesive, coordinated, and unified national framework for domestic incident management. The National Response Plan was an all-hazards plan that provided the structure and mechanisms for national-level strategy and operational coordination for domestic incident management (Busch & Givens, 2012).

The National Response Plan could be partly or wholly implemented in the context of any event, or threat, an anticipation of a significant event or the response to a major event, harmonious with the design provided by the National Incident Management System. Maximum flexibility of the plan in meeting the unique operational and information-sharing requirements of the situation at hand was made possible by the particular implementation through the activation of one or more of the components of the system. The flexibility enabled dynamic interaction between various Federal and non-Federal entities (Walsh, Lord, Christen Jr, & Miller , 2011).

The purpose of the National Response Plan

The primary objective of the National Response Plan was to establish a comprehensive, national, all-hazards approach to domestic incident management across a range of activities that included prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. The plan also incorporated the best practices from different incident management disciplines such as law enforcement, homeland security, public works, emergency management and recovery worker health and safety (Amoroso, 2012). The plan then integrated the best practices into a unified coordinating structure.

The National Response Plan provided the framework for Federal interaction with State, local and tribal governments: the private sector; and nongovernmental organizations in the context of domestic incident prevention, preparedness, response and recovery activities. The plan helped in describing capabilities and resources and established, operational processes to help curb terrorist attacks and other natural and human-made hazards; protect public health, safety, save lives, property, and the environment; and reduced adverse psychological consequences and disruptions. The National Response Plan also served as a foundation for the development of detailed supplemental plans and procedures to effectively and efficiently implement the Federal incident management activities and assistance in the context of specific types of events (Busch & Givens, 2012).

The scope and applicability of the plan

The National Response Plan covered a full range of complex and constantly changing requirements in anticipation or response to various threats or acts of terrorism, major disasters, and other emergencies. The plan also provided the basis to initiate long-term community recovery and mitigation activities. It also established interagency and multijurisdictional mechanisms for the involvement of the Federal Government in the Department of Homeland Security coordination of domestic incident management operations.

The plan also differentiated between incidents that require the coordination of the Department of Homeland Security; known as Incidents of National Significance and the majority of events occurring each year that was handled by responsible agencies through other established and existing plans. The plan also incorporated the various jurisdictional and functional authorities of Federal departments and agencies, local and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in domestic incident management. The plan applied to all Federal agencies and bureaus that may be asked to conduct operations in the circumstances of actual or potential Incidents of National Significance (Busch & Givens, 2012).

Incident administration activities

The National Response Plan addressed the full range of actions that related to domestic event management, including prevention, preparedness, response and recovery activities. The plan focused on the activities that were directly related to an evolving incident or potential incident as opposed to steady state preparedness or readiness activities conducted in the absence of a particular hazard or threat. The plan also provided a structure to enable the management of cataract consequences and multiple incidents as well as the prevention of and preparation for subsequent events since the Incidents of National Significance typically resulted in impacts far beyond the immediate or initial event area (Bass & Dalal-Clayton, 2012).

Concurrent implementation of other plans

The core strategy for managing domestic incidents and details of the Federal coordinating structures and processes used during Incidents of National Significance was the National Response Plan. The other supplemental agency and interagency plans provided details on authorities, response protocols and technical guidance for responding to and managing specific emergency situations. In most instances, the federal agencies achieve the localized incidents under these plans using their authorities without the coordination of the Secretary of Homeland Security (Walsh, Lord, Christen Jr, & Miller , 2011).

The supplemental agency or interagency programs may be implemented concurrently with the National Response Plan in the context of Incidents of National Significance. However, they were subordinate to the overarching core coordinating structures, processes and protocols provided in the plan. The execution of the supplemental agency or interagency projects was to conform to the procedures and rules in the National Response Plan.

The Saint Leo core values of integrity and excellence call for commitment to excellence that demands members to live its mission and deliver on its promise. The values also emphasize on hard work to ensure that the members develop the character, learn skills and assimilate the knowledge needed to become morally responsible leaders. The members of the organization are committed to achieving excellence and live their mission since they are ready and willing to protect the Nation. People should be committed to achieving excellence, be honest and have integrity (Cullingworth & Caves, 2013).

The update of the plan was done in May 2006. The Homeland Security published a draft copy of the National Response Framework on September 10, 2007, as a replacement of the National Response Plan. The National Response Framework subsequently replaced the plan on March 22, 2008 (Bass & Dalal-Clayton, 2012).

References

Amoroso, E. G. (2012). Cyber Attacks: Protecting National Infrastructure. Elsevier.

Bass, S., & Dalal-Clayton, B. (2012). Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book. New York: Routledge.

Busch, N. E., & Givens, A. D. (2012). Public-Private Partnerships in Homeland Security: Opportunities and Challenges. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Cullingworth, J. B., & Caves, R. (2013). Planning in the USA: Policies, Issues and Processes. New York: Routledge.

Kettl, D. F. (2012). System Under Stress: Homeland Security and American Politics. New York: Sage Publications.

Walsh, D., Lord, G., Christen Jr, H. T., & Miller , G. (2011). National Incident Management System: Principles and Practice. New York: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.