Integrated Emergency Management Systems

Professional emergency management in the modern era should be performed using the concepts of Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM). CEM is “the practice of handling emergency tasks in all phases for all types of disaster agents.” This is referring to using an all-hazards approach in planning the strategies, tactics, and procedures that are to be used in all phases of a disaster. Traditionally, there have been four phases of a disaster: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. In addition to these four phases, some models of emergency management add prevention as a fifth phase in disasters (Perry, 2007, p. 3). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has now adopted a comprehensive approach to coordinated preparedness against all threats and hazards, which consists of five mission areas: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery (FEMA, 2012, p. 1.3.3).

The Role of Integrated Emergency Management Systems in CEM

The implementation of CEM is accomplished through the use of an Integrated Emergency Management System (IEMS). An IEMS is “a process of coordinating the efforts and resources of governments and private organizations” to achieve the goals set forth in the emergency planning process (Perry, 2007, p. 3). The components of an IEMS “are divided into two sections: current capabilities and activities and capability improvements.” The current capabilities and activities section is divided into seven processes, and the capabilities improvement section consists of six processes (Kelly, 2002, p. 10).

The current capabilities and activities section of IEMS consists of the elements of hazard analysis, capability assessment, emergency operation planning, capability maintenance, mitigation efforts, emergency operations, and evaluation. The second section of IEMS, which focuses on capabilities improvements, includes the elements of capability shortfalls, multi-year development plan, annual development plan, state and local resources, federal resources, and annual work increment. That final step is the process under which “all changes and improvements to response and capability planning in each step” of the overall IEMS process “are recorded and consolidated” (Kelly, 2002, p. 10).

Another key aspect of the IEMS is that it “integrates partnerships that include all stakeholders in the community’s decision-making processes.” As such, it is a system that “is intended to create an organizational culture that is critical to achieving unity of effort between government, key community partners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector” (IAEM, 2007, p. 6)

Attempts at Integrated Emergency Responses without the IEMS

Prior to the advent of the IEMS, responses to disasters still required integrated responses, as they, by definition, still overwhelmed the capabilities of the local infrastructure. Two good examples of this are the responses to the Jonestown, Pennsylvania flood of 1889 and the detonation of an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan in 1945. In both incidents, authorities in all levels of the government, as well as NGOs, made every effort to integrate and coordinate an effective response to the disaster. However, the study of these responses demonstrates how much more effective a response can be when there are established IEMS-compliant programs in place prior to the onset of the incident.

The Jonestown, PA flood of 1889

When the South Fork Dam burst on May 31, 1889, it released 20 million tons of water, and sent a 40 foot wave heading straight for Johnstown, PA. By the time the waters receded, over 2,200 people had been killed by the flood. An international “wave of charity—money, food, medical supplies, clothing, and lumber—from around the world” began to flow into the region to assist in the response and relief efforts for this disaster (Gibson, 2006). Additionally, “medical societies and doctors and hospitals sent medicines and bandages [and] doctors left their practices and hurried to Johnstown to assist.”  Under the direction of Clara Barton, the Red Cross responded from Washington, D.C., and “built hotels for people to live in and warehouses to store the many supplies the community received” (Johnstown Flood Museum, 2012).

Despite all of this aid and support being eagerly rendered from around the world, the response was disorderly and inefficient. Many flood survivors lived in tents as they endured the recovery phase of the disaster, and corpses were literally lined up awaiting a loved one to identify them and claim the remains. Additionally, emergency management was still so far from being what it is today, that there were little to no mitigation activities, and “no city, county, or state legislation was enacted to protect people from similar disasters in the future” (Johnstown Flood Museum, 2012).

The nuclear attack on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945

On August 6, 1945, the Japanese city of Hiroshima was devastated by an atomic bomb dropped by an American warplane. The response involved every local asset that was left functioning, if not intact, as well as the eventual participation of many national assets and international NGOs. With many of the city’s medical facilities completely destroyed, the remaining ones were faced with a seemingly impossible influx of horribly wounded patients into their heavily damaged buildings. The medical personnel of the city also were not spared the same fates as the rest of the city’s inhabitants:

…with their offices and hospitals destroyed, their equipment scattered, their own bodies incapacitated in varying degrees… Of a hundred and fifty doctors in the city, sixty-five were already dead and most of the rest were wounded. Of 1,780 nurses, 1,654 were dead or too badly hurt to work. In the biggest hospital, that of the Red Cross, only six doctors out of thirty were able to function, and only ten nurses out of more than two hundred (Hersey, 1946, p. 24).

That was the best and biggest hospital in Hiroshima, and was fortunately still intact enough to be able to receive patients. It was a hospital with a 600 bed capacity. After the blast, over 10,000 patients showed up to that hospital, seeking care. Even a week after the detonation, when that facility had regained a sense of “comparative orderliness,” there were still patients “scattered everywhere, even on the stairways.” It wasn’t until about a month after the blast that “the patients who still lay in the corridors at least had mats to sleep on and that the supply of medicines, which had given out in the first few days, had been replenished, though inadequately, by contributions from other cities” (Hersey, 1946, p. 25, 63, 70). The modesty of these improvements were despite having the response efforts “supported by the arrival of about 3,270 medical personnel from surrounding areas and other parts of Japan, along with another 2,910 relief workers” (Johnston, 2005).

Integrated Emergency Response Capabilities with the IEMS

The benefits to emergency responses that can be provided through an adherence to the concepts of the IEMS can be seen by studying the effectiveness of the coordinated, multi-agency responses to California wildfires over the past three decades. California’s state government has implemented what it refers to as the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA) refers to the SEMS as “the cornerstone of California’s emergency response system and the fundamental structure for the response phase of emergency management” (CalEMA, 2010).

The California state government requires adherence to SEMS through the California Emergency Services Act (ESA). Under the ESA, “state agencies are required to use SEMS and local government entities must use SEMS in order to be eligible for any reimbursement of response-related costs under the state’s disaster assistance programs.” The advantages to this uniform application of SEMS can be seen in the extremely efficient management of multiagency and multijurisdictional responses to disasters and emergencies throughout the state. SEMS effectively “unifies all elements of California’s emergency management community into a single integrated system and standardizes key elements.” These key elements are “the use of the Incident Command System (ICS), California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement (MMAA), the Operational Area (OA) concept, and multiagency or inter-agency coordination” (CalEMA, 2010).

References

California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA). (2010). Standardized Emergency Management System. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from http://cms.calema.ca.gov/prep_sems.aspx

Gibson, C. (2006). Our 10 greatest natural disasters. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from http://www.americanheritage.com/content/our-10-greatest-natural-disasters?page=show

Hersey, J. (1946). Hiroshima. New York: Vintage.

International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM). (2007). Principles of emergency management supplement. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from http://www.iaem.com/publications/documents/PrinciplesofEmergencyManagement.pdf

Johnston, W. R. (2005). Hiroshima atomic bombing, 1945. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1945JAP1.html

Johnstown Flood Museum. (2012). History of the Johnstown Flood. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from http://www.jaha.org/FloodMuseum/history.html

Kelly, P. T. (2002). The use of the Integrated Emergency Management System in Emergency Operations Center activities. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from http://www.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo34965.pdf

Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (2007). Emergency planning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2012). E/L101 foundations of emergency management instructor guide, volume 1. Emmitsburgh, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

Organization of Emergency Management Functions, Organizations, and Activities

Modern emergency management in America is organized and conducted by the guidance provided within the concepts of several key systems. These systems allow for a “systematic, proactive approach” to managing incidents of all types and scopes. The key systems that provide this guidance are the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS). These two systems, along with the National Response Framework (NRF), work “hand in hand” to provide a flexible, robust, all-hazards response capability to emergency management personnel and organizations (DHS, 2008, p. 1).

The Relationship between the NRF, ICS, and NIMS

The NRF “provides the structure and mechanisms for national-level policy for incident management,” while NIMS “provides the template for the management of incidents,” with the ICS supplying a modular system of command and control for protocol for incident management under the concepts of NIMS (DHS, 2008, p. 1, 91). With NIMS and ICS both providing formal guidance for incident management, it is important to address the ways in which each system organizes the various functions, organizations, and activities of emergency management.

Organization of NIMS Components

NIMS provides a system of components that are designed to be an integrated framework for the management of incidents nationwide. The components of NIMS are: preparedness, communications and information management, resource management, command and management, and ongoing management and maintenance. The preparedness component consists of specific methods for operational preparedness necessary to ensure efficient response and management capabilities with an all-hazards approach. The elements contained within the scope of this component consist of “planning; procedures and protocols; training and exercises; personnel qualifications, licensure, and certification; and equipment certification.” The fundamental principles of preparedness under NIMS are to develop a unified approach to emergency response and incident management that applies to all organizations and all types of incidents, and to “establish and sustain necessary capabilities to execute a full range of emergency management and incident response activities” (DHS, 2008, p. 9-10).

The second component of NIMS is communications and information management. This component focuses on the use of communications and information systems that are flexible and allow for a constant flow of information during response functions. The principles of this component are an emphasis on “the need for and maintenance of a common operating picture; interoperability; reliability, scalability, and portability; and resiliency and redundancy of any system and its components” (DHS, 2008, p. 23).

The next NIMS component is resource management. This component is based on the understanding that properly managed resources, such as personnel, teams, facilities, equipment, and supplies, are necessary for an efficient emergency response to an incident. The underlying concepts of this are to: maintain consistency in the methods of resource identification, acquisition allocation and tracking; to standardize the classification of the resources needed in incident responses; the integrated coordination of resources; incorporating the use of available resources from all available sources into incident planning and response; including communications and information management elements into response management; and the use of “consistent training, licensure, and certification standards” in resource management (DHS, 2008, p. 31-2).

Command and management is the fourth component of NIMS. This component is based on the premise that “the Incident Command System (ICS), Multiagency Coordination System (MACS), and Public Information are the fundamental elements of incident management” because “These elements provide standardization through consistent terminology and established organizational structures” (DHS, 2008, p.45). These systems and this component of NIMS are founded on the following characteristics of incident management: common terminology, modular organization, management by objectives, incident action planning, manageable span of control, incident facilities and locations, comprehensive resource management, integrated communications, establishment and transfer of command, chain of command and unity of command, unified command, accountability, dispatch and deployment, information and intelligence management (FEMA, 2009, p. 2).

The last of the NIMS components is “ongoing management and maintenance.” The elements of this component are the National Integration Center (NIC) and Supporting Technologies. The NIC is the mechanism that was established under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 to ensure “the ongoing management and maintenance of NIMS, including regular consultation with other Federal departments and agencies; State, tribal, and local stakeholders; nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); and the private sector.” Supporting Technologies are the strategic research and development (R&D) elements of this component, and are based on the principles of interoperability and compatibility, technology support, technology standards, broad-based requirements, and strategic R&D planning (DHS, 2008, p. 79-80).

Organization of ICS Components

The ICS is comprised of “five major functional areas: Command, Operations, Planning, Logistics, and Finance/Administration. (A sixth functional area, Intelligence/Investigations, may be established if required.)” (DHS, 2008, p. 91). A separate section that was included under the original Incident Management System was the Safety Section, but this responsibility is tasked under the command area in the NIMS ICS standards (Perry & Lindell, 2007, p. 393).

There are four support sections that fall under the command element of the ICS. These are the Operations section, which “deals directly with all operational activities at the incident site,” and the Planning section, which “demands units for resources, situation, demobilization, documentation, and technical specialists.” Additionally, there are the Logistics section, which is the “support mechanism for the incident response,” and oversees the functions of staging, accountability, rehabilitation, and resources, and the Finance/Administration section, which is responsible for procurement, cost recovery, liability, and risk management (Perry & Lindell, 2007, p. 391-2).

Federal, State, Local, and Industry Roles in Emergency Management

The lead agency in federal emergency management is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA’s role is American emergency management is to “plan, prepare, and respond to disasters in a way that functionally coordinates, or helps to coordinate, the provision of federal resources, human-power, and equipment possessed by “other” federal departments, agencies, and offices.” The act of actually delivering the assistance in nationally declared disasters is not FEMA’s responsibility. Rather, that is done through coordination with other entities from all levels of government and the private sector (Sylves, 2008, p. 136).

