September 2013 i Contents Execu.docx

September 2013
i
Contents
Executive Summary
.............................................................................. 1
1. Preparedness Actions
.................................................................... 5
1.1 Recommended Preparedness Actions
...................................................................... 6
1.2 Self-Reported Preparedness Behavior
.....................................................................11
1.3 Perceived Barriers to Preparedness
.......................................................................12
2. Beliefs about Risk and Efficacy by Hazard
.................................... 13
2.1 Perceived Risk and Severity
....................................................................................14
2.2 Perceived Efficacy
...............................................................................................

....15
2.3 Disaster Groups
............................................................................. ..................
........16
3. Beliefs and Experiences Relate to Preparedness Behaviors
......... 17
3.1 Relationships With Preparedness Behaviors
...........................................................18
3.2 Beliefs: Relationship to Preparedness Behaviors
.....................................................19
3.3 Experiences: Relationship to Preparedness Behaviors
............................................21
4. Preparedness Profiles Based on Beliefs and Experiences
............ 23
4.1 Preparedness Profiles
.............................................................................................2
4
5. Preparedness Through Social Networks
....................................... 29
5.1 Select Social Networks
............................................................................................3
0
5.2 The Workplace
...............................................................................................
.........30
5.3 School
...............................................................................................
......................33
5.4 Volunteerism in Preparedness/Safety/Disasters
......................................................36
5.5 Expectations for Assistance
.....................................................................................38

6. Preparedness Among Sociodemographic Groups
......................... 39
Translating Research Into Action
........................................................ 49
Next Steps for FEMA
.......................................................................... 51
Appendices
........................................................................................ 55
Appendix A: Methodology
...............................................................................................
..57
Appendix B: Survey Questions Reported in Preparedness in
America ............................59
Preparedness in America
ii
Executive Summary
1

As disasters continue to impact our Nation, the role of
individuals and the importance of
engaging all sectors in reducing the impact of disasters has
become increasingly evident.
Recognizing the need to involve the Nation more fully,
Presidential Policy Directive-8 (PPD-
8), issued on March 20, 2011, states that “our national
preparedness is the shared responsibility
of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors,
and individual citizens.”
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
committed to social and physical
science as the foundation for increasing individual and
community preparedness and has
conducted national household surveys to assess the public’s
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors
on preparing for a range of hazards since 2007.1 Preparedness
in America: Research Insights to
Increase Individual, Organizational, and Community Action
advances our understanding of the
complexities of motivating the public to prepare by examining
trend data on personal
preparedness behaviors and by providing findings on several
new areas of analysis:
Exploring the relationship between preparedness behaviors and
individuals’ beliefs and
experiences around disasters;

Identifying profiles of the general public to assist practitioners
in conducting more targeted
and effective engagement, education, and messaging strategies;
and
Examining the effect of community connections and networks
on personal preparedness.
FEMA recognizes that widespread cultural change is a long-
term process, and while the national
statistics on basic preparedness actions have remained largely
constant, findings documented in
Preparedness in America offer valuable insights for adapting
education efforts to increase
preparedness. Key findings from the research focus on the
public’s behaviors, knowledge, and
attitudes related to preparing for a range of hazards.
Preparedness Actions
The percentage of surveyed individuals taking recommended
preparedness actions remains
largely unchanged since 2007.
Seventy percent of respondents in 2011 lived in homes (rented
or owned) where at least one
action was taken to protect the structure; however, of the six

mitigation measures analyzed,
only two had been completed by more than a quarter of the
homes.
More than a quarter of respondents in 2011 reported they were
contemplating or preparing to
take action to prepare for emergencies and were likely to be
receptive to outreach efforts.
Cost and not knowing how to prepare were each perceived as
barriers by one quarter of those
surveyed.
1 See Appendix A for a description of the FEMA National
Survey Methodology and Appendix B for survey questions
summarized in
this report.
Executive Summary
2
Beliefs About Risk and Efficacy by Hazard
respondents perceived risk, severity, and
efficacy by different categories of hazard. Respondents believed
they were at risk for natural

disasters and that preparing for them is helpful. Respondents
believed terrorist acts,
hazardous materials accidents, and disease outbreaks were less
likely and that preparedness
would not be as helpful.
Beliefs and Experiences Related to Preparedness Behaviors
All examined beliefs (confidence in one’s ability to respond,
perceived risk, belief that
preparing will help in an event, and belief that a disaster could
be severe) related to natural
disasters had a positive relationship with preparedness
behaviors.
For terrorist acts, hazardous materials accidents, and disease
outbreaks, only the confidence
in one’s ability to respond had a positive relationship with
preparedness behaviors.
Willingness to consider preparing, knowing how to prepare, and
having thought about
preparedness had a positive relationship with preparedness
behaviors.

Referencing a personal disaster experience is likely more
effective in motivating
preparedness behavior than referencing disasters in other
locations.
Talking about preparedness had a strong positive relationship
with preparedness behavior,
yet less than half of the respondents reported doing so in the
previous 2 years.
Having planning and training encouraged or required at work or
school had a positive
relationship with other preparedness behaviors.
Preparedness Profiles Based on Beliefs and Experiences
beliefs and experiences.
Sociodemographic attributes have been identified for each
Preparedness Profile.
Preparedness Through Social Networks
The survey data indicated that the workplace, schools, and
volunteer organizations that
support community preparedness, safety, or emergency response
are effective channels for
preparedness outreach.
Exposure to disaster preparedness through each of the three

analyzed social networks
(workplace, schools and response volunteer organizations) had a
positive relationship to
Executive Summary
3
Preparedness Among Sociodemographic Groups
People with low incomes perceived much greater barriers to
preparedness (in terms of
time, money, and access to information).
Differences in preparedness across age, income, race, or
population density categories were
generally fairly small. Some substantial differences found were:
-
-
-
People in high population density areas were more likely to rely

on public transportation
to evacuate the area in the event of a disaster.
Volunteering in disaster preparedness/response was mostly done
by people with average
to high incomes.
Retirement-aged people (75+ category) participated in disaster
training much less than
people in other age categories.
Next Steps for FEMA
Revise content and framing for preparedness messaging to
include:
-
-
-
-
Re-examining preparedness messages;
Validating science base for protective actions;
Incorporating insights from disaster survivors; and
Providing localized risk data.

Tailor implementation by stakeholder and sociodemographic
group to include:
-
-
-
-
-
Launching a new community-based campaign, America’s
PrepareAthon!SM;
Providing tailored preparedness resources and training;
Supporting workplace preparedness;
Implementing the National Strategy for Youth Preparedness
Education; and
Encouraging volunteer opportunities.
Engage the whole community by:
-
-
Expanding partnerships at all levels and with all sectors; and
Supporting Citizen Corps Councils.
Refine evaluation and assessment to include:
-
-
-

Conducting in-depth assessments of whole community
preparedness in large urban cities;
Refining national research activities; and
Partnering with National Academies of Science to build on the
findings in their report,
Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative.
4
We each have a role in ensuring the resilience of our
communities, our nation, and our way of
life. Together, we can guarantee that everyone in America has
the knowledge, skills, and
resources to respond to the challenges brought by weather,
disease, hazardous incidents, and
terrorism.
This guide provides examples of good practices and matters to
consider for planning and
implementation purposes. The guidance does not create any
requirements beyond those included
in applicable law and regulations, or create any additional rights
for any person, entity, or
organization. The information presented in this document
generally constitutes informal
guidance and provides examples that may be helpful. The
inclusion of certain references does

not imply any endorsement of any documents, products, or
approaches. There may be other
resources that may be equally helpful.
5
1 Preparedness Actions
Section Overview: Trend data on recommended preparedness
actions is presented, as
well as self-reported preparedness behavior, and barriers to
preparing.
Key Findings:
The percentage of surveyed individuals taking recommended
preparedness actions
remains largely unchanged since 2007.
Seventy percent of respondents in 2011 lived in homes (rented
or owned) where at
least one action was taken to protect the structure; however, of
the six mitigation
measures analyzed, only two had been completed by more than a

quarter of the
homes.
More than a quarter of respondents in 2011 reported they were
contemplating or
preparing to take action to prepare for emergencies and were
likely to be receptive to
outreach efforts.
Cost and not knowing how to prepare were each perceived as
barriers by one quarter
of those surveyed; preparedness messages and outreach
strategies should be
developed to counter or re-frame these perceptions.
6
Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security
(DHS)/FEMA has significantly increased the emphasis on
educating individuals on how to
prepare for disasters by using the national platform of the
Ready campaign, grassroots outreach
through local Citizen Corps Councils, and coordination with
states, territories, tribes, local
communities, and other partners across the country.
The Ready.gov website serves as FEMA’s clearinghouse for
personal preparedness information

and organizes this information into four categories.2
Be Informed: Know local/community risks and community
systems and plans, participate in
preparedness training, and practice response skills by
participating in drills.
Make a Plan: Develop a household emergency plan and discuss
it with household members.
Build a Kit: Set aside and maintain supplies one may need in
disasters.
Get Involved: Find local opportunities to volunteer for
community safety and disaster
response and be a part of the community planning process.
In addition, FEMA works with all partners to promote
mitigation measures to help reduce the
impact of disasters on individuals and property.
Be Informed
Being informed encompasses risk awareness, the ability to
receive notifications, knowledge,
training, and practicing skills, and survey questions address
each of these elements. In 2011, just
one in three (32 percent) of the respondents reported being

familiar with their local hazards—in
2012, that number rose to 46 percent (Figure 1). Participants
also rated their familiarity with
features of their community disaster preparedness and response
plans. In 2012, there were sharp
increases in respondents’ familiarity with local hazards and
alerts and warning systems, yet a
decrease in any preparedness training in the past 2 years.
To assess knowledge of protective actions for specific hazards,
FEMA fielded surveys in 2011
and 2012 that included questions to test respondents’ knowledge
of risk and protective actions
for floods, tornadoes, and earthquakes.i,ii,iii Those who
believed they were at risk for flooding
were more likely to talk to their insurance agent and take steps
to prevent or reduce flooding.
Ninety-five percent or greater correctly identified protective
actions for tornadoes to find shelter
and go to a basement or interior windowless room and knew that
most deaths and injuries in a
tornado are caused by flying debris. Seventy-two percent,
however, incorrectly believed that if
they are in a vehicle, they should find an overpass and stop
underneath it until the tornado
passes. When respondents who live in an earthquake risk area
were asked six questions on key
2 The first three informational categories have also been used as
the Ready campaign’s “three step” tagline since its launch in
2003,
and have been replicated by many state and local entities.
FEMA and its partners are in the process of examining how to
increase

