National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

February 26, 2021 R46696

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select February 26, 2021
Issues
Shawn Reese
The nation has faced challenges in the effort to respond to, and recover from, the Coronavirus
Analyst in Emergency
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Persistent challenges related to acquisition and delivery of
Management and
diagnostic tests, production and management of personal protective equipment, and development
Homeland Security Policy
and distribution of vaccines have introduced new questions about the state of national readiness,

for pandemics as well as other emergencies more broadly.
Lauren R. Stienstra
Section Research Manager
This is not the first time the nation has evaluated its state of preparedness. In the wake of the

response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress directed the President to develop a stronger system for
building national preparedness for all types of emergencies and disasters. In February 2011,

President Barack Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 8, which established a National
Preparedness Goal, System, and Report to provide the nation with a framework for organizing preparedness activities. The
strategies set forth in this directive govern how the “whole community”—including individuals, families, communities,
localities, tribal nations, territories, states, and federal agencies—can strengthen the security and resilience of the nation.
Through PPD-8, President Obama directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop the National Preparedness System.
This responsibility was delegated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which has since organized a
systematic process for developing national preparedness. To account for the myriad of threats faced by stakeholders across
the nation, the process employs an all-hazards, capabilities-based approach and is intended for use by the “whole
community.” Preparedness is divided into five major mission areas—prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and
recovery—so that preparedness activities can be organized and integrated across the entire lifecycle of an incident.
The National Preparedness System outlines six major actions to develop preparedness. The process begins with (1)
identifying and assessing risk to understand existing, potential, and perceived threats and hazards. The information generated
by this analysis provides the foundation for the next several steps, which detail how this risk is managed: by (2) estimating
the capabilities required to address it, (3) building and sustaining those capabilities, and (4) planning to deliver those
capabilities. These steps ensure that preparedness stakeholder have the necessary plans, equipment, training, and
organizations in place to execute critical activities. Next, the National Preparedness System describes a process for (5)
validating capabilities, to ensure capabilities are working as intended. This cycle is intended to be one of continuous
improvement, and therefore (6) reviewing and updating these efforts is critical to long-term success.
The National Preparedness System has guided the development of preparedness for the past decade. As Congress considers
the state of domestic preparedness, how it is organized, designed, and implemented will be important to any attempts to
amend it. This report provides this background, and also introduces possible considerations for strengthening the nation’s
preparedness, including:
 changes to assignment of federal responsibility for preparedness,
 potential codification of key planning documents,
 potential federalism challenges related to burdens placed on state and local governments,
 adjustments to the funding for preparedness grants, and
 modifications to the process by which FEMA detects and corrects preparedness gaps.

Congressional Research Service

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Introduction
Historically and legislatively, preparedness for disasters and emergencies is the responsibility of
state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) governments. Over time, however, the federal
government has taken a formal role in developing preparedness by providing targeted grants,
developing national guidance, and participating in more responses. Landmark events, such as the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (9/11), Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, as well as the
confluence of hurricanes, wildfires, and other climate-related events in 2017, all precipitated
major legislation to adjust the way the nation prepares to prevent, protect against, mitigate,
respond, and recover from major incidents.
The events of 9/11 introduced questions about the nation’s ability to address domestic incidents.
In addition to the legislative and executive actions taken to address the threat of terrorism, the
general state of national preparedness was examined. In December of 2003, President George W.
Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), which established “policies to
strengthen the preparedness of the United States to prevent and respond to threatened or actual
domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.”1 HSPD-8 was intended as a
companion to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5), which enhanced the ability
of the nation to manage domestic incidents by establishing a national incident management
system.2 Together, these orders represent the initial federal efforts to address the issue of national
preparedness in the modern era.
Two years later, Hurricane Katrina came ashore and severely damaged the City of New Orleans
and other parts of the Gulf Coast. After a much-criticized response, both federal and state
preparedness was found lacking.3 Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA; P.L. 109-295),4 which required the President to develop a
national preparedness goal, as well as a system for achieving that goal.5 In response to this
mandate, President Barack Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness
(PPD-8), evolving from and superseding HSPD-8. PPD-8 defined the National Preparedness Goal
(NPG) as well as the organizing plan for federal preparedness efforts: the National Preparedness
System (NPS). This report summarizes the NPG and the NPS, as well as some of their key
elements. It also briefly discusses policy options and considerations for Congress, including
issues related to establishing the National Planning Frameworks (NPFs) in statute and addressing
gaps in the nation’s preparedness capabilities.
Glossary of Abbreviations
AAR
After Action Report
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
NIMS
National Incident Management System

1 White House, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5,” February 28, 2003, https://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html.
2 Ibid.
3 U.S. Congress, House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane
Katrina, A Failure of Initiative, Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and
Response to Hurricane Katrina Report, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., February 15, 2006, pp. 109-337.
4 P.L. 109-295.
5 6 U.S.C. §§743-744.
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 7 National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

