I was recently made aware of Project Responder, a publication sponsored by the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, which examines emergency response capability needs within the scope of current operational requirements, threats, and, hazards; with an ultimate focus on the identification of needs an correlating these with technological fixes. The project description states that ‘the findings from the project can inform the US Department of Homeland Security’s decisions about investments in projects and programs to promote capability enhancement…’. Project Responder 5 was published in August of this year. Prior to this edition, I’ve not been familiar with the project, which started in early 2001.
The executive summary of the document states that ‘the document describes 37 capability needs identified by emergency responders…’ <record scratch>. Hold on a moment… I thought DHS defined 32 Core Capabilities. Yep, they still do. The first page of Project Responder 5 includes a foot note that states ‘For purposes of this document, a capability is defined as “the means to accomplish one or more tasks under specific conditions”’. So in other words, DHS can’t follow it’s own standards. In many of my articles I’ve regularly remarked about the continual need to streamline our emergency management processes so we can make easier comparisons between these processes, efforts, and activities without having to establish cross walks or translations. By working from the same standards, we can move easily move between mission areas, which don’t always have boldly marked lines between them, and have an ability to define target results and measure progress. The Core Capabilities established by the National Preparedness Goal go a long way toward accomplishing this standardization. It seems the folks in the Science and Technology Directorate don’t think they are that important, and this infuriates me.
The document outlines the 37 capability needs within nine capability domains. These are:
- Risk Assessment and Planning
- Communication and Information Sharing
- Command, Control, and Coordination
- Training and Exercise
- Responder Health and Safety
- Intelligence and Investigation
- Logistics and Resource Management
- Casualty Management
- Situational Awareness
Some of these appear to have direct correlation to some of what we know as the 32 Core Capabilities, while others seem to combine, redefine, or create new ones. As the gaps within each domain are discussed, they reference applicable standards. Interestingly enough, certain standards which you would expect to see aren’t present, such as NIMS being referenced in the Command, Control, and Coordination capability; and HSEEP referenced in the Training and Exercise capability. Regardless of what technology applications are used to support these areas, these standards are fundamental.
It’s not that the data and analysis that comes out of Project Responder is entirely bad. It isn’t. But it’s not great either. It seems to fall short consistently throughout the document. The information also needs to be organized within the current lexicon, allowing the reader to make direct correlations to what we are familiar with. I’m guessing that the project team who did the research and pulled the document together actually knows very little about emergency management or homeland security. Their inability to communicate context and work within established standards seems to demonstrate this. It’s fine that the document has a focus on technology implementations that can address gaps, but the fundamentals within the field of practice can’t be ignored. I don’t see why this project could not have been conducted within the established industry standards.
Perhaps I’ve given a more soap-boxish post than I usually do. I’m frustrated to see so much wasted time, effort, and dollars in something that could have been more impactful. Please take a look through the document and let me know what your impressions are. Also, if you happen to have any insight on this publication which I have missed or am not aware, I’d love to hear it.
Thanks for reading and be safe this holiday season.
© 2017 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP