There is a notably challenging requirement for all emergency managers and homeland security professionals at all levels and across all sectors—coordinating plans with all potential stakeholders. Prospective partners can range from one incident to the next, but plans and planners must accommodate the needs, interests, and capabilities of all potential contributors so as to create the most comprehensive and integrated plan, policy, or strategy. One might consider such coordination a matter of common sense, but this is often overlooked, at least in part, for various reasons. Causes might stem from the actions—or lack thereof—of EM/HS team members, external partners, or both. Lethargy; lack of resources such as time, funding, or expertise; lack of interest on any stakeholder’s or planner’s part; lack of understanding the criticality of advance collaboration; or a simple failure to follow up with organizations and individuals upon whom an EM/HS may depend, may each play a part in explaining why collaboration is not fully accomplished. It can also be difficult for individuals at the planner level, or those inexperienced in incident response, to have the vision that is necessary to foresee an assortment of circumstances requiring relationships with agencies and people and their attendant special capabilities. Stakeholders may include fire, police, emergency services, and community leadership. Providers of public services, including public utilities, school leadership and networks, city engineers, and others, are also probably key players to consult. However, threats, conditions, hazards, limitations, geography, climate, and many other factors also combine to create the need for tailored planning, which will probably require special relationships. In other words, there is no one-size-fits-all template to employ for identifying, developing and nurturing requisite partnerships. Advance coordination—that is, developing relationships, sharing information, and understanding the various contributors’ capabilities before you need them for managing emergencies—is essential. Knowing what specific skills, resources, and capacities entities can bring to bear in preventing or responding to crises allows planners to incorporate these capabilities into strategies, plans, and exercises. This knowledge also aids leaders and resource managers in identifying gaps in capacity, which will need filling somehow. At the same time, once an incident occurs or seems immediately likely, the ability to contact vital participants to literally assemble and join the active response effort makes for an optimally efficient and effective endeavor. What type of information is coordinated? Everything from listing points-of-contact and their current, tested contact information to knowing what special skills an organization or individual might have. For example, if the community believes that certain hazardous materials are a threat, say by accidental spill or if used in a weapon, the EM.

1. There is a notably challenging requirement for all emergency
managers and homeland security professionals at all levels and
across all sectors—coordinating plans with all potential
stakeholders. Prospective partners can range from one incident
to the next, but plans and planners must accommodate the
needs, interests, and capabilities of all potential contributors so
as to create the most comprehensive and integrated plan, policy,
or strategy. One might consider such coordination a matter of
common sense, but this is often overlooked, at least in part, for
various reasons.
Causes might stem from the actions—or lack thereof—of
EM/HS team members, external partners, or both. Lethargy;
lack of resources such as time, funding, or expertise; lack of
interest on any stakeholder’s or planner’s part; lack of
understanding the criticality of advance collaboration; or a
simple failure to follow up with organizations and individuals
upon whom an EM/HS may depend, may each play a part in
explaining why collaboration is not fully accomplished. It can
also be difficult for individuals at the planner level, or those
inexperienced in incident response, to have the vision that is
necessary to foresee an assortment of circumstances requiring
relationships with agencies and people and their attendant
special capabilities.
Stakeholders may include fire, police, emergency services, and
community leadership. Providers of public services, including
public utilities, school leadership and networks, city engineers,
and others, are also probably key players to consult. However,
threats, conditions, hazards, limitations, geography, climate,
and many other factors also combine to create the need for
tailored planning, which will probably require special
relationships. In other words, there is no one-size-fits-all
template to employ for identifying, developing and nurturing
requisite partnerships.
Advance coordination—that is, developing relationships,
sharing information, and understanding the various