NLE
National Level Exercise
NPF
National Planning Frameworks
NPG
National Preparedness Goal
NPR
National Preparedness Report
NPS
National Preparedness System
PPD-8
Presidential Policy Directive 8
SPR
Stakeholder Preparedness Review
THIRA
Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
National Preparedness Goal and System
The National Preparedness System is intended to “ensure the Nation’s ability to prevent, respond
to, recover from, and mitigate against natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made
disasters.”6 The National Preparedness System, along with the National Preparedness Goal, is
statutorily required by PKEMRA and assigns responsibility for development of the National
Preparedness Goal and National Preparedness System to the President.7 On March 30, 2011,
President Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8) to address this mandate after a
decade-long review of national preparedness, which began in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks.8 PPD-8 required a National Preparedness Goal and assigned its development to the
Secretary of Homeland Security.9 The current National Preparedness Goal is:
A secure and resilient nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to
prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that
pose the greatest risk.10
To achieve this goal, the President also outlined the requirements for the National Preparedness
System, to:
help guide the domestic efforts of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit
sectors, and the public to build and sustain the capabilities outlined in the national
preparedness goal. The national preparedness system shall include guidance for planning,
organization, equipment, training, and exercises to build and maintain domestic
capabilities. It shall provide an all-of-Nation approach for building and sustaining a cycle
of preparedness activities over time.11
The current approach for building and sustaining the cycle of preparedness involves six major
activities, as detailed in Figure 1.

6 Ibid.
7 Section 642 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA, P.L. 109-295), 6 U.S.C.
§742.
8 White House, “PPD-8: Announcing the National Preparedness Goal,” October 7, 2011,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/10/07/ppd-8-announcing-national-preparedness-goal.
9 Ibid.
10 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Preparedness Goal,
https://www.fema.gov/national-preparedness-goal.
11 White House, “PPD-8: Announcing the National Preparedness Goal,” October 7, 2011,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/10/07/ppd-8-announcing-national-preparedness-goal.
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 10

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Figure 1. Six Parts of the National Preparedness System

Source: CRS interpretation of the process described by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, National Preparedness System, available at https://www.fema.gov/emergency-
managers/national-preparedness/system.
The approach is intended to apply to the full range of preparedness stakeholders, including
individuals, families, communities, localities, tribes, states, territories, and federal entities.
The following sections describe the six parts of the NPS in detail:
1. Identifying and Assessing Risk;
2. Estimating Capability Requirements;
3. Building and Sustaining Capabilities;
4. Planning to Deliver Capabilities;
5. Validating Capabilities; and
6. Reviewing and Updating.
What Is “Capability”?
“Capabilities” are the community-wide activities and tasks performed before, during, and after disasters. Examples
include physical protective measures, fire management and suppression, mass care services, and economic
recovery. A ful list is available in Figure 2.
Identifying and Assessing Risk
Building preparedness begins by understanding what risks to prepare for and how to prepare for
them. To support, standardize, and measure risk and the activities that manage risk, FEMA has
developed a suite of assessment tools through its National Risk and Capability Assessment
(NRCA) products.12 The results of the assessments provide stakeholders with data to make
targeted investments in preparedness, by either reducing risk or developing capability. Further,
when taken together, the results also inform a broader understanding of national risk, capabilities,

12 NCRA’s “Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 201, 3rd Edition” and other tools are available at
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/risk-capability-assessment.
Congressional Research Service
3

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

and gaps. Such analysis is presented annually in the National Preparedness Report, which is
discussed later in this report.
Risk Identification
Since 2012, the NRCA has provided stakeholders with a standardized methodology for assessing
risk through its Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) guidance. In
2018, this guidance was further standardized so that community data can be better compared,
analyzed, and integrated at the national level to provide a more comprehensive understanding of
national preparedness. Additionally, completion of the assessment by state, local, territorial and
tribal governments is a requirement for some federal grants, including the Homeland Security
Grant Program, the Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program, and the Emergency Management
Performance Grant Program.13
FEMA conducts a National THIRA. This assessment was last completed in 2019 and the results
describe the level of capability that the Nation—including government, private, and non-
profit sectors—would need to fully manage the Nation’s threats and hazards of greatest
concern while concurrently engaging in response and recovery efforts for ongoing
disasters.14
Through this process, FEMA identified major earthquakes, pandemics and biological attacks,
detonation of improvised nuclear devices, and space weather as incidents that would stress
national capabilities.15 Additionally, systemic and emerging risks were also identified, including
cybersecurity, unmanned aerial systems, and electromagnetic pulses.16
Capability Assessment
After identifying apparent risks and the capabilities needed to meet them, current levels of
capability are assessed through the Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) process. The NRCA
toolkit describes the process as
a self-assessment of a jurisdiction’s current capability levels against the targets identified
in the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). Using the targets
from the THIRA, jurisdictions identify their current capability and how that capability
changed over the last year, including capabilities lost, sustained, and built.17
Stakeholders can use this data to identify gaps between existing and needed capabilities and make
decisions about investments in preparedness. The information collected in this process may be
used to support budget request justifications, make staffing decisions, or inform grant
applications. Identifying risk and assessing capability form the basis for the remaining steps in the
National Preparedness System.

