This paper provides an overview of the Incident Command System (ICS), a standardized organizational model developed in the 1970s for coordinating multi-agency disaster response. It examines ICS's foundational features, functional areas, documented strengths, and recurring criticisms drawn from scholarly literature. The paper then applies this framework to a real-world case study: the AmeriCorps Disaster Response Team's deployment during the historic Missouri floods of December 2015. It describes operational activities, ICS structural implementation, crew management practices, and lessons learned. The paper concludes with recommendations for improving training, communication, and morale to strengthen future ICS deployments.
The Incident Command System (ICS) is a standardized organizational model for incident response and management during disasters. The system is composed of standard management and leadership hierarchy procedures, including processes designed to support various types of incidents. It not only respects jurisdictional and agency authority but also supports synchronized efforts among different disaster response and management teams and agencies. ICS enables the fast, effective, and efficient development of universal planning processes and the management of facilities, personnel, communications, and equipment within a common organizational and operational structure. Based on pre-determined standards that involved authorities agree upon, personnel are trained in a common language and set of processes, with tasks assigned to each. The ICS ensures that disaster response teams experience increased organization from the initial phases of a disaster all the way to its conclusion (Lutz and Lindell, 2008).
The ICS was developed in the 1970s by a Southern California- and Arizona-based interagency group. It was created in response to consecutive wildfires that occurred regularly in the region. According to wildfire disaster relief evidence and past efforts in disaster recovery, failure can rarely be attributed to a lack of resources or effort, but rather to a lack of coordination among resources and individuals. Every agency and individual involved in disaster relief has a unique communication process, hierarchy, and operational language. Conflicts and uncertainty surround various non-governmental and governmental organizations regarding resource distribution and authority. The need for a more collaborative and open management system led to the development of ICS and its widespread deployment (Lutz and Lindell, 2008).
As ICS has grown in popularity, it has been increasingly assessed through scholarly studies. According to Lutz and Lindell (2008), inter-organizational coordination of societal efforts in organizing and deploying natural disaster responses is the core purpose of ICS. Bigley and Roberts (2001) identified several factors responsible for the ICS model's success: the shifting of authority as need arises; structuring mechanisms with role switching and system resetting as disaster response requires; the maintenance of standardized rules, tools, and routines; and the deployment of reliable management methods. Cardwell and Cooney (2000) emphasize standardization as the major factor enabling ICS application across and within agencies and organizations.
ICS has two major strengths: a standardized leadership structure within and among disaster response teams and external partners, and predetermined external and internal alignments. People with basic ICS training can readily learn the system due to its uniform terminology, predefined hierarchy, Incident Action Plans, and defined organizational structure (Cole, 2000). The Incident Action Plan is responsible for assigning individual and group functions and roles in economic, community, and ecological restoration processes across federal, state, and local disaster recovery hierarchy levels. Despite the complications introduced by external alignment with outside organizations — such as volunteer groups that do not use ICS — the system can offer organizations greater effectiveness, flexibility, cross-functional and cross-jurisdictional working relationships, transitioning command authority procedures, and communication plans from one management level to another. The structure of ICS emphasizes the vertical integration of federal administrators, localities and liaisons, and disaster relief workers at the ground level into a cohesive management communication system (Cole, 2000).
ICS is a disaster response model designed to streamline communications among stakeholders such as liaisons, administrators, and local disaster relief workers. According to the ICS-300 training manual, fourteen features are needed to boost ICS effectiveness, and the manual also shows how to structure chain of command, disaster response, and decision-making. According to Lutz and Lindell (2008), these features — together with adequate staffing, front-line disaster response, and pre-disaster relationship development — can generally improve the working climate for disaster response teams. Shared experiences and inter-organizational training can further strengthen ICS deployment to promote cooperation between individuals and organizations working on disaster response techniques, plans, and community development (Lutz and Lindell, 2008).
According to Cole (2000), the ICS model also presents several potential issues, including multi-agency integration effectiveness, limited resource mobilization, disagreements among agencies over authority to modify ICS, and inconsistent deployment among various organizations. Furthermore, critics of the ICS model argue that various factors related to actual disaster response are often overlooked. Buck et al. (2006) contend that more time is dedicated to formal organizational resources, which can exclude unorganized groups or individuals from engaging in disaster response activities. Wenger (1990) also identifies limitations in ICS application, arguing that the system's intrinsic command-and-control attributes cause it to function well primarily in quasi-military agencies — a police department being a prime example. A community of professional responders with interpersonal trust and technical proficiency can utilize ICS effectively during disaster response due to its social sophistication (Buck et al., 2006).
