TCL Implementation Project

October 2009

22

Capability-Based Preparedness in Risk Management

3

Target Capabilities List (current version 2.0)

Structure:

Consists of 37 Capabilities grouped within ‘common’, ‘prevention’, ‘protection’, ‘response’, and ‘recovery’ mission areas

Each outlines the capability’s description and outcome, major preparedness and operational activities, listing of tasks for each activity, listing of performance measures for each activity, and other reference material

Status:

Released in September 2007 with the National Preparedness Guidelines, but has been in use as an interim document since 2005

Criticisms:

One-size-fits-all approach

Not user-friendly

Federal focus

Out-of-date

Huge document

Not measurable

Inconsistent focus among capabilities

Built with a top-down approach

4

TCL 2.0 Excerpt: Structural Damage Assessment

5

Role of the NPG and TCL in the Preparedness Cycle

Evaluate/Improve• Provides content and structure for

the Comprehensive Assessment System, State Preparedness Reports, GAP Analysis

• Helps to characterize lessons learned and corrective actions

Exercise• Provides structure and

content for HSEEP Exercise and Evaluation Guides

• Informs objectives for testing capabilities

Train• Identifies learning objectives for

course development and selection

• Identifies requisite personnel competencies

Organize/Equip• Identifies personnel and

equipment needs using Resource Types

• Provides content and structure for the Cost-to-Capabilities Analysis

Plan• Provides targets and

objectives to plan against (see CPG 101)

66

NPG/TCL Role in Preparedness ProgramsExample: Exercise Evaluation Guides

Tasks used for exercise

evaluation are taken

directly from each Target

Capability

7

Relationship between the TCL and StandardsEmergency Management Standards TCL

Standards establish minimum acceptable performance criterion which apply to State, territorial, regional, local, or tribal emergency management programs.

TCL guidance reflect preparedness goals for large-scale, non-routine events – not minimum floor requirements that all communities must possess

Standards are generally written to be broadly applicable to all State, local, tribal, NGO, and private sector emergency management programs.

The TCL intends to provide risk-based guidance on the different levels of capability that a community might need.

EMAP provides programmatic benchmarks for emergency manage programs to meet.

The TCL identifies target outcomes for a community to strive to meet.

Standards outline the “means to an end” (e.g., whether policies, programs, and procedures have been implemented).

TCL goals do not prescribe ‘how’ a community meets capability goals.

Standards and preparedness goals should be complementary, with standards helping jurisdictions determine ‘how’ to achieve a capability.

88

Goals for an Updated TCL (version 3.0)

Provide flexibility to account for community-specific risks and circumstances

Establish measurable target outcomes to guide preparedness investments and priorities

Integrate programs across the preparedness lifecycle

Link among applicable standards, Federal policies and guidance, and terminologies

Update content to reflect current policies, guidance, and capabilities

Promote mutual aid and resource sharing

99

Each Target Capability Comprises Three Charts: Classes, Target Outcomes, and Resource Elements

TCL Framework Elements

Target OutcomesShows the critical

outcomes to be achieved and related performance

measures by class

ClassesShows up to five levels for capability delivery, based

on risk factors or other tiering considerations

Resource ElementsOffers guidance on plans,

personnel/teams, equipment, training, and

exercises

1 2 3

1010

Chart #1: Classes

Jurisdictions, groups of jurisdictions, or other entities are provided primary and secondary risk factors to self select their appropriate capability class, such as population and infrastructure (avoids “one size fits all”)

A jurisdiction may align to a different class for each capability depending on its particular characteristics

– A jurisdiction may be a Class 1 for Livestock and Poultry Disease Emergencies, but a Class 4 or 5 for WMD HazMat Rescue

Appropriate risk factors may differ for each Target Capability

– Population and population density may be appropriate for Incident Management, while annual ridership and passenger miles are appropriate for Mass Transit Protection

What are the risk characteristics that present a need for a greater or lesser amount of this capability?