The federal government has, in the past two decades, further formalized its working relationships with the state governments through many new federal-state agreements and Performance Partnerships. These preemptive arrangements are vital to an efficient an integrated disaster response for numerous reasons. First, they allow for an effective and coordinated deployment of federal response capabilities when necessary and requested by the governor(s) of the affected state(s). Also, since all disasters start and end as local incidents, these agreements are integral in ensuring that the local and state governments have systems in place to be able to receive the appropriate federal assistance when needed (Sylves, 2008, p. 136).

A part of the collaborative national disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery assets that is often left out when addressing emergency management planning considerations is the role that industry in the private sector can play in all of these phases. Private sector entities can help to “ensure appropriate risk reduction strategies, adequate measures for implementation of protection and security measures, and a liability and insurance regime that takes proper account of the needs of the community and business sector alike.” The potential partners in this arena also possess “a large untapped potential to help provide skilled services in form of technical manpower or in-kind donations of goods or services for preparedness & emergency response phase of disaster management” (Srinivas, n.d.).

The structure and framework provided by the NRF, NIMS, and ICS, as well as the innumerable assets available throughout all levels of both the public and private sector provide emergency managers in America with a plethora of options for dealing with all phases of emergency planning and response. It is vital to this nation’s homeland security that the personnel and agencies entrusted with these responsibilities are knowledgeable, cognizant, and enthusiastic about exploiting each and every one of these options in preparing for and responding to incidents in the future.

References

Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (2008). National incident management system. Retrieved February 11, 2014, from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/NIMS_core.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2009). Incident management handbook. Retrieved February 11, 2014, from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/emergency_response/downloads/hazard/Incident%20Management%20Handbook6-09.pdf

Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (2007). Emergency planning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Srinivas, H. (n.d.). Disaster management: a role for the private sector. Retrieved February 11, 2014, from http://www.gdrc.org/uem/disasters/dm-privatesector.html

Sylves, R. (2008). Disaster policy & politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Wildland Firefighting

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the 19 firefighters who were killed in the line of duty yesterday and are with the loved ones that they left behind.

Not only are wildland firefighters part of a long and distinguished tradition of bravery, service, and sacrifice, but the history of that service has actually led emergency management into its current era.

One of the most significant events in the history of emergency management was the Laguna wildfire of 1970. The Laguna fire, previously known as the Kitchen Creek fire and the Boulder Oaks Fire, devastated a large portion of southern California for thirteen days (Gabbert, 2009). By the end of that time, the fire had claimed sixteen lives, seven hundred structures, over a half-million acres of land, and approximately $234 million in damages. The emergency response to this incident was hampered by the fact that the multitude of agencies and jurisdictions that responded to it had no uniform way to communicate or command the incident. This led to a Congressional mandate for the U.S. Forest Service to design and implement a system that would correct these shortcomings in future multi-jurisdictional wildfires (FEMA, n.d.).

This led to the development of a system known as FIRESCOPE (Firefighting Resources of California Organized for Potential Emergencies). One of the major developments to come out of FIRESCOPE was the Incident Management System, or IMS (Ciottone, 2006, p. 79). This original version of the IMS was designed specifically for large-scale incidents in southern California. In 1985, Phoenix Fire Chief Alan Brunacini, with support from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), “adapted and enhanced the system so that it could be used as easily in small events as in large ones,” thus producing the new national standards of the Incident Management System (Perry & Lindell, 2007, p. 386-7).

Because the National Incident Management System (NIMS) can trace its inception directly back to the Laguna fire of 1970, I hold that incident as the most significant single event in the history of emergency management. There have been many other incidents, pieces of legislation, and other events both before and after this fire that have had extremely important effects on emergency management. However, out of all events leading up to the modern era of emergency management, it was this incident that led to the development of a national system of uniformed and interoperable policies and procedures for emergency responses. As for the many events since this incident that have had major impacts on emergency management, they can generally be classified as having produced refinements in the system that originated from this one devastating and tragic fire in 1970.

