The challenge for local and state homeland security planning lies with the top-down nature of disaster response and relief and the technologies that are needed in order for adequate response to become possible. As authors Schafer, Carroll, Haynes, and Abrams (2008) write,

"Emergencies often have causes and effects that are global. However, emergencies are also inherently local: They occur in a particular place and point in time. While it is critical for governments and society to better organize emergency management top-down, it is also important to become more aware of local community-level values, planning, involvement, knowledge, and skill. Local communities plan collaboratively for potential emergencies of varying scales."

This means that the federal government, though ultimately responsible for the state and local planning, must take a secondary or passive role in the planning at these lower levels due to the fact that the federal government is not equipped with the very specific local knowledge and capabilities as the local first responders.

Federal

The federal requirements for planning are outlined in an interagency planning element called the Incident Management Planning Team (IMPT), which was established to provide national contingency and crisis action incident management planning to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from natural disasters and terrorist acts. (Christopher, Frye, and Reissman, 2010). This team was created in direct response to the Hurricane Katrina debacle, which left many feeling as though the federal government missed its opportunity to take care of its own citizens. This planning team is responsible, on the federal level, for building and enacting new homeland security planning strategies based upon the ever-changing tactics and threats posed by terrorists and other groups looking to do harm to the U.S.

More specifically, the IMPT was created with the idea in mind that flexibility and adaptability were more important than having an over-arching contingency plan. In other words, the IMPT is able to respond to nearly any type of accident or incident because of the broad resource base...

(Christopher, Frye, and Reissman, 2010). This team ultimately answers to the White House and upper level governmental disaster relief management. The federal homeland security responsibility lies in coordination of smaller entities or relief organs as well as taking final responsibility for the security and response teams in the field. The federal planning responsibility also includes, on a secondary level, the development and implementation of an overarching plan for technology distribution and adaptation to ensure the state and local first responders have the necessary tools to react and adapt to any disaster situation.
Conclusion: The Big Picture

Homeland security planning and response has developed over the decades from beginnings in the Cold War planning and preparedness ideals to the modern day necessity of being adaptable in any situation at the local and first responder levels. Homeland security planning goals vary from level to level as well, given that the federal levels acts to oversee and claim ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of the overarching relief coordination. The state and local planning typically involves man first responder organizations and helps to enable these groups to do the best job they can for their own localities.