the effectiveness of preparedness messaging; see Summary
Report on Awareness to Action: A Workshop on Motivating the
Public
to Prepare http://www.fema.gov/media-
library/assets/documents/31359?id=7124 for details and the
Next Steps for FEMA section.
1.1 Recommended Preparedness Actions
http://www.fema.gov/media-
library/assets/documents/31359?id=7124
Preparedness
Actions 1
7
actions to take during an earthquake, respondents who had
received earthquake preparedness
information in the preceding 6 months were significantly more
likely to answer the knowledge
questions correctly.
Figure 1: Be Informed
Make a Plan
Since household members may not be together when a disaster
strikes, it is important to plan in
advance for how they will get to a safe place and how they will
contact one another and reunite.
The FEMA National Household Survey asked respondents about

their household plan and
whether or not they had discussed it with members of the
household. As shown in Figure 2, 39
percent of participants in 2012 indicated they had a household
plan that they had discussed with
their household; this represents a slight decline from a gradual
increase in prior years.
8
Figure 2: Household Emergency Plans
Build a Kit
In 2012, 52 percent of individuals reported having supplies set
aside in their home for use during
a disaster—a decrease from 57 percent in 2009 (Figure 3). In all
survey years, only a subset of
those individuals who reported having supplies in their home
were able to name three or more
supplies in their home and report that they update them at least
once a year.
Figure 3: Disaster Supplies in Homes
Preparedness

Actions 1
9
Packaged food and bottled water were consistently the most
frequently cited supplies, followed
by a flashlight, first aid kit, and blankets/clothing/bedding. In
2012, nearly 70 percent of
respondents had packaged food or bottled water while fewer
reported having a flashlight (42
percent), first aid kit (32 percent), or blankets/clothing/bedding
(18 percent). Although
nationwide, 34 percent of individuals take medications to
manage chronic health conditions,iv
only 8 percent of respondents in 2012 mentioned having
medications in their emergency supply
kit. Having access to financial, insurance, medical, and other
records is crucial for starting the
process of recovery as quickly as possible. When asked about
these items in 2011, 34 percent of
the participants reported having stored these items.
Get Involved
FEMA encourages the active participation of trained volunteers
to strengthen community safety
and to support emergency responders when an incident occurs.
As shown in Figure 4, rates of
volunteerism to emergency response and community
preparedness/safety organizations remained
unchanged.
Figure 4: Be Involved

Protecting the Home
In addition to the personal preparedness actions above, FEMA
strongly advocates for individuals
to protect their home from disasters. In 2011, FEMA asked a
series of questions to identify the
extent to which individuals were taking actions to mitigate the
effects of floods, hurricanes, and
tornadoes on their homes. Overall, 70 percent of respondents
lived in homes (rented or owned)
where mitigation measures had been taken, with raising the
furnace, water heater, or electric
panel above the floor being the most frequently cited action3
(Figure 5).
3 It is important to note that this is national data only, and does
not take into account the specific hazard risks at the survey
respondent’s location.
10
Figure 5: Mitigation Actions Completed for Survey
Respondents' Home (2011)

Preparedness
Actions 1
11
1.2 Self-Reported Preparedness Behavior
To understand how individuals self-identify around personal
preparedness, FEMA developed a
survey question on the Stages of Change Model developed by
Prochaska and DiClemente,v
which describes behavior change as a five-stage process to
assess preparedness. This type of
self-assessment provides insight into an individual’s readiness
to attempt, make, or sustain
behavior changes (Table 1).4
Table 1: General Stages of Behavior Change
Stage Description
Pre-
Contemplation No intention to change or think about change in
the near future.
Contemplation Not prepared to take action at present, but is
intending to take action.
Preparation Actively considering changing his or her behavior
in the immediate future.

Action Recent overt behavior change, but the changes are not
well established.
Maintenance Behavior changed and been maintained for more
than 6 months.
FEMA asked respondents to self-
report which description best
captured their level of preparedness.
In 2011, more than a quarter of all
respondents reported that they were
contemplating preparing in the next
6 months (19 percent) or preparing
to take action in the next month (9
percent), 15 percent reported they
had recently begun preparing, and
about one-third of the participants
described themselves in the
maintenance stage (i.e., they had
been prepared for more than 6
months and were maintaining their
preparedness behaviors). Twenty-
one percent indicated they were not
planning to do anything about
preparing, placing them in the pre-
contemplation category (Figure 6).vi
4 The Stages of Change Model is based on the individual’s
perception, and is not based on actual or self-reported
preparedness
behaviors. The “preparation” stage describes planning to change
one’s behavior and should not be confused with disaster
“preparedness.”
Figure 6: Stages of Change (2011)

12
1.3 Perceived Barriers to Preparedness
There are a number of reasons that may influence people’s
ability to prepare. FEMA asked
respondents to share their perceptions of four commonly cited
barriers to preparedness.
Respondents most frequently agreed that preparing was too
expensive (26 percent) and that
they did not know how to get prepared (24 percent). Less than
20 percent of respondents
believed that preparing was too hard or that getting information
was too hard (Figure 7). By
better understanding the issues that may be affecting
motivation, preparedness messages and
outreach strategies should be developed to counter or re-frame
these perceived barriers.
Overall, less than one-quarter of respondents in 2011 indicated
they did not perceive any

barriers to their ability to prepare.
Figure 7: Perceived Barriers to Preparedness (2011)
13
2 Beliefs About Risk and Efficacy
by Hazard
Section Overview: An examination of individuals’ beliefs about
risk, preparedness, and
response for different categories of hazards: natural hazards,
hazardous materials
accident, disease outbreak, and terrorism. The beliefs examined
were:
Perceived risk—How likely is it that the disaster will happen?
Perceived severity—How severe will the effects of a disaster be
to me?
Belief that preparing will help—Will what I do now help me in
a disaster? and

Confidence in ability to respond—I will be able to successfully
respond to a disaster.
Key Findings:
respondents perceived risk,
severity, and efficacy by different categories of hazard. Public
beliefs about hazards
can be clustered into two groupings:
-
-
Individuals had similar beliefs about natural disasters, including
wildfires, floods,
and weather emergencies. Respondents believed they were at
risk for these
disasters and that preparing for them would be helpful.
Individuals had similar beliefs about terrorist acts, hazardous
materials accidents,
and disease outbreaks. Respondents believed these disasters
were less likely and
that preparedness would not be as helpful.
14

2.1 Perceived Risk and Severity
Data from several FEMA national household surveys
consistently demonstrated that different
categories of hazards were perceived to have different risks.
Respondents were asked to rate the
likelihood of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, hazardous
material accidents, and highly
contagious disease outbreaks ever happening in their
community. Most respondents in 2012
(57 percent) believed they were at risk for experiencing at least
one of these events. As illustrated
in Figure 8, nearly half of participants considered it likely that a
natural disaster would occur in
their community.5 Respondents considered hazardous materials
accidents, disease outbreaks, and
terrorist acts substantially less likely.
Overall, this represents a small but steady increase in people’s
risk perception of natural
disasters, possibly due to increased media coverage surrounding
several high profile natural
disasters that have occurred in the past few years. Based on data
from 2007–2011, people’s
perceived risk of disease outbreaks peaked at 28 percent during
the H1N1 outbreak in 2009.vii
Perceived risk of hazardous materials accidents remained
constant, while perceived risk of
terrorist acts decreased over that same period.
Figure 8: Perceived Risk
To enhance the understanding of how people think about
different categories of disaster, in 2011,
FEMA asked respondents to consider the same four categories
of disasters, and then rate how

severe the impact would be to them personally if the event were
to occur. For all disaster
categories, more participants perceived higher severity than
higher likelihood of a disaster
occurrence (Figure 9). This gap was most pronounced for a
terrorist act: while fewer people
5 These surveys were national in scope; all respondents were
asked questions on all hazards and were not matched to actual
hazard risk
for the respondent’s location.
Beliefs about Risk and
Efficacy by Hazard 2
15
thought they were at risk for a terrorist act, more people thought
that if such an act occurred, the
impact to them personally would be severe or very severe.
Figure 9: Perceived Risk and Severity (2011)*
2.2 Perceived Efficacy
To better understand how to motivate the
public to take action, it is important to
understand whether or not people think they
can do anything to prevent or mitigate the
effects of a disaster. Thus, FEMA developed
survey questions to examine respondents’

beliefs related to the following:
Belief That Preparing Will Help: The
belief that preparedness actions will be
useful in the event of a disaster; and
Confidence in Ability to Respond: The
belief that I will be able to successfully
respond to a disaster.
Figure 10 presents these findings for a range of
hazards.
In 2011, 68 percent of respondents believed
that preparing in advance for a natural disaster
would help them during/after the event. When
asked to rate their confidence in knowing how
to respond to different types of disasters,
individuals were more confident in their ability
to react to natural disasters than to terrorist
Figure 10: Perceived Efficacy: Preparing
Helps and I Can Respond (2011)
16

acts, hazardous materials accidents, or disease outbreaks. In
2011, two-thirds of individuals
(67 percent) expressed confidence in their ability to respond to
a weather emergency like a
snowstorm or hurricane (disasters that tend to occur with
advanced warning), while the other half
were confident in their ability to respond to a natural disaster
that occurred with no warning,
such as an earthquake/tornado (51 percent). Even fewer
individuals expressed confidence in the
case of a disease outbreak (35 percent), hazardous materials
accident (25 percent), or a terrorist
act (22 percent).
2.3 Disaster Groups
Individuals’ attitudes toward different hazards may affect their
preparedness. To examine
response patterns to the four belief questions across disasters, a
factor analysis was performed.
The analysis indicated that disaster types fall into two
groupings (Grouping 1: Natural Disasters
and Grouping 2: Terrorism/Hazardous Materials
Accident/Disease Outbreak). This means that if
someone has a certain belief towards a hazardous materials
accident, he or she is likely to hold
the same belief towards a disease outbreak or a terrorist act but
not necessarily towards a natural
disaster.
Figure 11 presents perceived risk, severity, usefulness of