13 More information on the requirements of these grants can be found in FEMA’s Preparedness Grants Manual,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/fema_preparedness-grants-manual.pdf.
14 Ibid.
15 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2019 National Preparedness
Report, p. 18, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_2020-national-preparedness-report.pdf.
16 Ibid., pp. 18-26.
17 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Risk and Capability
Assessment, https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/risk-capability-assessment.
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 10 link to page 10 National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Estimating Capability Requirements
The National Preparedness System emphasizes capability-based planning—developing and
maintaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities to address threats and hazards, in lieu of preparing
for every potential scenario. After pertinent risks are identified, capabilities are selected to
address those risks. Some capabilities may already exist; others may need to be developed to
address apparent gaps. For instance, to address the threat of hurricanes, a community may need to
develop its Critical Transportation capability to support potential evacuations. The community
would need to develop a capability target, or a level at which they need to develop that activity to
address the risk. Capability may exist within current systems and resources (i.e., the community
may have transportation resources to evacuate 20% of its population); however, if that
measurement falls short of the target, then a gap may need to be addressed.
Core Capabilities and Mission Areas
The National Preparedness System identifies 32 “core” capabilities, or distinct critical activities,
needed to achieve the National Preparedness Goal.18 These activities are performed before,
during, and after disasters to reduce risk, save lives, and recover from incidents. Capabilities are
intended to be built and sustained by all preparedness stakeholders through planning,
organization, equipment, training, and exercise. The full list of capabilities is illustrated in Figure
2.

18 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Core Capabilities,
https://www.fema.gov/core-capabilities.
Congressional Research Service
5

link to page 11

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Figure 2. Core Capabilities

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, available at
https://emilms.fema.gov/IS0363/groups/15.html.
To provide a coordinated framework for organizing the development and delivery of these
activities, the 32 core capabilities are grouped into five mission areas. Grouping capabilities into
mission areas ensures that related activities are integrated and provides efficiencies when
planning, organizing, equipping, training, and exercising critical tasks, as illustrated by Figure 3.
The five missions outlined in the National Preparedness Goal are:
 Prevention—prevent, avoid, or stop an imminent, threatened, or actual act of
terrorism;
 Protection—protect U.S. citizens, residents, visitors, and assets against the
greatest threats and hazards in a manner that allows national interests,
aspirations, and way of life to thrive;
 Mitigation—reduce the loss of life and property by lessening the impact of future
disasters;
 Response—respond quickly to save lives, protect property and the environment,
and meet basic human needs in the aftermath of a catastrophic incident; and
 Recovery—recover through a focus on the timely restoration, strengthening and
revitalization of infrastructure, housing, and a sustainable economy, as well as the
Congressional Research Service
6

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

health, social, cultural, historic, and environmental fabric of our communities
affected by a catastrophic incident.19
Figure 3. Mission Areas of the National Preparedness Goal

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, available at
https://emilms.fema.gov/IS0120c/groups/28.html.
The 32 core capabilities outlined by the National Preparedness Goal represent the critical
competencies needed to address all types of emergencies, from local incidents addressed with
local resources to national disasters involving presidential declarations under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq., henceforth
referred to as the Stafford Act) and a federal response.20
Neither the mission areas nor the capabilities are the exclusive responsibility of any one
government agency or organization. Instead, they call for the combined efforts of the “whole
community,” including individuals and families, nonprofit and religious organizations, private
sector companies, schools, media outlets, as well as state, local territorial and tribal governments
and federal partners.
Building and Sustaining Capabilities
Preparedness stakeholders are challenged to prioritize resources to develop the capabilities they
need most, either to address the highest probability or highest consequence threats. Whole
community partners, including state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, are encouraged to
enhance their capabilities through planning, equipping, training, and other preparedness activities.
To support these activities, several agencies administer suites of grants and technical assistance