In summary, ICS effectiveness depends heavily on context. The type and size of a disaster and the complexity of public infrastructure in disaster response are key to assessing the system's efficiency and effectiveness. The anticipated effectiveness of ICS is dependent on both the agency type and the disaster type in question (Dynes, 1970). ICS operates most effectively with emergency response agencies carrying out their normal duties with trained staff — such as fire departments, police departments, or emergency medical services. The Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, local and state agencies, private companies, and emergency management organizations in countries across the globe use the ICS. The system manages temporary disasters and incidents that vary in scope, size, and complexity, offering an organizational structure along with a guide for planning, developing, and deploying incident management.
Developing ICS during the early phases of a disaster shifts the response from reactive execution to proactive planning. When multiple organizations or agencies responding to an incident use ICS, they can collaborate more effectively due to shared language and structure. The ICS has five major functional areas. Command includes the Incident Commander, who is responsible for liaison, safety, and communication, sets objectives and goals in order of priority, and maintains general incident control. Operations is accountable for all tactical operations required to execute the response plan. Planning collects, evaluates, and distributes information on how the incident is developing and what resources are available. Logistics provides the services, facilities, transportation, and materials required to meet the needs of the incident. Finally, Finance/Administration monitors and documents costs and provides the financial support required for the disaster incident.
Missouri experienced a historic flood in December 2015. Thousands of residents evacuated their homes, and public services including transportation were severely disrupted. The Greater St. Louis Metropolitan Area was the most affected region. The AmeriCorps St. Louis Emergency Response Team (St. Louis ERT), together with other nonprofit and public agencies, took a leadership role in the AmeriCorps disaster response team program. Response efforts began on December 28th with a critical sandbagging operation along the River des Peres. AmeriCorps members recruited nearly 600 volunteers and placed over 40,000 sandbags along the river. Members of the Emergency Response Team (ERT) worked up to 14 hours each day to set up sandbags and Volunteer Reception Centers (VRCs) (AmeriCorps St. Louis, 2016).
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon sent aid requests to the federal government on behalf of the City of St. Louis Emergency Operations Center and other state agencies. A Major Disaster Declaration was approved by the White House on December 29th. The federal declaration enabled the state to request support from the AmeriCorps Disaster Response Team (A-DRT) under a Mission Assignment (MA) — a federal-issued work order from one public agency to another. FEMA and the state requested the support of 100 AmeriCorps members at the beginning of January 2016. The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) sent AmeriCorps Disaster Response Team members to St. Louis to begin large-scale disaster response. Participating AmeriCorps members included the Conservation Corps of Minnesota & Iowa (CCMI), the Washington Conservation Corps (WCC), the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC), the Texas Conservation Corps (TxCC), Volunteer Iowa, and the Hoopa Tribal Civilian Community Corps (TCCC) (Hibbeler, 2016). Several teams moved in and out of affected areas in 28-day shifts, enabling operational continuity and the transfer of organizational knowledge. It was at this point that CNCS deployed the ICS model for the first time (FEMA, 2011).
AmeriCorps members participated in a wide range of disaster relief operations. Response teams restored power and heat to many homes in the affected area and performed physical labor such as gutting, mucking, and mold suppression to prevent further displacement and help residents remain in their homes. After the disaster, over 270 homes received gutting and mucking treatments, and more than 4,470 cubic yards of debris were removed from people's homes. AmeriCorps members provided direct assistance to over 500 households (Hibbeler, 2016). Response teams also developed shelters and coordinated with various agencies to move displaced residents into safe hotels. Additional activities included supporting Multi-Agency Resource Center (MARC) operations, call center operations, and volunteer management (Butterfield, 2016). Most AmeriCorps Disaster Response Team members at the ground level had withdrawn from Missouri's command center by the end of March 2016. Although most of the disaster response operations lasted only three months, they addressed most of the immediate and critical issues facing St. Louis community members. With this support, local organizations were able to begin the longer process of disaster recovery — fulfilling the principle that emergency response should "begin locally" to ensure urgent issues are addressed promptly (FEMA, 2015).
"On-site ICS structure, crew rotation, and knowledge sharing"
ICS was effective during the flood disaster that occurred in Missouri in 2015, especially for disaster response team members who were already familiar with the model. However, a more standardized and detailed training approach for future disaster response team members would make the ICS even more successful overall. The model significantly enhanced the disaster response process. Improving the work assignment process, collaboration, and communication would build upon the Missouri ICS deployment experience and prepare the model for use in larger disasters that are likely to present more complex challenges. Generally, response team members and leaders had a positive experience and expressed willingness to deploy the ICS model for future disasters. Motivation activities aimed at boosting team member morale, increasing relaxation opportunities after operations, and replicating Missouri's food and accommodation practices can help improve the experience of response team members in the future.
You’re 72% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.