preparing, and confidence in ability to
respond for each grouping. Future research to examine disasters
from the perspective of notice
versus no-notice events may provide additional findings to
inform preparedness messaging.
Figure 11: Belief by Disaster Groups (2011)
17
3 Beliefs and Experiences Related to
Preparedness Behaviors
Section Overview: An analysis of which personal beliefs and
experiences have a positive
relationship to preparedness behaviors to determine which
beliefs and experiences should
be reinforced and enhanced.
Key Findings:
All examined beliefs related specifically to natural disasters had
a positive

relationship with preparedness behaviors. Of the examined
beliefs related to terrorist
acts, hazardous materials accidents, and disease outbreaks, only
the confidence in
one’s ability to respond had a positive relationship with
Willingness to consider preparing, knowing how to prepare, and
having thought about
preparedness are three beliefs that had a positive relationship to
preparedness
behaviors.
Referencing a personal disaster experience was likely more
effective in motivating
preparedness behavior than referencing disasters in other
locations.
Leveraging social networks to provide opportunities to discuss
preparedness and to
encourage planning and training should be reinforced and
enhanced.
18 …
Read the case study presented at the end of Chapter 5 (Guido, p.
67)
YOU BE THE JUDGE The patient was admitted to the
postpartum unit at 5:30 p.m. At the postanesthesia care unit
where she previously had been, she showed signs of blood loss
including low blood pressure and tachycardia. It would later be

discovered that one of her uterine arteries had accidentally
been cut as the surgeon was performing a planned cesarean
section. The surgeon failed to notice the severed artery before
he closed the incision and sent the patient to the postanesthesia
care unit. The nurse who admitted the patient on the
postpartum unit documented no admission nursing assessment
or vital signs for the patient, who was obviously having serious
problems at that time. The first note on the chart was one made
at 5:45 p.m. by the emergency center physician after he was
summoned to the patient’s bedside by the postpartum nurse. At
trial, the nursing expert for the patient testified that the
postpartum nurse fell below the acceptable standard of care
when she failed to document an admission nursing assessment
including vital signs upon assuming the patient’s care when the
patient arrived on the unit. The defense attorney argued that
given that the nurse took prompt action to summon the
emergency center physician to the bedside, it is immaterial how
the nurse’s failure to provide contemporaneous documentation
had any effect on the patient’s outcome. The patient’s attorney
was given 30 days to file a supplemental report from their
nursing expert. QUESTIONS 1. Does the failure to document
an admission nursing assessment equate with the fact that this
nurse did no admission nursing assessment? 2. What might the
patient’s attorney further allege in his supplemental report? 3.
How would one decide the standard of care for this patient? 4.
How would you decide the outcome of this case?
Guido, Ginny Wacker, JD, MSN, RN. Legal and Ethical Issues
in Nursing (Legal Issues in Nursing ( Guido)) (p. 66). Pearson
Education. Kindle Edition.
96
YOU BE THE JUDGE Immediately after a laparoscopic
bilateral hernia repair, the surgeon ordered an in-and-out
urinary catheterization to drain urine from the bladder and to

confirm that there was no blood in the patient’s urine, which
would be indicative of a possible bladder injury during the
surgical procedure. The surgeon then left the operating arena.
A registered nurse subsequently inserted a Foley catheter with
an inflatable retention bulb rather than an in-and-out (straight)
catheter. She then had a second nurse inflate the bulb while the
catheter was still in the patient’s urethra. This inflation of the
catheter bulb while in the patient’s urethra caused a tear in the
urethra, requiring a second unsuccessful catheterization by the
attending surgeon, and an eventual abdominal catheterization
of the patient’s bladder by a urologist. The patient subsequently
sued the two nurses, the attending surgeon, and the acute care
setting for negligence. QUESTIONS 1. Was there negligence
in this case and who should be liable for the negligence? 2.
What type of damages should be assessed and how would you
begin to determine the amount to assess? 3. Given that there
were multiple individuals involved in this case as well as the
institution that employed these individuals, how would you
determine the percentage of liability for the multiple
defendants, assuming that more than one defendant should be
assessed with damages? 4. How would you decide this case?
Read the case study presented at the end of Chapter 7(Guido, p.
115
YOU BE THE JUDGE The patient was in surgery to remove
moles from her back and left eyebrow. She was lightly sedated
and was receiving oxygen. When the surgeon activated the
Bovie instrument to remove the mole near her eyebrow, the
spark caused a flash fire that was augmented by the
supplemental oxygen that the patient was receiving. The
surgical team responded immediately and the fire was quickly
extinguished. The patient, however, incurred seconddegree
burns to the left side of her face, leaving permanent scars and
reducing her vision in the left eye. She filed a lawsuit for
negligence and fraudulent concealment against the surgeon,
nurse anesthetist, and hospital. The initial trial court found in
favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages for malpractice and an

additional $425,000 in damages for fraudulently concealing
facts about the incident from the patient. At the appellate level,
the defendants argued that there was no concealment of the
incident in that they did what was required of them; namely
that they informed the patient that there had been a fire,
detailed the injuries that were caused by the fire, and
recommended appropriate treatment options to her.
QUESTIONS 1. Were there damages that should be paid to this
patient for negligence? 2. Who should be the individuals
responsible for these damages? For example, is the surgeon the
individual most liable for the damages owed to the patient? 3.
Should the Bovie manufacturer also have been included in the
lawsuit? 4. Are there any defenses that the defendants could
cite that would mitigate their liability to this patient? 5. How
should the court decide the damage awards in this instance?
67)
YOU BE THE JUDGE The patient was admitted to the
postpartum unit at 5:30 p.m. At the postanesthesia care unit
where she previously had been, she showed signs of blood loss
including low blood pressure and tachycardia. It would later be
discovered that one of her uterine arteries had accidentally
been cut as the surgeon was performing a planned cesarean
section. The surgeon failed to notice the severed artery before
he closed the incision and sent the patient to the postanesthesia
care unit. The nurse who admitted the patient on the
postpartum unit documented no admission nursing assessment
or vital signs for the patient, who was obviously having serious
problems at that time. The first note on the chart was one made
at 5:45 p.m. by the emergency center physician after he was
summoned to the patient’s bedside by the postpartum nurse. At

trial, the nursing expert for the patient testified that the
postpartum nurse fell below the acceptable standard of care
when she failed to document an admission nursing assessment
including vital signs upon assuming the patient’s care when the
patient arrived on the unit. The defense attorney argued that
given that the nurse took prompt action to summon the
emergency center physician to the bedside, it is immaterial how
the nurse’s failure to provide contemporaneous documentation
had any effect on the patient’s outcome. The patient’s attorney
was given 30 days to file a supplemental report from their
nursing expert. QUESTIONS 1. Does the failure to document
an admission nursing assessment equate with the fact that this
nurse did no admission nursing assessment? 2. What might the
patient’s attorney further allege in his supplemental report? 3.
How would one decide the standard of care for this patient? 4.
How would you decide the outcome of this case?
96
YOU BE THE JUDGE Immediately after a laparoscopic
bilateral hernia repair, the surgeon ordered an in-and-out
urinary catheterization to drain urine from the bladder and to
confirm that there was no blood in the patient’s urine, which
would be indicative of a possible bladder injury during the
surgical procedure. The surgeon then left the operating arena.
A registered nurse subsequently inserted a Foley catheter with
an inflatable retention bulb rather than an in-and-out (straight)
catheter. She then had a second nurse inflate the bulb while the
catheter was still in the patient’s urethra. This inflation of the
catheter bulb while in the patient’s urethra caused a tear in the
urethra, requiring a second unsuccessful catheterization by the
attending surgeon, and an eventual abdominal catheterization

of the patient’s bladder by a urologist. The patient subsequently
sued the two nurses, the attending surgeon, and the acute care
setting for negligence. QUESTIONS 1. Was there negligence
in this case and who should be liable for the negligence? 2.
What type of damages should be assessed and how would you
begin to determine the amount to assess? 3. Given that there
were multiple individuals involved in this case as well as the
institution that employed these individuals, how would you
determine the percentage of liability for the multiple
defendants, assuming that more than one defendant should be
assessed with damages? 4. How would you decide this case?
Read the case study presented at the end of Chapter 7(Guido, p.
115
YOU BE THE JUDGE The patient was in surgery to remove
moles from her back and left eyebrow. She was lightly sedated
and was receiving oxygen. When the surgeon activated the
Bovie instrument to remove the mole near her eyebrow, the
spark caused a flash fire that was augmented by the
supplemental oxygen that the patient was receiving. The
surgical team responded immediately and the fire was quickly
extinguished. The patient, however, incurred seconddegree
burns to the left side of her face, leaving permanent scars and
reducing her vision in the left eye. She filed a lawsuit for
negligence and fraudulent concealment against the surgeon,
nurse anesthetist, and hospital. The initial trial court found in
favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages for malpractice and an
additional $425,000 in damages for fraudulently concealing
facts about the incident from the patient. At the appellate level,
the defendants argued that there was no concealment of the
incident in that they did what was required of them; namely
that they informed the patient that there had been a fire,
detailed the injuries that were caused by the fire, and
recommended appropriate treatment options to her.
QUESTIONS 1. Were there damages that should be paid to this
patient for negligence? 2. Who should be the individuals
responsible for these damages? For example, is the surgeon the

individual most liable for the damages owed to the patient? 3.
Should the Bovie manufacturer also have been included in the
lawsuit? 4. Are there any defenses that the defendants could
cite that would mitigate their liability to this patient? 5. How
should the court decide the damage awards in this instance?
Community Preparedness: Simple Activities for
Everyone
Community Preparedness: Simple Activities
for Everyone
September 2011 Page i
PROGRAM LEADER GUIDE
CONTENTS
Purpose
...............................................................................................
...............................................1
The Preparedness
Topics.....................................................................................
.............................2

How To Use the Materials
...............................................................................................
..................3
Planning Your Program
...............................................................................................
......................4
Step 1: Identify Your Target Audience
.................................................................................4
Step 2: Determine Interests and Needs
...............................................................................4
Step 3: Select Presenters
...............................................................................................
......5
Step 4: Prepare the Presentation
.........................................................................................6
Step 5: Arrange
Logistics.................................................................................
.....................8
Step 6: Get the Word Out
...............................................................................................
......9
Getting Feedback
...............................................................................................
...............................10
Acknowledging Accomplishments
...............................................................................................
.....10
Additional Resources
...............................................................................................