19 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Preparedness Goal,
https://www.fema.gov/national-preparedness-goal.
20 For more information on responding to and recovering from major disasters, see CRS Report R41981, Congressional
Primer on Responding to and Recovering from Major Disasters and Emergencies, by Bruce R. Lindsay and Elizabeth
M. Webster.
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 23 National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

programs. Most of these programs are administered by the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) although the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other agencies also
have significant programs. Since 2002, DHS has provided over $53 billion to grant recipients in
support of capability development and the National Preparedness Goal.21 A list of major
preparedness grants can be found in Appendix A.
As aforementioned, the development of capability involves many stakeholders throughout the
government and nongovernmental community. To ensure the successful delivery of these
capabilities, FEMA has developed the National Incident Management System (NIMS). NIMS
provides the “shared vocabulary, systems and processes” necessary to ensure that prevention,
protection, mitigation, response, and recovery activities are coordinated and interoperable.22
NIMS describes how to manage the resources delivering core capabilities, how to provide
command and control of those resources, and how to communicate information about the
activities of those resources. Key features of NIMS include the Incident Command System,
guidelines for mutual aid, the National Qualification System, and resource typing.23 Building and
sustaining capabilities in accordance with the NIMS guidance ensures that the capability can be
integrated with the efforts of partner agencies. Some federal agencies condition preparedness
grants on the adoption of NIMS.
Planning to Deliver Capabilities
The coordination of preparedness activities is set forth by the National Planning Frameworks
(NPFs). These documents provide a methodology for engaging the whole community and
synchronizing preparedness efforts. There is an NPF for each mission area: prevention,
protection, mitigation, response, and recovery. Each describes the strategy and doctrine for
delivering core capabilities.
National Prevention Framework
The National Prevention Framework details how individuals and government agencies at the
state, local, tribal, territorial, and federal levels should respond to information about imminent
threats to the homeland. The framework offers guidance on how to interrupt, deter, avert, or
otherwise prevent an act of terrorism by:
 describing the core capabilities needed to prevent an imminent act of terrorism;
 aligning key roles and responsibilities to deliver prevention capabilities in time-
sensitive situations;
 describing coordinating structures that enable all stakeholders to work together;
and
 laying the foundation for operational coordination and planning that will
synchronize prevention efforts with the whole community.

21 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Preparedness Grants,
https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness.
22 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Incident Management
System, https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/nims.
23 The Third Edition of the NIMS Doctrine (October 2017) is available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/
2020-07/fema_nims_doctrine-2017.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Departments or agencies, as well as private and nonprofit entities, with unique missions in
Prevention, bring additional capabilities to bear through these structures. These structures
function on multiple levels, to include national-level coordinating structures such as:
 DHS National Operations Center (NOC);
 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Strategic Information and Operations
Center (SIOC);
 Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) National Counterterrorism
Center (NCTC);
 Department of Defense (DOD) National Military Command Center (NMCC);
and
 FBI National Joint Terrorism Task Force (NJTTF).24
National Protection Framework
The National Protection Framework describes how to safeguard and defend against incidents and
disasters than may be unpreventable. The framework provides guidance on developing protection
at all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and individuals by:
 describing the core capabilities needed to achieve the protection mission area and
end-state of “creating conditions for a safer, more secure, and more resilient
Nation”;
 aligning key roles and responsibilities to deliver protection capabilities;
 describing coordinating structures that enable all stakeholders to work together;
and
 laying the foundation for further operational coordination and planning that will
synchronize protection efforts within the whole community and across the
prevention, mitigation, response, and recovery mission areas.
In the context of the National Protection Framework, the coordinating structures described within
the document support protection program implementation and are meant to enhance the nation’s
security. The National Protection Framework structures also address common vulnerabilities,
align resources, and promote the delivery of protection capabilities.25
National Mitigation Framework
FEMA states that the National Mitigation Framework establishes a common platform and forum
for coordinating and addressing how the nation manages risk through mitigation and lessening the
impact of disasters. The framework is intended to increase risk awareness and leverage mitigation
services and assets across the whole community. The coordinating structures for mitigation

24 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, The National Prevention
Framework, pp. 2-3, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/National_Prevention_Framework2nd-
june2016.pdf.
25 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, The National Protection
Framework, pp. 4-5, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/National_Protection_Framework2nd-
june2016.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

attempt to create a national culture shift that includes risk management and mitigation in
planning, decisionmaking, and development.26
National Response Framework
The National Response Framework (NRF) is a guide to how the nation may respond to all types
of disasters and emergencies. The NRF identifies, aligns, and coordinates key roles and
responsibilities across the nation and is intended to be scalable, flexible, and adaptable to any
incident, from those managed with local resources to those that require marshaling of resources
from across the nation. The capabilities described in the NRF detail what activities need to be
performed to save lives, protect property and the environment, meet basic human needs, stabilize
the incident, restore basic services and community functionality, and establish a safe and secure
environment moving towards the transition to recovery.27
Both the NRF and NIMS provide guidance on the coordination of emergency response activities
for the whole community. As the national standard for incident management, NIMS provides the
guidelines for operations and response activities. The NRF provides the structure for response
policy development and implementation.
Federal Authority for Response
While the NRF emphasizes that incident response should be managed at the lowest jurisdictional
level capable of handling the mission, some incidents merit federal involvement.28 Depending on
the size and type of the incident, responsibility for government action during an emergency can
lie with a number of federal agencies as designated by express or implied agency authority. For
these types of incidents, the agency with jurisdiction is designated the “lead agency.” However,
President George W. Bush’s Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5) identifies the
Secretary of Homeland Security as “the principal Federal official for domestic incident
management.”29 Generally, a federal agency can coordinate federal activities for emergency
response according to their statutory authorities until one or more of the criteria set forth by
HSPD-5 are met:
(1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the
assistance of the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has
been requested by the appropriate State and local authorities;
(3) more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in
responding to the incident; or