11

Target outcomes are explained through demonstrable, results-oriented metrics

Metrics are graduated by class

– A Class 1 jurisdiction would have a higher performance expectation than a Class 5

Measures utilize defined resource types or standards as much as possible

Users can determine how best to accomplish the desired outcome based on their particular needs and resources (capability-based planning)

11

Chart #2: Target Outcomes

Target Outcome

Develop surveillance plan based on epidemiological investigation

Performance Measure

Within 24 hours of a confirmed positive case, develop surveillance plan and implement existing diagnostic support plan(s) for known area

TCL Framework Elements

What are the critical few outcomes to serve as goals for building and measuring preparedness?

Example: DRAFT Livestock and Poultry Disease Emergencies Response Capability

1212

Chart #3: Resource Elements

Provide guidance on plans, personnel/teams, equipment, training, and exercises to help meet Target Outcomes – each jurisdiction or entity determines ‘what’ resources and ‘how many’ are needed to achieve a target capability

Identifies laws, standards, policies, and doctrine applicable to the capability

Helps link the performance of activities along the preparedness cycle (e.g., assessments, planning guidance, exercise evaluation guides)

Entities are not expected to deliver a capability by itself – mutual aid and regional collaboration are encouraged

What are the planning, organizational, personnel, equipment, training, and exercise elements that may be needed or enhanced to achieve each Target Outcome?

13

TCL Update Process (applies to each capability)Step 1: Interagency Coordination

Lead departments/agencies/offices with responsibility for the capability must be on-board and are given opportunities to assume as large a role as they desire

Step 2: Working Group Composition

Members identified by the Homeland Security Consortium and relevant associations, agencies/offices with lead responsibility, relevant NIMS Work Groups, and the Regions hosting workshops

Step 3: Education and Outreach

Step 4: Research and Development Process

At least two in-person sessions held in the Regions for each capability with periodic conference calls to continuously develop and mature the drafts

Step 5: National Review

Following working group approval, drafts are shared with the NAC, National Disability Council, Consortium, other relevant associations, IAB, relevant ESFs, Department/Agency/Office networks, and to State and local communities through the FEMA Regions.

Step 6: Formal Approval process

14

Current Capability Updates Multi-Agency Coordination/EOC Management Incident Management

Livestock and Poultry Disease Emergency Response

WMD/HazMat Rescue

Mass Transit Protection Intelligence

Planning Major Fire Incident Response

Communication Isolation and Quarantine

Risk Management Emergency Triage and Pre-Hospital Treatment

Community Preparedness Medical Surge

Critical Resource Logistics and Distribution Mass Prophylaxis

Critical Infrastructure Protection Mass Care

Epidemiological Surveillance and Investigation Impact Assessment

Continuity (new) Radiological/Nuclear Detection and Adjudication

Mitigation (new) Explosive Device Risk Reduction

Food and Agriculture Safety and Defense

15

Next Steps The remaining 37 existing capabilities will be updated in 2010.

Finalized capabilities will replace existing versions on a rolling basis

Upon being updated:

The new Target Capabilities will inform the update of Exercise Evaluation Guides, course mapping, CPG developments and other elements of the preparedness cycle.

A continuous maintenance process must ensure that the documents accurately reflect current guidance and lessons learned

Education and technical assistance must be provided to ensure their implementation within preparedness programs across the federal government

1616

Contact Information

Kenneth Watman, PPPA Division Director

Josh Dozor, Policy Branch Chief

Email: Joshua.Dozor@dhs.gov

TCL Program Staff:

Robert Sullivan

Email: Robert.Sullivan@dhs.gov

Joe Lombardo

Email: Joseph.Lombardo1@dhs.gov

Allen King, CEM

Email: Allen.King@dhs.gov

FEMA National Preparedness Directorate

Comments and suggestions are continuously sought and monitored through the TCL@DHS.GOV mailbox.