.........................11
Note: Copies of the activities are in the Facilitator Guide and
Handout Masters
document.
for Everyone
September 2011 Page 1
PURPOSE
Preparedness is the shared responsibility of all levels of
government, the private and nonprofit
sectors, and individual citizens.

Individuals and households are at the core of our Nation’s
preparedness. A community’s ability
to respond to or recover from a disaster depends on the level of
preparedness of every
member. However, a 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey found
that 29 percent of Americans
have not prepared because they think that emergency responders
will help them and that over
60 percent expect to rely on emergency responders in the first
72 hours following a disaster.
The reality is that in a complex disaster, first responders and
emergency workers may not be
able to reach everyone right away. In addition, providers may
not be able to restore critical
services, such as power, immediately.
The purpose of this initiative is to promote personal and
community preparedness through
engaging activities for individuals, neighbors, or households.
These activities are a set of
building blocks. You can mix and match the activities based on
the needs of your target
audience or time available. Most activities can be completed
during a 15-minute to 60-minute
session. You should adapt the materials to include critical local
information, such as information
on local hazards, local alerts and warnings, and local

community response resources and
protocols.
Remember, preparedness does not have to be complex or overly
time consuming. Rather, it
should motivate, empower, and engage the whole community.
for Everyone
THE PREPAREDNESS TOPICS
Below is a list of the preparedness activities:
Core Preparedness Topics
Title Information and Activities on . . . Approx. Length
Preparedness on a
Shoestring
Creating a no-cost or low-cost disaster kit 30 – 60 minutes
Where Is Everybody? Developing a communications plan 20
minutes
Who Can You Count On?
Who Counts on You?

Establishing a personal support network 20 minutes
Easy Out: Getting to Safety Planning for and practicing an
evacuation 30 minutes
Storm Safe — Sheltering in
Place
Staying safe when evacuation is not an option 20 – 40 minutes
Disaster Plan Dress
Rehearsal
Practicing your disaster plan 30 – 60 minutes
Hazard-Reduction Topics
Hunting Home Hazards Identifying and reducing home hazards
30 – 60 minutes
An Ounce of Fire Prevention Identifying and reducing fire risks
30 minutes
Putting Out Fires Using a fire extinguisher 30 – 60 minutes
Home Safe Home Implementing simple risk-reduction
(mitigation)
measures
30 – 60 minutes
Safeguarding Your Valuables Protecting important items and
documents 30 minutes
Specialized Preparedness Topics
Pet/Service Animal
Preparedness

Taking care of pets and service animals during a
disaster
30 minutes
Rx for Readiness Starting a “Stay Healthy” Kit and plan 30
minutes
Going Off Grid: Utility
Outages
Preparing for utility outages 20 – 40 minutes
Coming Home After a
Disaster
Planning for recovery from disaster 20 minutes
Preparedness: The Whole
Community
Understanding emergency management and
response roles and getting involved
30 – 90 minutes
Remember . . . You can mix and match the topics based on the
needs of your audience. In
addition, you may adjust the times by modifying the activities
demonstrated during the session.

for Everyone
HOW TO USE THE MATERIALS
Each topic includes a facilitator guide and participant materials.
The program design has limited the number of pages and the
need for presentation equipment
such as computers and projectors.
The first pages of each topic
provide the facilitator with:
• Overall purpose of the
session.
• Suggested preparation
steps and materials.
• Presentation tips.
Facilitator Guide
Following the facilitator guide
are handouts for the

participants to use during the
session or as “take away”
materials.
Handouts
for Everyone
PLANNING YOUR PROGRAM
To plan your preparedness program, you may want to complete
the following steps:
Below are suggestions for completing each step.
Think about who would benefit from this program. Make a list
of the potential members of your
target audience.
Now that you have identified the members of your target

audience, ask yourself:
• What will motivate these individuals to attend preparedness
session(s)?
• What do you think participants will hope to gain or learn?
• Which topics are of most interest to them?
• How much time will individuals want to spend at a session?
How likely are they to return if
you offered multiple sessions?
• What day, time, and location will be best?
• What is the ideal mix of people to help foster networking and
sustainability after the session?
Use the answers to these questions to select the topics to be
included in your program and
determine how to schedule your session(s).
Step 5: Arrange Logistics
for Everyone

PLANNING YOUR PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
A facilitator with effective communications skills should be
able to conduct most of the
sessions.
However, it is recommended that individuals with the following
expertise present the two
sessions below.
Title Recommended Presenter
Putting Out Fires Fire Service Personnel
Preparedness: The Whole Community Emergency Management
Personnel
Optional: You may want to consult or involve the following
additional individuals in the
following sessions:
Title Optional Individuals To Involve
Preparedness on a Shoestring Emergency Management
Personnel
Where Is Everybody? Emergency Management Personnel
Who Can You Count On? Who Counts
on You?

Representatives From Functional Needs
Community
Easy Out: Getting to Safety Emergency Management Personnel
Storm Safe — Sheltering in Place Emergency Management
Personnel
Disaster Plan Dress Rehearsal Emergency Management
Personnel
Hunting Home Hazards Fire Service Personnel
An Ounce of Fire Prevention Fire Service Personnel
Home Safe Home Construction Expert or Structural
Engineer/Mitigation Specialist
Pet/Service Animal Preparedness Local Animal Shelter
Personnel/Veterinarian
Rx for Readiness Local Medical or Public Health Personnel
Going Off Grid: Utility Outages Local Public Works
Personnel/Utility Company
Representative
Coming Home After a Disaster Construction Expert or
Structural
Engineer/Emergency Management Personnel
In addition, local nongovernmental groups, such as the
American Red Cross or Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) members are invaluable
resources to help with
presentations or prepare you to conduct the sessions.
for Everyone

The facilitator’s preparation and conduct of the session are keys
to the effectiveness of this
program. Presenters should do the following:
• Read the materials thoroughly.
• Complete all activities and be prepared to answer the
questions that the participants will
likely ask while completing the activities.
• Draft your own notes in the margins of the materials.
• Add personal experiences to help explain the important points.
• Tailor the material with information on local hazards, local
alerts and warnings, and local
community response resources and protocols. Also, you may
want to emphasize different
information (e.g., apartment evacuation vs. single homes) to
meet your audience’s needs.
• Rehearse with a small group and ask for suggestions for
enhancing the delivery.
• Remember to use the following effective facilitation
techniques:

Facilitation Techniques
physically from the
group by standing behind a podium or a table. Feel free to
move around the
room while you are speaking.
t read or lecture to the group. Think back to the last
class that you
attended. If the instructor lectured incessantly, chances are that
you tuned out
and did not learn much. This package is a guide, not your
script. Flexibility is the
key to success. You may modify discussion questions to meet
the needs of the
group. If you do not like or do not understand a question,
change it.
a participant
asks you a question to which you do not know the answer:
• Tell the participant that you do not know the answer.
• Explain that you will find the answer and get back to the
participant.
important, but do not move
to the next activity before ensuring that the group understands
what has already
been discussed. You can check understanding by asking for
volunteers to

summarize concepts and fill in gaps during your transitions.
clues.
Use your
observations to keep the session running smoothly.
Additional presentation do’s and don’ts are listed on the next
page.
for Everyone
Step 4: Prepare the Presentation (Continued)
Do’s . . . Don’ts . . .
Eye Contact Eye Contact
• Look at people’s eyes.
• Continually scan the group with your eyes.
• Look at the whole group.
• Avoid eye contact.
• Scan the group too rapidly or infrequently.

Body Movement Body Movement
• Position your body so you face the majority
of the people.
• Vary your position in the room.
• Stand with good posture.
• Walk toward people when they speak.
• Talk to your notes, easel, or board.
• Turn your back to part of the group.
• Stand in fixed positions.
• Slouch.
• Distance yourself from people.
Gestures Gestures
• Use natural and spontaneous gestures.
• Smile and be animated.
• Engage in distracting behavior such as looking at
your watch, or jingling change.
Voice/Speech Voice/Speech
• Speak loud enough to be heard.
• Vary the pace of your presentation.
• Slow down for important points.
• Use the pause.
• Mumble.
• Use “fillers” such as “like” or “um.”
• Speak with a monotone voice.
• Be afraid of pauses.
Ask Questions Ask Questions
• Ask clear, concise questions.

• Focus each question on a single issue.
• Make sure the participants can answer your
questions.
• Ask questions that require two distinct answers.
• Answer your own question! Rephrase your
question if you don’t get an answer.
Listening Listening
• Keep an open mind.
• Maintain eye contact and show interest.
• Consider the speaker’s nonverbal
behaviors and tone of voice.
• Ask for clarification.
• Paraphrase the meaning and feelings being
expressed.
• Be judgmental.
• Interrupt the speaker.
• Begin formulating a rebuttal.
• Distort the message based on your own beliefs
or thoughts.
for Everyone

Step 5: Arrange Logistics
Use the checklist below to organize and take care of all
logistics.
Notifications
• Have all participants and presenters been notified of the time
Condition of Room
• Does the room accommodat
• Is seating arrangement (round tables, conference tables)
Safety
• Are exits clearl
• Do any hazards exist (e.g., loose wires/cables, narrow aisles,
loose carpet,
sharp edges on tables, etc.)?

Supplies, Materials, and Refreshments
• Are ther
No
No
• Do you have feedback questionnaires for the participa
Forming partnerships with other organizations or getting
sponsorship from the business
community can help defray some of the expenses for supplies,
materials, and refreshments.
Faith-based organizations, libraries, civic associations, schools,
or government office buildings
may have space for hosting the sessions.
for Everyone

You may need to let your target audience know about the
preparedness program. Below are
suggestions for getting the word out:
• Email messages to members
• Newsletter articles
• Web, social media, or blog postings
• Public service announcements
• Local cable television notices
Forming a partnership with local media outlets can be
invaluable for promoting your program
and recognizing contributions from presenters and others.
Taking photographs of preparedness sessions may be useful for
promoting future sessions.
Remember, you should get releases from individuals before
publishing the photographs.
for Everyone

GETTING FEEDBACK
At the end of your session, you may want to get feedback from
your participants. Below are
sample questions that you can ask:
Sample Feedback Questions
• What was the most effective portion of the presentation?
• How could we improve this presentation?
• Following this presentation, what preparedness actions do you
plan to take?
• What additional preparedness information would be helpful?
ACKNOWLEDGING ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Following your session, you may want to take the following
actions:
• Thank-You Notes: Make sure to send thank-you notes to
individuals and organizations
who helped with presentations or provided sponsorship.
• Follow-Up: Contact participants to see if they are
implementing preparedness actions.
• Certificates: Present certificates to participants who complete
the entire program.