26 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, The National Mitigation
Framework, p. 5, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/National_Mitigation_Framework2nd_june2016.pdf.
27 As with all activities in support of the NPG, activities taken under the response mission must be consistent with all
pertinent statutes and policies, particularly those involving privacy and civil and human rights, such as the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Civil Rights Act of 1964.
28 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Overview of the National Planning Frameworks, Washington, DC, June
2016, pp. 6-7.
29 White House, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5,” February 28, 2003, https://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html.
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 25 National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security has been directed to assume responsibility for
managing the domestic incident by the President.30
If the President chooses to declare an emergency or major disaster under the Stafford Act, some
coordination responsibilities may be delegated to the FEMA Administrator.31 The Stafford Act
authorizes the President, through the FEMA Administrator, to provide financial and other
assistance to state, local, territorial and tribal governments, certain private nonprofit
organizations, and individuals to support response, recovery, and mitigation efforts following a
Stafford Act emergency or major disaster declaration.32
Coordination of Federal Activities
The federal government organizes its capabilities and resources for emergency response
according to the “emergency support function” (ESF) construct. Each of the 15 ESFs is composed
of a federal department or agency designated as the coordinator, along with additional primary
and support agencies. Assignments to these roles are based on authority, available resources, and
existing capabilities. Full descriptions of the ESFs are available in Appendix B.
Activation of ESFs, or the departments and agencies that support them, is done in accordance
with the demands of the incident. Depending on the authority being invoked to manage the
federal response, either FEMA or the lead agency for the incident can make these activations.
Federal personnel and resources may be assigned at the incident, regional, or headquarters levels.
Additionally, FEMA may issue mission assignments to obtain resources and services from federal
departments and agencies.33 The activities of the ESFs are coordinated at the National Response
Coordination Center (NRCC), the multiagency coordination center responsible for the overall
federal support for major disasters and emergencies. FEMA personnel as well as private sector
and nongovernmental organization representatives support the NRCC.
Deployable Federal Assets
Congress has authorized and appropriated a suite of deployable federal assets to support domestic
disaster response operations. A deployable federal asset generally refers to a set of specially
trained federal employees whose mission is to provide on-scene assistance to communities by
supporting their disaster response, such as Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMATs—
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services), Incident Management
Assistance Teams (IMATs—administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency), and
the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power—administered by the Department of Defense).
Typically, these assets only provide assistance at the request of states or tribes and in

30 Ibid.
31 Pursuant to DHS Delegation 9000.1, the DHS Secretary delegated to the FEMA Administrator the authority to
perform the functions assigned to the Secretary of Homeland Security in Executive Order 12148, as revoked in part and
amended by Section 1 of Executive Order 12673 and Section 52 of Executive Order 13286 of February 28, 2003,
relating to FEMA.
32 These authorities may be exercised independently of, concurrently with, or become part of a federal response
coordinated by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to presidential directive. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, National Response Framework, Washington, DC, October 28, 2019, p. 44, https://www.fema.gov/media-
library-data/1582825590194-2f000855d442fc3c9f18547d1468990d/NRF_FINALApproved_508_2011028v1040.pdf.
33 Through the Stafford Act and in accordance with 6 U.S.C. §§741(4) and 753(c).
Congressional Research Service
11

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

circumstances where the capabilities of nonfederal government entities are overwhelmed and a
state governor or the chief executive of a tribe requests assistance.34
Responsibility for these deployable assets lies with several different agencies and given this
diversity, there are many legal authorities and executive branch policies that govern their use in
response operations.35 Some primary federal policies guiding the use of deployable federal assets
include the NRF and accompanying Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP), NIMS, and the
Defense Support for Civilian Authorities (DSCA).36
National Disaster Recovery Framework
The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) provides guidance for how the nation can
prepare to recover from emergencies and disasters, particularly for incidents that are large-scale
or catastrophic. It provides a structure that enables disaster recovery managers at the state, local,
territorial and tribal levels to operate in a unified and collaborative manner.
The NDRF defines:
 Core recovery principles;
 Roles and responsibilities of recovery coordinators and other stakeholders;
 A coordinating structure that facilitates communication and collaboration among
all stakeholders;
 Guidance for pre- and post-disaster recovery planning; and
 The overall process by which communities can capitalize on opportunities to
rebuild stronger, smarter, and safer.
The NDRF outlines the following roles and concepts:
 Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC);
 State or Tribal Disaster Recovery Coordinators (SDRC or TDRC);
 Local Disaster Recovery Managers (LDRM); and
 Recovery Support Functions (RSF).
The coordinators and managers facilitate the incorporation of recovery considerations into the
decisionmaking process, and monitor the need for adjustments in assistance where necessary and
feasible throughout the recovery process.
Additionally, the Recovery Support Functions operate similarly to the NRF’s Emergency Support
Function, and provide a coordinating structure that facilitates problem solving, improves access to
resources, and fosters coordination among state and federal agencies, nongovernmental partners,
and stakeholders. Each RSF has coordinating and primary federal agencies and supporting

