Situational Assessment in Homeland Security Using ICS

Introduction: The ICS Framework for Situational Assessment

Regardless of what one may believe constitutes a good approach to situational assessment, it is critical that any response fall within the guidelines provided by the Incident Command System (ICS). The ICS is defined by the United States Center for Excellence in Disaster Management & Humanitarian Assistance as "a set of personnel, policies, procedures, facilities, and equipment, integrated into a common organizational structure designed to improve emergency response operations of all types and complexities" ("ICS," 2004). The Incident Command System is a subcomponent of the National Incident Management System (NIMS).

One key reason for relying on the ICS framework is that it is a scalable, adaptable system that establishes a familiar hierarchy, enabling people from diverse areas and disciplines to conduct efficacious responses to disaster events and to function collaboratively within initiatives directed at homeland security ("ICS," 2004).

Multi-Agency Coordination and Communication

A key success factor in disaster response is the degree to which people from multiple agencies — who are unaccustomed to working together on a routine basis — achieve seamless communication and operational coordination (Moynihan, 2009). Multi-agency planning is the foundation from which effective, comprehensive implementation must proceed. The important contributions of these agencies to disaster response include the provision of standard responses and routinized operating procedures (Moynihan, 2009). Through these structures, the probability is reduced that miscommunication — or worse, misdirected action — will consume scarce resources and erode crucial response time.

A primary function of the Incident Command System is to provide an optimized structure for first-on-scene responders ("ICS," 2004). By ensuring that first responders are capable of taking charge at the scene, the response may be directed more rapidly, accurately, and comprehensibly (Moynihan, 2009). Inherently, the Incident Command System makes provision for a change of command if or when a more highly qualified responder arrives on scene, or if the Incident Commander appoints a different first responder to assume command ("ICS," 2004).

Key Event Characteristics in Situational Assessment

While the structure and hierarchy of the ICS contribute to expedient, organized response, experts also recognize that these same attributes can contribute to response constriction (Moynihan, 2009). Critical literature underscores the need for training content to prepare first responders to monitor their own mindsets and to recognize how expeditious thinking can limit a holistic perspective (Moynihan, 2009; Yechiam et al., 2005). The more automatic a response is — the more it is based on past experiences or event recency — the higher the probability that critical information will be missed, whether through urgency or cognitive schema (Yechiam et al., 2005). As the key characteristics below are reviewed, consideration must also be directed toward increased awareness of perceptual constraints (Yechiam et al., 2005).

The reason for relying on the Incident Command System is that disaster "response requires an array of interdependent competencies, and it is the need to rapidly integrate these competencies that gave rise to and continues to provide the compelling logic for the ICS" (Moynihan, 2009, p. 4).

The key event characteristics essential to conducting situational assessment include the following: incident action plans, comprehensive resource management, and integrated communications ("ICS," 2004).

Incident Action Plans

If an established Incident Action Plan (IAP) is not already in place, this element would receive immediate attention as the culmination of the situational analysis. All steps and elements addressed during the early phases of the situational analysis should contribute to the establishment of an Incident Action Plan ("ICS," 2004). IAPs provide explicit direction and coordination of the incident response as a point of reference for the duration of the operational period. Through the Incident Action Plan, incident supervisors from all represented agencies can ensure that their efforts are conducted in concert with other stakeholders ("ICS," 2004).

The familiar format of IAPs ensures that communication of incident objectives will be both efficient and coherent, and that activities of an operational and support nature will be coordinated ("ICS," 2004). Use of an IAP promotes reference to strategic objectives that are "SMART" — that is, measurable, feasible, specific to particular implementers, and achievable within the operational period. The fact that Incident Action Plans can be verbal or written (regulations require that hazardous material incidents must be documented in writing) facilitates rapid response while curtailing any attempt to freelance aspects of the response ("ICS," 2004). This is not to say that deep experience with a particular type of disaster or specific threat would be overlooked — rather, the IAP can record a modification and the justification for the recommended change, thereby allowing the IAP to contribute to the broader knowledge base.

Even the most minimal Incident Action Plan must contain answers to the following questions about critical response elements:

1) What is it that we want to do or accomplish? 2) Who will assume responsibility for taking action, and for what? 3) How will we communicate with each other? 4) What procedures do we follow if someone is injured? ("ICS," 2004).

Conclusion

Effective situational assessment in homeland security contexts depends on a structured, scalable framework such as the ICS. By attending to incident action plans, comprehensive resource management, and integrated communications, responders can ensure that their efforts are coordinated, informed, and adaptive. Awareness of cognitive constraints is equally essential, as automatic responses rooted in past experience can obscure critical information during rapidly evolving events. Together, these elements form the foundation of a responsive and resilient emergency management system.

References

Moynihan, D. (2009). The network governance of crisis response: Case studies of Incident Command Systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 895–915.

National Incident Management System. (2008, December). Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The Incident Command System (ICS) (Chapter 7). (2004). Center for Excellence in Disaster Management & Humanitarian Assistance.

Yechiam, E., Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2005, June). The role of personal experience in contributing to different patterns of response to rare terrorist attacks. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(3), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002704270847