• Articles or Postings: Feature preparedness accomplishments
in articles or web postings
to reinforce actions and encourage others.
for Everyone
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Below are additional resources that you may want to use in
planning and conducting your
preparedness program.
• Citizen Preparedness Publications
– FEMA 475
– FEMA 478
– FEMA 477
– FEMA 532
Web Site: http://www.citizencorps.gov/ready/cc_pubs.shtm
• Ready.gov

-Specific Information
-Friendly Supplies
Web Site: http://www.ready.gov
• Red Cross
uick-Reference
Web Site: http://www.redcross.org
• Weather Information
Web Site: http://www.weather.gov
Web Site: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/streamaudio.htm
• Flu.gov
Web Site: http://www.flu.gov
• Foodsafety.gov
Web Site:
http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/emergency/index.html
• Firesafety.gov
Web Site: http://www.firesafety.gov

http://www.citizencorps.gov/ready/cc_pubs.shtm
http://www.ready.gov/
http://www.redcross.org/
http://www.weather.gov/
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/streamaudio.htm
http://www.flu.gov/
http://www.flu.gov/
http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/emergency/index.html
http://www.foodsafety.gov/
http://www.firesafety.gov/
http://www.firesafety.gov/ContentsPurposeThe
PREPAREDNESS TOPICSHow To Use the Materialsplanning
your programStep 1: Identify Your Target AudienceStep 2:
Determine Interests and Needsplanning your program
(ContinuEd)Step 3: Select Presentersplanning your program
(ContinuEd)Step 4: Prepare the Presentationplanning your
program (ContinuEd)Step 4: Prepare the Presentation
(Continued)planning your program (ContinuEd)Step 5: Arrange
Logisticsplanning your program (ContinuEd)Step 6: Get the
Word OutGetting FeedbackAcknowledging
AccomplishmentsAdditional Resources
National Response
Framework
Third Edition
June 2016

National Response
Framework
i
Execut ive Summary
The National Response Framework is a guide to how the Nation
responds to all types of disasters and
emergencies. It is built on scalable, flexible, and adaptable
concepts identified in the National
Incident Management System to align key roles and
responsibilities across the Nation. This
Framework describes specific authorities and best practices for
managing incidents that range from
the serious but purely local to large-scale terrorist attacks or
catastrophic natural disasters. The
National Response Framework describes the principles, roles
and responsibilities, and coordinating
structures for delivering the core capabilities required to
respond to an incident and further describes
how response efforts integrate with those of the other mission
areas. This Framework is always in
effect and describes the doctrine under which the Nation
responds to incidents. The structures,
roles, and responsibilities described in this Framework can be
partially or fully implemented in the
context of a threat or hazard, in anticipation of a significant
event, or in response to an incident.
Selective implementation of National Response Framework
structures and procedures allows for a
scaled response, delivery of the specific resources and
capabilities, and a level of coordination
appropriate to each incident.
The Response mission area focuses on ensuring that the Nation

is able to respond effectively to all
types of incidents that range from those that are adequately
handled with local assets to those of
catastrophic proportion that require marshaling the capabilities
of the entire Nation. The objectives of
the Response mission area define the capabilities necessary to
save lives, protect property and the
environment, meet basic human needs, stabilize the incident,
restore basic services and community
functionality, and establish a safe and secure environment to
facilitate the integration of recovery
activities.1 The Response mission area includes 15 core
capabilities: planning; public information
and warning; operational coordination; critical transportation;
environmental response/health and
safety; fatality management services; fire management and
suppression; infrastructure systems;
logistics and supply chain management; mass care services;
mass search and rescue operations; on-
scene security, protection, and law enforcement; operational
communications; public health,
healthcare, and emergency medical services; and situational
assessment.
The priorities of the Response mission area are to save lives,
protect property and the environment,
stabilize the incident, and provide for basic human needs. The
following principles establish
fundamental doctrine for the Response mission area: engaged
partnership; tiered response; scalable,
flexible, and adaptable operational capabilities; unity of effort
through unified command; and
readiness to act.
Scalable, flexible, and adaptable coordinating structures are
essential in aligning the key roles and

responsibilities to deliver the Response mission area’s core
capabilities. The flexibility of such
structures helps ensure that communities across the country can
organize response efforts to address
a variety of risks based on their unique needs, capabilities,
demographics, governing structures, and
non-traditional partners. This Framework is not based on a one-
size-fits-all organizational construct,
but instead acknowledges the concept of tiered response, which
emphasizes that response to incidents
should be handled at the lowest jurisdictional level capable of
handling the mission.
1 As with all activities in support of the National Preparedness
Goal, activities taken under the response mission
must be consistent with all pertinent statutes and policies,
particularly those involving privacy and civil and human
rights, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Civil Rights Act of
1964.
National Response Framework
ii
In implementing the National Response Framework to build
national preparedness, partners are
encouraged to develop a shared understanding of broad-level
strategic implications as they make
critical decisions in building future capacity and capability. The
whole community should be
engaged in examining and implementing the strategy and

doctrine contained in this Framework,
considering both current and future requirements in the process.
National Response
Framework
iii
Tab le o f Contents
Introduction
...............................................................................................
.................... 1
Framework Purpose and Organization
.................................................................................1
Evolution of the Framework
...............................................................................................
....3
Relationship to NIMS
...............................................................................................
...............3
Intended Audience
...............................................................................................
....................4
Scope
...............................................................................................
.............................. 4
Guiding Principles
...............................................................................................
....................5
Risk Basis
...............................................................................................
...................................7

Roles and Responsibilities
........................................................................................... 8
Individuals, Families, and Households
..................................................................................8
Communities
...............................................................................................
..............................9
Nongovernmental Organizations
............................................................................................9
Private Sector Entities
...............................................................................................
............10
Local Governments
...............................................................................................
.................11
State, Tribal, Territorial, and Insular Area Governments
................................................12
Federal Government
...............................................................................................
...............15
Core Capabilities
...............................................................................................
.......... 20
Context of the Response Mission
Area.................................................................................20
Response Actions to Deliver Core Capabilities
...................................................................28
Coordinating Structures and Integration
.................................................................. 32
Local Coordinating Structures
.............................................................................................3
2
State and Territorial Coordinating Structures

...................................................................32
Tribal Coordinating Structures
............................................................................................3
2
Private Sector Coordinating Structures
..............................................................................33
Federal Coordinating
Structures................................................................................
..........33
Operational Coordination
...............................................................................................
......39
Integration
...............................................................................................
...............................45
iv
Relationship to Other Mission Areas
......................................................................... 47
Operational Planning
...............................................................................................
... 47
Response Operational Planning
...........................................................................................48
Planning Assumptions
...............................................................................................
............51
Framework Application
...............................................................................................

.........51
Supporting Resources
...............................................................................................
. 51
Conclusion
...............................................................................................
.................... 52
1
In t roduct ion
The National Preparedness System outlines an organized
process for the whole community to move
forward with their preparedness activities and achieve the
National Preparedness Goal. The National
Preparedness System integrates efforts across the five
preparedness mission areas—Prevention,
Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery—in order to
achieve the goal of a secure and
resilient Nation. The National Response Framework (NRF), part
of the National Preparedness
System, sets the strategy and doctrine for how the whole
community builds, sustains, and delivers the
Response core capabilities identified in the National
Preparedness Goal in an integrated manner with
the other mission areas. This third edition of the NRF reflects
the insights and lessons learned from
real-world incidents and the implementation of the National
Preparedness System.

Prevention: The capabilities necessary to avoid, prevent, or stop
a threatened or actual
act of terrorism. Within the context of national preparedness,
the term “prevention” refers
to preventing imminent threats.
Protection: The capabilities necessary to secure the homeland
against acts of terrorism
and manmade or natural disasters.
Mitigation: The capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and
property by lessening
the impact of disasters.
Response: The capabilities necessary to save lives, protect
property and the
environment, and meet basic human needs after an incident has
occurred.
Recovery: The capabilities necessary to assist communities
affected by an incident to
recover effectively.
F ramework Pu rpose and O rg anizat ion
The NRF is a guide to how the Nation responds to all types of
disasters and emergencies. It is built
on scalable, flexible, and adaptable concepts identified in the
National Incident Management System
(NIMS)2 to align key roles and responsibilities across the
Nation. The NRF describes specific
authorities and best practices for managing incidents that range
from the serious but purely local to
large-scale terrorist attacks or catastrophic3 natural disasters.
This document supersedes the NRF that was issued in May

2013. It becomes effective
60 days after publication.
The term “response,” as used in the NRF, includes actions to
environment, stabilize communities, and meet basic human
needs following an incident. Response
also includes the execution of emergency plans and actions to
support short-term recovery. The NRF
describes doctrine for managing any type of disaster or
emergency regardless of scale, scope, and
complexity. This Framework explains common response
disciplines and processes that have been
2 http://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system
3 A catastrophic incident is defined as any natural or manmade
incident, including terrorism, that results in
extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption
severely affecting the population, infrastructure,
environment, economy, national morale, or government
functions.
http://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system
2
developed at all levels of government (local, state, tribal,
territorial, insular area,4 and Federal) and
have matured over time.
To support the Goal, the objectives of the NRF are to:

structures, as well as key roles and
responsibilities for integrating capabilities across the whole
community,5 to support the efforts of
local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal
governments in responding to actual and
potential incidents.
munity, the steps needed to
prepare for delivering the response
core capabilities.
Response mission area.
mission areas, as well as the
relationship between the Response core capabilities and the core
capabilities in other mission
areas.
foundation for the development of the
Response Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP).
the performance of response core
capabilities during all hazards emergencies or other situations
that may disrupt normal
operations.
The NRF is composed of a base document, Emergency Support
Function (ESF) Annexes, and
Support Annexes. The annexes provide detailed information to
assist with the implementation of the
NRF.