34 For more information on requests for federal assistance, see CRS Report R43784, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration
Process: A Primer, by Bruce R. Lindsay.
35 Some of the most notable authorities are the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.), Title XXVIII of the Public Health Service Act, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
§§101 et seq.), and the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. §§1385 et seq.).
36 More information on these assets is available in CRS Report R43560, Deployable Federal Assets Supporting
Domestic Disaster Response Operations: Summary and Considerations for Congress, coordinated by Jared T. Brown.
Congressional Research Service
12

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

organizations that operate together with local, state, and tribal government officials, NGOs, and
private sector partners.
Federal Interagency Operational Plans
Each of the NPFs are supported by a “federal interagency operational plan” (FIOP) that describes
how the federal government (rather than the whole community) aligns its resources to deliver
core capabilities.37 The operational plans for protection, mitigation, response, and recovery are
publicly available; the operational plan for prevention is not available on unclassified systems due
to national security concerns. The response and recovery FIOPs are also supported by incident-
specific annexes to provide additional detail on how disasters like power outages, mass
evacuation, and cyberattacks should be managed. The plans also provide the guidelines by which
federal departments and agencies develop and maintain their own operational plans.
Review of the Planning Frameworks
The National Planning Frameworks are intended to be living documents. Lead departments and
agencies, as designated in each framework, coordinate and oversee the review and maintenance
process for each NPF. The revision process may include developing or updating any documents
necessary to promote a unity of effort to build, sustain, and deliver the core capabilities essential
to achieving the NPG. The review process is expected to accomplish the following:
 assess and update information on the core capabilities;
 account for changes in organization and responsibility;
 ensure integration and consistency across the mission areas;
 update processes based on changes in the national risk landscape; and
 reflect progress in the nation’s activities associated with each mission area, the
need to execute new laws, executive orders, and presidential directives, as well as
strategic changes to national priorities and guidance, critical tasks, or national
capabilities.
The review is intended to capture best practices and lessons learned from both exercises and real
world incidents, as well as pertinent new processes and technologies.38 The frequency of required
updates is not prescribed in statute.
Validating Capabilities
After capabilities are developed and planned for, they are validated through exercise. Exercises
provide a low-risk, cost-effective means to test plans, policies, and procedures and identify gaps,
areas for improvement, and best practices.

37 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Interagency Operational
Plans, https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/frameworks/federal-interagency-operational-
plans.
38 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Overview of the National Planning Frameworks, Washington, DC, June
2016, p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
13

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program
To ensure that emergency exercises are conducted systematically, FEMA has developed a set of
guidelines to structure their design, development, conduct, and evaluation under the Homeland
Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP).39 The guidance includes methodologies for
assessing capability performance, identifying areas for improvement, and recommending
corrective actions in an After-Action Report and Improvement Plan. Through this process,
stakeholder agencies can improve their capabilities and plans, thereby closing preparedness gaps.
National Level Exercises
Within PKEMRA, Congress mandated that
he Administrator [of FEMA] shall periodically, but not less than biennially, perform
national exercises ... to test and evaluate the capability of Federal, State, Local and Tribal
governments to detect, disrupt and prevent threatened or actual catastrophic acts of
terrorism, especially those involving weapons of mass destruction,” and “to test and
evaluate the readiness of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments to respond and
recover in a coordinated and unified manner to catastrophic incidents.40
To meet this requirement, FEMA has implemented a two-year cycle of exercises across the nation
to validate capabilities in all mission areas. These “National Level Exercises” (NLEs) alternate
between addressing natural disasters and malicious adversaries. The selection of scenarios are
objectives are guided by the National Security Council’s Principals Committee’s strategic
priorities.41
The 2018 NLE focused on a mid-Atlantic hurricane and exercised the whole community’s ability
to take pre-landfall protective actions, plan for simultaneous response and recovery, and identify
the effects of sustained power outages.42 The 2020 NLE was intended to focus on cybersecurity;
however, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, FEMA Administrator Gaynor made the
decision to cancel the exercise to ensure FEMA’s resources remained dedicated to pandemic
response and recovery activities.43 Informational webinars, a preparedness seminar, and a
facilitated discussion between senior federal officials were conducted to satisfy the legislative
mandate.
The 2022 NLE is to focus on a catastrophic earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone in
the Pacific Northwest. This exercise is to build off the 2016 NLE “Cascadia Rising” and is to be
designed to validate planning and capability improvements made in the intervening years.44