2. contributors’ capabilities before you need them for managing
emergencies—is essential. Knowing what specific skills,
resources, and capacities entities can bring to bear in preventing
or responding to crises allows planners to incorporate these
capabilities into strategies, plans, and exercises. This
knowledge also aids leaders and resource managers in
identifying gaps in capacity, which will need filling somehow.
At the same time, once an incident occurs or seems immediately
likely, the ability to contact vital participants to literally
assemble and join the active response effort makes for an
optimally efficient and effective endeavor.
What type of information is coordinated? Everything from
listing points-of-contact and their current, tested contact
information to knowing what special skills an organization or
individual might have. For example, if the community believes
that certain hazardous materials are a threat, say by accidental
spill or if used in a weapon, the EM/HS planners should
determine whether the local hospital personnel are trained,
equipped, and able to perform chemical, biological, or
radioactive decontamination. The planners’ motive for
determining this is knowing whether the hospital staff’s
abilities may be degraded if personnel are exposed to unknown
substances or the facility become contaminated. If
decontamination is a skill that has not been trained for, if
equipment and supplies are not available, or if it is considered
too remote a threat to spend time on, planners may identify and
liaise with a different hospital for select crises.
Yet, as mentioned above, the vision that is required to establish
comprehensive and integrated strategies and plans can be
elusive. Gathering myriad prospective partners together can
assist in identifying vulnerabilities, allaying fears, clearing up
confusion, establishing a functional baseline for all responders,
etc. Note the lessons from the following real world illustration:
A small western town is home to several prisons. Trains
carrying—among other things—chemical corrosives, travel
close enough to the prisons that a spill might require a prison’s

3. evacuation. This scenario had been planned for and exercised by
EM/HS and other stakeholders, yet the prison planners had not
been consulted when that plans were being developed. When the
many partners were together one day, quarreling about timelines
and priorities during such a scenario, a local police officer
calmly asked the prison officials, “Where will you evacuate the
prisoners
to
?” The official responded, “To the high school.” The police
officer replied, “Have you mentioned this to the high school’s
folks?” The answer was no, and there were no high school
representatives at the meeting. The police officer and many
others did not believe that prisoners being transported to
schools that could be in session or hosting year-round activities
presented security concerns. This idea hadn’t been thought of,
yet one person’s casual question had identified an enormous gap
in a specific plan.
Your assignment for this unit requires you to continue
employing your selected real world county (using the
pseudonym, but focusing on their real world conditions). In
completing the requirements, you may consult members of the
actual county EM/HS team to get insight into specific partners
and capabilities that they rely on and with whom they develop
relationships. You may also read their actual plans and
strategies and determine how rigorously they have coordinated
with external partners.
In a 5–7 page detailed outline, you will do the following:
List and describe fully your selected county’s central strategy or
plan. These are often emergency operations plans with various
subordinate annexes and appendices, but because plan designs
can vary widely by community, research and report your
county’s version.
Note that your county will probably have other plans as well,
such as a school evacuation plan or a pandemic influenza
response plan. You are free to mention and describe these as
well.

4. List and fully describe 7–10 of your selected county’s core
stakeholders that it includes (or should include) in its most
central plan.
Core stakeholders
include entities that you would reasonably expect any or all
counties to coordinate with.
In selecting and describing these, provide depth in explaining
the following:
Rationale as to why the relationship between EM/HS and the
organization or individual does or should exist
How specifically coordination and collaboration benefits the
EM/HS and each of the external core partners
At least three ways that these core relationships will provide the
most comprehensive and integrated preparedness and incident
response and promote information sharing specifically
List and fully describe five of your selected county’s unique
stakeholders that it includes (or should include) in its most
central plan.
Unique stakeholders
include entities that you would reasonably expect this specific
county to coordinate with. (An example is the prison’s officials
in the scenario described earlier.)
In selecting and describing these, provide depth in explaining
the following:
Rationale as to why the relationship between EM/HS and the
stakeholder organization or individual does or should exist
How specifically coordination and collaboration benefits the
EM/HS and each of the external unique partners
At least three ways that these unique relationships will provide
the most comprehensive and integrated preparedness and
incident response and promote information sharing specifically
List and describe fully at least three methods for conducting
coordination sessions for partners to attend.
Include tactics on how to elicit robust participation.
Describe measures that the EM/HS team might use to encourage
vibrant and productive discussions.

5. Describe what baseline information the county should provide
to prospective partners to elicit optimal contributions. (An
example might be defining what
vulnerabilities
are, demonstrating a risk analysis, or brainstorming as to what
threats and hazards exist in the county, and how they should be
prioritized.)
List and describe at least two tactics that the EM/HS team does
or might employ to gain viable cooperation from potentially
recalcitrant partners.
Mention any last lessons you’ve learned while working on this
assignment, or advice that you would give the county’s team to
aid in their writing or improving their core plan.
Be sure to reference all sources using APA style.