that group resources and capabilities
into functional areas that are most frequently needed in a
national response.
and considerations that are most
common to the majority of incidents.
Note that the incident annexes, which address response to
specific risks and hazards, can now be
found as annexes to the Response FIOP rather than as
supplements to the NRF. This change is
consistent with guidance in the National Preparedness System.
4 Per the Stafford Act, insular areas include Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American
Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Other statutes or
departments and agencies may define the term insular area
differently.
5 Whole community includes individuals and communities, the
private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based
organizations, and all levels of government (local,
regional/metropolitan, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and
Federal). Whole community is defined in the National
Preparedness Goal as “a focus on enabling the participation in
national preparedness activities of a wider range of players from
the private and nonprofit sectors, including
nongovernmental organizations and the general public, in
conjunction with the participation of all levels of
governmental in order to foster better coordination and working
relationships.” The National Preparedness Goal may
be found online at http://www.fema.gov.
http://www.fema.gov/

3
Figure 1: NRF and FIOP Structure
Evolu t ion o f th e F ramework
The NRF builds on over 20 years of Federal response guidance
beginning with the Federal Response
Plan published in 1992, which focused largely on Federal roles
and responsibilities. The
establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
and the emphasis on the development
and implementation of common incident management and
response principles led to the development
of the National Response Plan (NRP) in 2004. The NRP broke
new ground by integrating all levels
of government, the private sector, and nongovernmental
organizations (NGO) into a common
incident management framework. In 2008, the NRP was
superseded by the first NRF, which
streamlined the guidance and integrated lessons learned from
Hurricane Katrina and other incidents.
This NRF reiterates the principles and concepts of the 2013
version of the NRF and implements the
new requirements and terminology of the National Preparedness
System. By fostering a holistic
approach to response, this NRF emphasizes the need for the
involvement of the whole community.
Along with the National Planning Frameworks for other mission
areas, this document now describes
the all-important integration and inter-relationships among the

mission areas of Prevention,
Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery.
Relat ionsh ip to NIMS
The response protocols and structures described in the NRF
align with NIMS. NIMS provides the
incident management basis for the NRF and defines standard
command and management structures.
Standardizing national response doctrine on NIMS provides a
consistent, nationwide template to
enable the whole community to work together to prevent,
protect against, mitigate, respond to, and
recover from the effects of incidents regardless of cause, size,
location, or complexity.
All of the components of the NIMS—including preparedness,
communications and information
management, resource management, and command and
management—support response. The NIMS
concepts of multiagency coordination and unified command are
described in the command and
management component of NIMS. These two concepts are
essential to effective response operations
4
because they address the importance of: (1) developing a single
set of objectives, (2) using a
collective, strategic approach, (3) improving information flow
and coordination, (4) creating a

common understanding of joint priorities and limitations, (5)
ensuring that no agency’s legal
authorities are compromised or neglected, and (6) optimizing
the combined efforts of all participants
under a single plan.
In tend ed Audien ce
Although the NRF is intended to provide guidance for the whole
community, it focuses especially on
the needs of those who are involved in delivering and applying
the response core capabilities defined
in the National Preparedness Goal. This includes emergency
management practitioners, first
responders, community leaders, and government officials who
must collectively understand and
assess the needs of their respective communities and
organizations and determine the best ways to
organize and strengthen their resilience.
The NRF is intended to be used by the whole community. The
whole community includes
individuals, families, households, communities, the private and
nonprofit sectors, faith-based
organizations, and local, state, tribal, territorial, and Federal
governments. This all-inclusive
approach focuses efforts and enables a full range of
stakeholders to participate in national
preparedness activities and to be full partners in incident
response. Government resources alone
cannot meet all the needs of those affected by major disasters.
All elements of the community must
be activated, engaged, and integrated to respond to a major or
catastrophic incident.
Engaging the whole community, particularly with regards to
developing individual and community

preparedness, is essential to the Nation’s success in achieving
resilience and national preparedness.
By providing equal access to acquire and use the necessary
knowledge and skills, this Framework is
intended to enable the whole community to contribute to and
benefit from national preparedness.
This includes children6; older adults; individuals with
disabilities and others with access and
functional needs7; those from religious, racial, and ethnically
diverse backgrounds; people with
limited English proficiency; and owners of animals, including
household pets and service and
assistance animals. Their contributions must be integrated into
the Nation’s efforts, and their needs
must be incorporated as the whole community plans and
executes the core capabilities.8
Scope
The NRF describes structures for implementing nationwide
response policy and operational
coordination for all types of domestic incidents.9 This section
describes the scope of the Response
6 Children require a unique set of considerations across the core
capabilities contained within this document. Their
needs must be taken into consideration as part of any integrated
planning effort.
7 Access and functional needs refers to persons who may have
additional needs before, during and after an incident
in functional areas, including but not limited to: maintaining
health, independence, communication, transportation,
support, services, self-determination, and medical care.
Individuals in need of additional response assistance may
include those who have disabilities; live in institutionalized
settings; are older adults; are children; are from diverse

cultures; have limited English proficiency or are non-English
speaking; or are transportation disadvantaged.
8 For further information, see the Core Capabilities section.
9 A domestic incident may have international and diplomatic
impacts and implications that call for coordination and
consultations with foreign governments and international
organizations. The NRF also applies to the domestic
response to incidents of foreign origin that impact the United
States. See the International Coordination Support
Annex for more information.
5
mission area, the guiding principles of response doctrine and
their application, and how risk informs
response planning.
The Response mission area focuses on ensuring that the Nation
is able to respond effectively to all
types of incidents that range from those that are adequately
handled with local assets to those of
catastrophic proportion that require marshaling the capabilities
of the entire Nation. The objectives of
the Response mission area define the capabilities necessary to
environment, meet basic human needs, stabilize the incident,
restore basic services and community
functionality, and establish a safe and secure environment to
facilitate the integration of recovery
activities.10

The NRF describes the principles, roles and responsibilities,
and coordinating structures for
delivering the core capabilities required to respond to any
incident and further describes how
response efforts integrate with those of the other mission areas.
The NRF is always in effect, and
elements can be implemented at any time. The structures, roles,
and responsibilities described in
the NRF can be partially or fully implemented in the context of
a threat or hazard, in anticipation of a
significant event, or in response to an incident. Selective
implementation of NRF structures and
procedures allows for a scaled response, delivery of the specific
resources and capabilities, and a
level of coordination appropriate to each incident.
In this Framework, the term ‘incident’ includes actual or
potential emergencies and disasters
resulting from all types of threats and hazards, ranging from
accidents and natural disasters to cyber
intrusions and terrorist attacks. The NRF’s structures and
procedures address how Federal
departments and agencies coordinate support for local, state,
tribal, territorial, and insular area
governments.
Nothing in the NRF is intended to alter or impede the ability of
any local, state, tribal, territorial,
insular area, or Federal government department or agency to
carry out its authorities or meet its
responsibilities under applicable laws, executive orders, and
directives.
Guid ing Pr in c ip les
The priorities of response are to save lives, protect property and
the environment, stabilize the

incident, and provide for basic human needs. The following
principles establish fundamental doctrine
for the Response mission area: (1) engaged partnership, (2)
tiered response, (3) scalable, flexible, and
adaptable operational capabilities, (4) unity of effort through
unified command, and (5) readiness to
act. These principles are rooted in the Federal system and the
Constitution’s division of
responsibilities between state and Federal governments. These
principles reflect the history of
emergency management and the distilled wisdom of responders
and leaders across the whole
community.
Engaged Partnership
Effective partnership relies on engaging all elements of the
whole community, as well as
international partners in some cases. This also includes
survivors who may require assistance and
who may also be resources to support community response and
recovery.
10 As with all activities in support of the National Preparedness
Goal, activities taken under the response mission
must be consistent with all pertinent statutes and policies,
particularly those involving privacy and civil and human
rights, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Civil Rights Act of
1964.

6
Those who lead emergency response efforts must communicate
and support engagement with the
whole community by developing shared goals and aligning
capabilities to reduce the risk of any
jurisdiction being overwhelmed in times of crisis. Layered,
mutually supporting capabilities of
individuals, communities, the private sector, NGOs, and
governments at all levels allow for
coordinated planning in times of calm and effective response in
times of crisis. Engaged partnership
and coalition building includes ongoing clear, consistent,
accessible, effective,11 and culturally and
linguistically appropriate communication and shared situational
awareness about an incident to
ensure an appropriate response.
Tiered Response
Most incidents begin and end locally and are managed at the
local or tribal level. These incidents
may require a unified response from local agencies, the private
sector, and NGOs. Some may require
additional support from neighboring jurisdictions or state
governments. A smaller number of
incidents require Federal support or are led by the Federal
Government.12 National response
protocols are structured to provide tiered levels of support when
additional resources or capabilities
are needed.
Scalable, Flexible, and Adaptable Operational Capabilities
As incidents change in size, scope, and complexity, response
efforts must adapt to meet evolving
requirements. The number, type, and sources of resources must

be able to expand rapidly to meet the
changing needs associated with a given incident and its
cascading effects. As needs grow and change,
response processes must remain nimble and adaptable. The
structures and processes described in the
NRF must be able to surge resources from the whole
community. As incidents stabilize, response
efforts must be flexible to facilitate the integration of recovery
activities.
Unity of Effort through Unified Command
Effective, unified command is indispensable to response
activities and requires a clear understanding
of the roles and responsibilities of all participating
organizations.13 The Incident Command System
(ICS), a component of NIMS, is an important element in
ensuring interoperability across multi-
jurisdictional or multiagency incident management activities.
Unified command, a central tenet of
ICS, enables organizations with jurisdictional authority or
functional responsibility for an incident to
support each other through the use of mutually developed
incident objectives. Each participating
agency maintains its own authority, responsibility, and
accountability.
11 Information, warnings, and communications associated with
emergency management must ensure effective
communication, such as through the use of appropriate auxiliary
aids and services (e.g., interpreters, captioning,
alternate format documents) for individuals with disabilities,
and provide meaningful access to limited English
proficient individuals.
12 Certain incidents such as a pandemic or cyber event may not
be limited to a specific geographic area and may be

managed at the local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, or
Federal level depending on the nature of the incident.
13 The ICS’s “unified command” concept is distinct from the
military use of this term. Concepts of “command” and
“unity of command” have distinct legal and cultural meanings
for military forces and military operations. Military
forces always remain under the control of the military chain of
command and are subject to redirection or recall at
any time. Military forces do not operate under the command of
the incident commander or under the unified
command structure, but they do coordinate with response
partners and work toward a unity of effort while
maintaining their internal chain of command.
7
Readiness to Act
Effective response requires a readiness to act that is balanced
with an understanding of the risks and
hazards responders face. From individuals and communities to
the private and nonprofit sectors,
faith-based organizations, and all levels of government (local,
state, tribal, territorial, insular area,
and Federal), national response depends on the ability to act
decisively. A …
A Whole Community Approach to
Emergency Management: Principles,