39 The complete HSEEP doctrine is available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Homeland-Security-
Exercise-and-Evaluation-Program-Doctrine-2020-Revision-2-2-25.pdf.
40 6 U.S.C. §748(b)(3).
41 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Level Exercise
Background, https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/planning-exercises/nle/background.
42 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Previous National Level
Exercises, https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/planning-exercises/nle/previous.
43 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Level Exercise 2020,
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/planning-exercises/nle/2020.
44 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Level Exercise 2022,
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/planning-exercises/nle/2022.
Congressional Research Service
14

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Reviewing and Updating
FEMA acknowledges the importance of regular review of capabilities, resources, and plans and
encourages the constant evolution of preparedness. Continuous improvement is mentioned across
many of FEMA’s core documents to emphasize adaptation to changing threat landscapes and
capability profiles. There is no official guidance for conducting After-Action Reports (AARs) for
real-life incidents.
National Preparedness Report
As mandated by PPD-8 and consistent with PKEMRA, FEMA produces an annual report that
assesses national progress towards the National Preparedness Goal. This “National Preparedness
Report” (NPR) provides high-level descriptions of national risks and key threats as well as
analysis of capability targets and evaluation of progress towards preparedness goals. The 2020
NPR reviewed preparedness data gathered in 2019 and provided specific analysis on cascading
impacts from disasters, housing, vulnerable populations, and public-private partnerships.45 The
2021 NPR may explore the capability gaps exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Issues and Policy Considerations
A number of policy issues relevant to the National Preparedness System continue to be matters of
congressional debate. Especially as the nation faces challenges in responding to and recovering
from the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress may consider the ways in which preparedness can be
strengthened.
Assignment of Federal Responsibilities
Congress may review the leadership responsibilities for national preparedness dictated by PPD-8
policies. President Obama directed the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, to lead the
development of the National Preparedness Goal and System. This delegation of leadership is an
important distinction as it diverges from the language of PKEMRA, which directed the President
to develop the Goal and System by acting through the Administrator of FEMA. Congress may
review the impact of this decision on the mission of FEMA and DHS as it relates to the
fulfillment of PKEMRA. Congress may also evaluate the assignment of lead agency and
coordination roles to federal departments and agencies outlined in the National Planning
Frameworks. Further, while the NPFs may attempt to coordinate and de-conflict the authorities
and resources, they may potentially do so in a manner that does not meet the priorities and
preferences of Congress.
Codifying and Reporting on the National Planning Frameworks
The National Preparedness System and National Preparedness Goal are codified at 6 U.S.C
§§742-744. No other components of the NPS are established by law. NIMS and the NRF are

45 The 2020 National Preparedness Report is available at Department of Homeland Security, 2020 National
Preparedness Report, 2020, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_2020-national-preparedness-
report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

identified in 6 U.S.C. §744 in conjunction with the NPG. Congress may seek to establish in
statute the National Planning Frameworks.
Alternatively, Congress may require DHS to report on changes made to any NPF. For example, a
proposed amendment to a version of the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act would have
required the FEMA Administrator to report to Congress on “all changes that have been made to
any part of the National Response Framework” not later than 180 days after the enactment, and
report quarterly (starting January 1, 2021) to Congress all changes made to the NRF and
Emergency Support Functions.46 This would inform Congress; DHS; state, local, territorial, and
tribal governments; and homeland security stakeholders of changes to the NPFs generally, and the
NRF specifically. The statute currently does not include the scope or details of the NPS.
Changes to NPFs affect how all levels of government (and their private and public sector
partners) prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against incidents, emergencies, and
disasters. Currently, DHS states that it reviews the NPFs every four years to evaluate consistency
with existing and new policies, evolving conditions, and real-world applications.47
Impacts on State and Local Governments and other Community
Stakeholders
PPD-8 policies, such as the NPS, are not intended to place undue financial burden on state and
local governments, the public and non-profit sector, and private citizens. Congress may evaluate
PPD-8 guidance for its effect on these entities, especially for its compliance with the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4).48 Further, Members of Congress may assess the
effectiveness of the preparedness policies within their own districts and jurisdictions, and assess
the overall preparedness level of their communities by reviewing state and local Threat and
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRAs) and Stakeholder Preparedness Reviews
(SPRs). These documents are usually available through the state or tribal emergency management
agency. The capabilities identified in the National Preparedness Goal can serve as a guide for the
types of tasks each state and local government will be expected to deliver.
Funding for Preparedness Grants
Given that Congress has appropriated funding for preparedness grants for over 20 years, Congress
may evaluate its continued investment. Some might argue that since over $53 billion has been
appropriated for state and local homeland security and emergency preparedness, state and local
jurisdictions should have developed the capabilities required to meet the National Preparedness
Goal. The funding for preparedness grants has contracted several times in the past decade.49
Congress may evaluate the need for continuation of federal support and consider whether to
reduce or eliminate funding.