As the battle against the fire in and around Yarnell, Arizona continues, please keep the response crews in your thoughts and remember the sacrifices and contributions that wildland firefighters have made, are making, and will continue to make to our public safety efforts in the past, present, and future.

References:

Ciottone, G. R. (2006). Disaster Medicine (3rd ed). Philadelphia, PA: Mosby.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (n.d.) NIMS and the Incident Command System. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://www.fema.gov/txt/nims/nims_ics_position_paper.txt

Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (2007). Emergency Planning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Gabbert, B. (2009). Laguna Fire, September 26, 1970. Wildfire Today. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://wildfiretoday.com/2009/09/26/laguna-fire-september-26-1970/

Overview of the Elements of Federal Disaster Response Capabilities

Federal disaster response in America has evolved greatly over many decades. As emergency management in this country has advanced, the progress can be seen in the form of numerous policies, concepts, systems, and pieces of legislation. Some of the key elements of the coordinated federal response to disasters that have emerged are the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS), the Incident Command System (ICS) the National Response Framework, and the Emergency Support Functions (ESFs). These are all key elements of the contemporary capabilities that the United States has at its disposal for the prevention of, preparedness for, response to, recovery from, and mitigation of disasters and their effects, and they must all be understood to fully grasp the nature of those capabilities. It is this overall coordinated effort that involves all aspects and levels of the government that defines modern emergency management and disaster response in America.

The National Incident Management System

Prior to three decades ago, emergency management and response was handled based solely on the established protocols of the each local jurisdiction. While each agency often felt confident in their capabilities to coordinate an effective response to emergencies and disasters, major problems arose when multi-agency or multi-jurisdictional coordination was needed. Significant impediments to an efficiently coordinated response included the lack of interoperability of communications systems and a common terminology. Emergency responders and managers needed to all have the capability to both communicate with each other and to understand what the other was saying. It was identified that there was a dire need for a nationwide system that was both “flexible, to work in all incidents,” and “standardized, to provide a coordinated, efficient response to each incident” so that all agencies could effectively work together to effect the best possible response to each incident (ASPCA, 2012).

In order to do this, the National Incident Management System (NIMS) was created. NIMS instituted a uniformed, all-hazards, multi-jurisdictional and multi-agency approach to emergency response. NIMS is an invaluable asset to this country’s emergency response capabilities because it “provides a consistent, flexible and adjustable national framework within which government and private entities at all levels can work together to manage
domestic incidents, regardless of their cause, size, location or complexity. This flexibility applies across all phases of incident management: prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation” (FEMA, 2004).

NIMS provides a method to accomplish this that includes “a unified approach to incident management; standard command and management structures; and emphasis on preparedness, mutual aid and resource management” (PDRTC, n.d.). This has been accomplished through the establishment of the five “key features” of NIMS. These features are: the Incident Command System, which will be covered in detail in the next section; Communications and Information Management, which enforces standardized and interoperable communications systems and common terminology (“plain English”) among emergency responders nation-wide; Preparedness, which enforces the incorporation of “a range of measures, actions, and processes accomplished before an incident happens;” the Joint Information System (JIS), which unifies command and communications assets from all levels of government throughout an incident; and the NIMS Integration Center (NIC), which oversees the development and implementation of NIMS throughout the country (Infracritical, 2009).

The Incident Command System

One of the key components of NIMS is the Incident Command System (ICS). The ICS is “a standardized on-scene incident management concept designed specifically to allow responders to adopt an integrated organizational structure equal to the complexity and demands of any single incident or multiple incidents without being hindered by jurisdictional boundaries” (OSHA, n.d.). There are fourteen characteristics of the ICS that give it this flexibility and efficiency. These characteristics are: common terminology, modular organization, management by objectives, incident management planning manageable span of control, incident facilities and locations, comprehensive resource management, integrated communications, establishment and transfer of command, chain of command and unity of command, unified command, accountability, dispatch/deployment, and information and intelligence management (FEMA, n.d.).