Themes, and Pathways for Action
FDOC 104-008-1 / December 2011
A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action
i
T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Introduction
...............................................................................................
.................... 1
National Dialogue on a Whole Community Approach to
Emergency Management .........2
Whole Community Defined
...............................................................................................
......3
Whole Community Principles and Strategic Themes
...........................................................4
Strategic Themes in Practice
............................................................................... ........ 6
Understand Community Complexity
.....................................................................................6
Recognize Community Capabilities and Needs
.....................................................................8
Foster Relationships with Community Leaders
..................................................................10
Build and Maintain Partnerships
.........................................................................................11

Empower Local Action
...............................................................................................
...........14
Leverage and Strengthen Social Infrastructure, Networks, and
Assets ...........................16
Pathways for Action
...............................................................................................
..... 19
Conclusion
...............................................................................................
.................... 23
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
1
I n t r o d u c t i o n
The effects of natural and manmade disasters have become more
frequent, far-reaching, and
widespread. As a result, preserving the safety, security, and
prosperity of all parts of our society

is becoming more challenging. Our Nation’s traditional
approach to managing the risks
associated with these disasters relies heavily on the government.
However, today’s changing
reality is affecting all levels of government in their efforts to
improve our Nation’s resilience
while grappling with the limitations of their capabilities.1 Even
in small- and medium-sized
disasters, which the government is generally effective at
managing, significant access and service
gaps still exist. In large-scale disasters or catastrophes,
government resources and capabilities
can be overwhelmed.
The scale and severity of disasters are
growing and will likely pose systemic
threats.2 Accelerating changes in
demographic trends and technology are
making the effects of disasters more
complex to manage. One future trend
affecting emergency needs is continued
population shifts into vulnerable areas
(e.g., hurricane-prone coastlines). The
economic development that accompanies
these shifts also intensifies the pressure
on coastal floodplains, barrier islands,
and the ecosystems that support food
production, the tourism industry, and
suburban housing growth. Other
demographic changes will affect disaster
management activities, such as a growing population of people
with disabilities living in
communities instead of institutions, as well as people living
with chronic conditions (e.g.,
obesity and asthma). Also, communities are facing a growing
senior population due to the Baby

Boom generation entering this demographic group.
Consequently, changes in transportation
systems and even housing styles may follow to accommodate
the lifestyles of these residents. If
immigration trends continue as predicted, cities and suburbs
will be more diverse ethnically and
linguistically. Employment trends, when combined with new
technologies, will shift the ways in
which local residents plan their home-to-work commuting
patterns as well as their leisure time.
All of these trends will affect the ways in which residents
organize and identify with community-
based associations and will influence how they prepare for and
respond to emergencies.3
1 Resilience refers to the ability to adapt to changing conditions
and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption
due to emergencies. White House, “Presidential Policy
Directive 8 (PPD-8),” March 30, 2011.
2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Special Report
on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation,” November
2011.
3 Strategic Foresight Initiative, “U.S. Demographic Shifts:
Long-term Trends and Drivers and Their Implications for
Emergency Management,” May 2011.
Strategic Foresight Initiative, “Government Budgets: Long-term
Trends and Drivers and Their Implications for
Emergency Management,” May 2011.
Figure 1: Joplin, Missouri, May 24, 2011—Homes were leveled
with
the force of 200 mph winds as an F5 tornado struck the city on
May 22,
2011. This scene is representative of the growing impacts of

disasters.
Jace Anderson/FEMA
2
This document presents a foundation for increasing individual
preparedness and engaging with
members of the community as vital partners in enhancing the
resiliency and security of our
Nation through a Whole Community approach. It is intended to
promote greater understanding of
the approach and to provide a strategic framework to guide all
members of the emergency
management community as they determine how to integrate
Whole Community concepts into
their daily practices. This document is not intended to be all-
encompassing or focused on any
specific phase of emergency management or level of
government, nor does it offer specific,
prescriptive actions that require communities or emergency
managers to adopt certain protocols.
Rather, it provides an overview of core principles, key themes,
and pathways for action that have
been synthesized from a year-long national dialogue around
practices already used in the field.
While this is not a guide or a “how-to” document, it provides a
starting point for those learning
about the approach or looking for ways to expand existing
practices and to begin more
operational-based discussions on further implementation of
Whole Community principles.

N a t i o n a l D i a l o g u e o n a W h o l e C o m m u n i t y
A p p r o a c h t o E m e r g e n c y
M a n a g e m e n t
In a congressional testimony, the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), Craig Fugate, described today’s reality as follows:
“Government can and will continue
to serve disaster survivors. However, we fully recognize that a
government-centric approach to
disaster management will not be enough to meet the challenges
posed by a catastrophic incident.
That is why we must fully engage our entire societal
capacity....”4 To that end, FEMA initiated a
national dialogue on a Whole Community approach to
emergency management, an approach that
many communities have used for years with great success, and
one which has been gathering
strength in jurisdictions across the Nation.
The national dialogue was designed to foster collective learning
from communities’ experiences
across the country. It occurred in various settings, such as
organized conference sessions,
research seminars, professional association meetings,
practitioner gatherings, and official
government meetings. The various settings created opportunities
to listen to those who work in
local neighborhoods, have survived disasters, and are actively
engaged in community
development. Participants in this dialogue included a broad
range of emergency management
partners, including representatives from the private and
nonprofit sectors, academia, local
residents, and government leaders. The conversations with the
various stakeholders focused on

how communities are motivated and engaged, how they
understand risk, and what their
experiences are with resilience following a disaster. In addition,
international and historical
resiliency efforts, such as FEMA’s Project Impact, were
explored to gather lessons learned and
best practices.5
FEMA also brought together diverse members from across the
country to comprise a core
working group. The working group reviewed and validated
emerging Whole Community
principles and themes, gathered examples of the Whole
Community approach from the field, and
4 Administrator Craig Fugate, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, before the United States House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management at the Rayburn House Office Building,
March 30, 2011.
5 FEMA introduced Project Impact in 1997as a national
initiative designed to challenge the country to undertake
actions that protect families, businesses, and communities by
reducing the effects of natural disasters. The efforts
focused on creating active public-private partnerships to build
disaster-resistant communities.
3

identified people, organizations, and communities with
promising local experiences. They
participated in various meetings and conferences and, in some
cases, provided the examples
included in this document.
In addition to the national dialogue, this document was created
concurrently with a larger effort
to build an integrated, layered, all-of-Nation approach to
preparedness, as called for by
Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-8): National Preparedness.6
As such, the Whole Community
approach is being incorporated into all PPD-8 deliverables,
including the National Preparedness
Goal, National Preparedness System description, National
Planning Frameworks, and the
campaign to build and sustain preparedness nationwide, as well
as leverage the approach in their
development.7 In support of these efforts, FEMA seeks to spark
exploration into community
engagement strategies to promote further discussion on
approaches that position local residents
for leadership roles in planning, organizing, and sharing
accountability for the success of local
disaster management efforts, and which enhance our Nation’s
security and resilience.
W h o l e C o m m u n i t y D e f i n e d
As a concept, Whole Community is a means by which residents,
emergency management
practitioners, organizational and community leaders, and
government officials can collectively
understand and assess the needs of their respective communities
and determine the best ways to
organize and strengthen their assets, capacities, and interests.
By doing so, a more effective path

to societal security and resilience is built. In a sense, Whole
Community is a philosophical
approach on how to think about conducting emergency
management.
There are many different kinds of communities,
including communities of place, interest, belief, and
circumstance, which can exist both geographically
and virtually (e.g., online forums). A Whole
Community approach attempts to engage the full
capacity of the private and nonprofit sectors,
including businesses, faith-based and disability
organizations, and the general public, in conjunction
with the participation of local, tribal, state, territorial,
and Federal governmental partners. This engagement
means different things to different groups. In an all-
hazards environment, individuals and institutions will
make different decisions on how to prepare for and
respond to threats and hazards; therefore, a
community’s level of preparedness will vary. The
challenge for those engaged in emergency
management is to understand how to work with the
diversity of groups and organizations and the policies
and practices that emerge from them in an effort to
improve the ability of local residents to prevent,
protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from any type
of threat or hazard effectively.
6 President Barack Obama, “Presidential Policy Directive 8
(PPD-8): National Preparedness,” March 30, 2011.
7 FEMA, “National Preparedness Goal,” September 2011.
(Formally released on October 7, 2011.)
Whole Community is a philosophical
approach in how to conduct the

business of emergency management.
Benefits include:
needs and capabilities
integration of resources from across
the community
facilitate more effective prevention,
protection, mitigation, response, and
recovery activities
preparedness
community and national levels
4
The benefits of Whole Community
include a more informed, shared
understanding of community risks,
needs, and capabilities; an increase in
resources through the empowerment of

community members; and, in the end,
more resilient communities. A more
sophisticated understanding of a
community’s needs and capabilities also
leads to a more efficient use of existing
resources regardless of the size of the
incident or community constraints. In
times of resource and economic
constraints, the pooling of efforts and
resources across the whole community is
a way to compensate for budgetary
pressures, not only for government
agencies but also for many private and
nonprofit sector organizations. The task of cultivating and
sustaining relationships to incorporate
the whole community can be challenging; however, the
investment yields many dividends. The
process is as useful as the product. In building relationships and
learning more about the
complexity of a community, interdependencies that may be
sources of hidden vulnerabilities are
revealed. Steps taken to incorporate Whole Community concepts
before an incident occurs will
lighten the load during response and recovery efforts through
the identification of partners with
existing processes and resources who are available to be part of
the emergency management
team. The Whole Community approach produces more effective
outcomes for all types and sizes
of threats and hazards, thereby improving security and
resiliency nationwide.
W h o l e C o m m u n i t y P r i n c i p l e s a n d S t r a t e g
i c T h e m e s
Numerous factors contribute to the resilience of communities
and effective emergency

management outcomes. However, three principles that represent
the foundation for establishing a
Whole Community approach to emergency management emerged
during the national dialogue.
Whole Community Principles:
community. Community engagement
can lead to a deeper understanding of the unique and diverse
needs of a population, including
its demographics, values, norms, community structures,
networks, and relationships. The
more we know about our communities, the better we can
understand their real-life safety and
sustaining needs and their motivations to participate in
emergency management-related
activities prior to an event.
the whole community and
empowering local action will better position stakeholders to
plan for and meet the actual
needs of a community and strengthen the local capacity to deal
with the consequences of all
threats and hazards. This requires all members of the
community to be part of the emergency
management team, which should include diverse community
members, social and
community service groups and institutions, faith-based and
disability groups, academia,
Figure 2: Madison, Tennessee, May 29, 2010—Gary Lima,
Tennessee
Emergency Management Agency Community Relations
Coordinator,

leads Boy Scout troop #460 in a Memorial Day project to place
flags on
graves. The picture reflects emergency managers becoming
involved in
the day-to-day activities of community groups. David
Fine/FEMA
5
professional associations, and the private and nonprofit sectors,
while including government
agencies who may not traditionally have been directly involved
in emergency management.
When the community is engaged in an authentic dialogue, it
becomes empowered to identify
its needs and the existing resources that may be used to address
them.
A Whole Community
approach to building community resilience requires finding
ways to support and strengthen
the institutions, assets, and networks that already work well in
communities and are working
to address issues that are important to community members on a
daily basis. Existing
structures and relationships that are present in the daily lives of
individuals, families,
businesses, and organizations before an incident occurs can be
leveraged and empowered to
act effectively during and after a disaster strikes.