A factor that is stressed greatly, and given paramount attention when implementing the ICS, is the modular organization characteristic of the system. While purposefully leaving the flexibility for adaptation as appropriate to differing jurisdictions, agencies, and incidents, the ICS uses a reasonably universal system of organization. This system includes “a relatively standard organizational structure, specific names for various levels of supervision and standard job titles and terminology.” This structure is based around the Incident Commander, the Command Staff, and the General Staff. Typically, the Command Staff will consist of a Public Information Officer, Safety Officer, and Liaison Officer, and the General Staff will consist of the Planning Chief, Operations Chief, Logistics Chief, and Finance and Administration Chief (Green, 2001, p. 9-12).

The National Response Framework

Using the NIMS template, the federal government established the National Response Framework (NRF). The NRF is a response support system that is established and always in place when needed. This system “establishes a single, comprehensive approach to domestic incident management to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.” It is a plan that is designed to handle emergencies and disasters with an all-hazards approach, and it “provides the structure and mechanisms for national-level policy and operational direction for domestic incident management” (EPA, 2011).

The NRF provides the “key principles, roles, and structures that organize the way we respond as a Nation.” It establishes a structure that enables all levels and sectors of public and private entities within America to work together in a “coordinated, effective national response.” In order to do this, the NRF uses the “key principles” of: engaged partnership of leaders at all levels; a tiered response that stresses management at the lowest possible level; scalable, flexible, and adaptable operational capabilities; unity of effort through unity of command and the cooperation of each agency that is involved in the incident; and a readiness to act at all levels of leadership and administration (FEMA, 2008a).

Emergency Support Functions

In order to more effectively manage and employ federal resources before, during, or after a disaster, the available resources have been grouped into fifteen categories referred to as Emergency Support Functions (ESFs). The ESFs are specialized groups of resources that can be dispatched by the federal government to support and interface with the affected jurisdictions. The ESFs are: 1) Transportation; 2) Communications; 3) Public Works and Engineering; 4) Firefighting; 5) Emergency Management; 6) Mass Care, Housing and Human Services; 7) Resource Support; 8) Public Health and Medical Services; 9) Urban Search and Rescue; 10) Oil and Hazardous Materials Response; 11) Agriculture and Natural Resources; 12) Energy; 13) Public Safety and Security; 14) Long-Term Community Recovery and Mitigation; and 15) External Affairs (Perry & Lindell, 2007, p. 414-6).

Each of these ESFs obligate federal help when activated, and can be called into action either independently or as a complete group, depending on the scale of the incident requiring the response (Perry & Lindell, 2007, p. 414-6). Each ESF has a specific federal agency that is assigned as the primary agency. When an activation of an ESF is required, the primary agency is notified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Operations Center, and given a time to report to the appropriate National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) (FEMA, 2008b). It is through this process that the concepts of NIMS and the NRF are seen to fruition and the efforts and assets of all levels of government are integrated into the coordinated response to any disaster.

References

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). (2012). Understanding NIMS and ICS. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from http://www.aspcapro.org/understanding-nims-and-ics.php

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2011). The National Response Framework (NRF). Retrieved March 30, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/nrs/nrp.htm

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2004). NIMS and the Incident Command System. Retrieved February 28, 2012, from http://www.fema.gov/txt/nims/nims_ics_position_paper

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2008a). National Response Framework. Retrieved March 31, 2012, from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/about_nrf.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2008b). Emergency Support Function annexes: introduction. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-esf-intro.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (n.d.). ICS management characteristics. Retrieved February 28, 2012, from http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/ICSpopup.htm

Green, G. G. (2001). Command and control of disaster operations. USA: Universal.

Infracritical. (2009). Key features of ‘NIMS.’ Retrieved March 29, 2012, from http://nims.infracritical.com/nimsinfo-3.html

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (n.d.) What is an incident command system? Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/ics/what_is_ics.html

Pediatric Disaster Resource and Training Center (PDRTC). (n.d.) NIMS. Retrieved March 31, 2012, from http://www.chladisastercenter.org/site/c.ntJYJ6MLIsE/b.4352739/k.BC61/NIMS.htm

Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (2007). Emergency Planning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.