In addition to the three Whole Community principles, six
strategic themes were identified
through research, discussions, and examples provided by
emergency management practitioners.
These themes speak to the ways the Whole Community approach
can be effectively employed in
emergency management and, as such, represent pathways for
action to implement the principles.
Whole Community Strategic Themes:
y leaders.
assets.
In the Strategic Themes in Practice section of this document,
the Whole Community concept is
explored through real-world examples that highlight the key
principles and themes of the Whole
Community approach. In order to provide an illustration of how
the principles and themes can be
applied, examples for each of the five mission areas—
Prevention, Protection, Mitigation,
Response, and Recovery (as outlined in the National
Preparedness Goal)—are included. In
addition, examples from other community development and
public safety efforts have been
included—most notably, community policing. While the focus
and outcomes may differ, such
efforts have proven effective in advancing public health and
safety and offer a model for
emergency management personnel to consider. The Pathways
for Action section provides a list

of reflective questions and ideas for emergency management
practitioners to refer to when they
are beginning to think about how to incorporate the Whole
Community concepts into their
security and resilience efforts.
As a field of practice, our collective understanding of how to
effectively apply Whole
Community as a concept to the daily business of emergency
management will continue to
evolve. It is hoped that this document will assist emergency
managers, as members of their
communities, in that evolution—prompting new actions and
soliciting new ideas and strategies.
FEMA is committed to continued engagement in ongoing
discussions with its partners in the
public, private, and nonprofit sectors to further develop and
refine strategies to deliver more
effective emergency management outcomes and enhance the
security and resilience of our
communities and our Nation.
6
S t r a t e g i c T h e m e s i n P r a c t i c e
The strategic themes presented in this section speak to the
various ways the Whole Community
approach can be effectively employed in emergency
management and, as such, represent
pathways for action by members of the emergency management
community at all levels. These

themes and pathways are explored through the presentation of
real-world examples that highlight
how Whole Community concepts are being applied in
communities across the country.
U n d e r s t a n d C o m m u n i t y C o m p l e x i t y
Communities are unique, multi-
dimensional, and complex. They are
affected by many factors and
interdependencies, including
demographics, geography, access to
resources, experience with government,
crime, political activity, economic
prosperity, and forms of social capital
such as social networks, social cohesion
between different groups, and
institutions. Developing a better
understanding of a community involves
looking at its members to learn how
social activity is organized on a normal
basis (e.g., social patterns, community
leaders, points of collective organization
and action, and decision-making
processes), which will reveal potential
sources (e.g., individuals and
organizations) of new collective action. A realistic
understanding of the complexity of a
community’s daily life will help emergency managers determine
how they can best collaborate
with and support the community to meet its true needs.
Understanding the complexities of local communities helps with
tailoring engagement strategies
and shaping programs to meet various needs. Numerous
examples that involve local initiatives to
identify, map, and communicate with a wide range of local

groups exist nationwide. For
example, the Houston Department of Health and Human
Services (HDHHS) has been actively
identifying ways to better communicate and plan with
linguistically isolated populations (LIP)
and limited-English proficient (LEP) populations within the
city. HDHHS is working with about
20 community organizations that serve and represent LIP/LEP
communities, along with
Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston, four refugee
resettlement agencies that work with these
populations, and several apartment complexes in southwest
Houston (where many refugee and
some immigrant populations live), in an effort to develop
trusted relationships and ways to
provide current preparedness, response, and recovery
information. Because of this outreach,
significant unmet needs (e.g., transportation) for these specific
populations have been identified.
The City of Houston is using this information to fulfill unmet
needs for these populations and
continues to work with these community organizations and
private sector partners to improve
outreach materials, methods of communication, and
preparedness programs.
Figure 3: New Orleans, Louisiana, September 5, 2008—A
bilingual
volunteer helps non-English speaking evacuees, guiding them in
the
right direction to board the correct buses to their parishes.
Understanding the complexity of communities (e.g., non-
English
speakers) helps emergency management practitioners to meet
the
residents’ needs. Jacinta Quesada/FEMA

7
The full diversity of communities is better understood
when communication and engagement efforts move
beyond easy, typical approaches to looking at the real
needs and issues a community faces. In one California
city, the police noticed a high level of violent crime in
a particular neighborhood. In a typical policing model,
the police would have assigned additional officers to
patrol the neighborhood, approached the community
to provide them with information about the criminal
activity, and informed residents of what they might do
to avoid being affected by the crime. However, as part
of an operational shift, the police took a proactive
approach by first engaging with the community to
obtain information about the nature and frequency of the local
crimes. At the initial meeting, the
police learned from the local residents that a number of
problems contributed to the unsafe
conditions of the neighborhood—problems that police response
alone could not correct. Cars
speeding through the neighborhood; the presence of abandoned
cars, couches, and other litter in
front yards; rundown conditions of apartment buildings; few
safe walkways for neighborhood
children; and a lack of lighting on street corners all contributed
to the crime situation.
At the next community meeting, the police brought together a
number of government

departments, including fire, public works, and the housing
authority, to address the residents’
concerns. Government representatives agreed to provide
dumpsters for the litter and the residents
agreed to fill them. The community agreed to tow the
abandoned cars and identified street
repaving as a high priority. Together, the community and city
officials approached the apartment
owners, who agreed to paint the exteriors of the buildings. The
public works department fixed
the street lighting. Building upon the cooperation and the
demonstrated responsiveness to the
community’s needs, several residents provided the police with
information that led to the arrests
of several individuals involved in the area’s drug-related
activities. In a relatively short period of
time, police worked with local residents to transform what had
been perceived to be a narrow
crime issue into a broad-based community revitalization effort.
Crime decreased, residents
became involved, and the neighborhood was significantly
improved. Emergency management
practitioners can take a similar approach by understanding the
underlying and core community
concerns in order to build relationships and identify
opportunities to work together to develop
solutions that meet everyone’s needs.
Numerous approaches exist to identify and better understand the
complexities of local
populations, how they interact, what resources are available,
and the gaps between needs and
solutions. For example, community mapping is a way to identify
community capabilities and
needs by visually illustrating data to reveal patterns. Examples
of patterns may take into account

the location of critical infrastructure, demographics, reliance on
public transportation, available
assets and resources (e.g., warehouses that can be used as
distribution centers), and businesses
that can continue to supply food or water during and after
emergencies. Understanding
communities is a dynamic process as patterns may change.
Emergency managers and local
groups often use community mapping to gather empirical data
on local patterns. Revealing
patterns can help emergency managers to better engage
communities and understand and meet
the needs of individuals by illustrating the dynamics of
populations, how they interact, and
available resources.
Understand Community “DNA”
Learn how communities’ social activity
is organized and how needs are met
under normal conditions.
A better understanding of how
segments of the community resolve
issues and make decisions—both with
and without government as a player—
helps uncover ways to better meet the
actual needs of the whole community in
times of crisis.
8
One community mapping program that the Washington State

Emergency Management Division
developed (“Map Your Neighborhood”) won FEMA’s 2011
Challenge.gov award for addressing
community preparedness. This program helps citizens identify
the most important steps they
need to take to secure their homes and neighborhoods following
a disaster. In addition, it helps to
identify the special skills and equipment that neighbors possess,
the locations of natural gas and
propane tanks, and a comprehensive contact list of neighbors
who may need assistance, such as
older residents, children, and people with disabilities and other
access and functional needs.
R e c o g n i z e C o m m u n i t y C a p a b i l i t i e s a n d N
e e d s
Appreciating the actual capabilities and
needs of a community is essential to
supporting and enabling local actions.
For example, in response to past
disasters, meals ready-to-eat (MREs)
have been used to feed survivors because
these resources were readily available.
However, for a large portion of the
population, such as children, seniors, or
individuals with dietary or health
considerations, MREs are not a suitable
food source for various reasons, as MREs
tend to contain high levels of fat and
sodium and low levels of fiber.
A community’s needs should be defined
on the basis of what the community
requires without being limited to what
traditional emergency management capabilities can address. By
engaging in open discussions,

emergency management practitioners can begin to identify the
actual needs of the community
and the collective capabilities (private, public, and civic) that
exist to address them, as the role of
government and private and nonprofit sector organizations may
vary for each community. The
community …
You are tasked with presenting an argument before the City
Council in an attempt to have them support your initiative on
Whole Community Emergency Management. You are to create a
PowerPoint on the concept of Whole Community Emergency
Management that will be presented to the City Council. It
should contain the information they need to understand what it
is, why it is important, how to go about it, etc. and finally why
they should support and fund the initiative.
It should be a minimum of 15 slides. You must cite your
references, this can be done on each slide or at the very end like
a sources cited page. Either way you need to give credit for any
information that is not your own. It should contain graphics,
pictures, etc. to make it appealing to the audience.
I will grade you on content, grammar and spelling, following
instructions, and on the success of your ability to explain what
whole community emergency management is and why we need
it.
Must use attached file to complete this work

September 2013 i Contents Execu.docx

More Related Content

Similar to September 2013 i Contents Execu.docx

More from klinda1

Recently uploaded

September 2013 i Contents Execu.docx