46 Congressional Record, vol. 166, no. 117, p. S3585, https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-166/
senate-section/page/S3585.
47 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Overview of the National Planning Frameworks, Washington, DC, June
2016, p. 9.
48 For more information on the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, see CRS Report R40957, Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act: History, Impact, and Issues, by Robert Jay Dilger.
49 See CRS Report R44669, Department of Homeland Security Preparedness Grants: A Summary and Issues, by
Shawn Reese.
Congressional Research Service
16

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Congress may consider reducing funding to a level that ensures states and localities are able to
maintain their existing capabilities, but not fund new development. Additionally, some may argue
that states and localities should assume more responsibility for funding their preparedness, and
that the federal government should reduce their investment. Whether states and localities can
support this change may depend on their financial condition.
Alternately, Congress may choose to maintain present funding levels. Given the changing risk
landscape, and the presentation of novel threats such as terrorism and emerging infectious
diseases, preparedness stakeholders may need to continue to evolve new capacity as well as
capability. Some may also argue that funding amounts should be increased due to potential
increases in the number and intensity of natural disasters and their costs.50
Addressing Identified Gaps in National Preparedness
In May 2020, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified actions necessary to
address shortcomings in the nation’s emergency management capabilities.51 GAO stated that
FEMA has yet to determine what steps are needed to address capability gaps at the federal, state,
local, tribal, and territorial levels. The GAO report recommends that FEMA strengthen its after-
action review process, and specifically states that FEMA has not developed guidance to assist
regional officials in prioritizing which disasters should result in an AAR.52 GAO states that
FEMA headquarters lacks a formal mechanism to document and track best practices, lessons
learned, and corrective actions identified through AARs, and lacks guidance on sharing AAR
findings with stakeholders.53 GAO also concludes that FEMA has taken steps to strengthen
national preparedness but has not fully identified capability gaps and determined what actions are
needed to enhance national preparedness capabilities.54 To address these issues, GAO
recommends the following:
Following the completion of the 2021 National Preparedness Report, determine what steps
are needed to address the nation’s emergency management capability gaps across all levels
of government and inform key stakeholders, such as the Office of Management and Budget
and Congress, about what level of resources will be necessary to address the known gaps.55
Develop guidance to help determine which AARs should be prioritized based on factors
such as the severity of disasters and availability of staff and resources to conduct the
review, and implement time frames for following up on incomplete AARs.
Develop a mechanism to consistently track best practices, lessons learned, and corrective
actions that have been elevated to headquarters for resolution.

50 For additional considerations regarding preparedness grants, including measurements of effectiveness, see CRS
Report R44669, Department of Homeland Security Preparedness Grants: A Summary and Issues, by Shawn Reese.
51 U.S. Government Accountability Office, National Preparedness: Additional Actions Needed to Address Gaps in the
Nation’s Emergency Management Capabilities, GAO-20-297, 2020, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-297.
52 Ibid., pp. 30-33.
53 Ibid., pp. 36-37.
54 Ibid., p. 39.
55 In the DHS response to GAO’s report, FEMA stated that it does not believe that the cost of national resource gaps
can be estimated without first accounting for existing federal capabilities, which will be incorporated into the 2021
National Preparedness Report. The collection of necessary information was scheduled to begin in 2020, but was
delayed due to the response operations for the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, GAO’s recommendation has been
updated to reflect the updated timeframe following the publication of the 2021 National Preparedness Report.
Congressional Research Service
17

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Develop guidance on sharing AARs and their relevant findings with external stakeholders,
when appropriate.56
Conclusion
The state of national preparedness has been called into focus in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic. The National Preparedness System provides a framework for iteration and
improvement over time, especially as lessons are learned from both exercises and real-world
events. Preparedness gaps will continue to be identified by federal and state, local, territorial, and
tribal partners through After-Action Reports and analysis of Threat and Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessments and Stakeholder Preparedness Reviews; by Congress through hearings and
reports; and by academic research. Congress may consider providing financial, human, and
technical resources to communities, governments, and agencies looking to bolster their readiness.
More systematically, Congress may also consider mechanisms to strengthen the development of
preparedness to ensure the National Preparedness Goal can be met.

56 U.S. Government Accountability Office, National Preparedness: Additional Actions Needed to Address Gaps in the
Nation’s Emergency Management Capabilities, GAO-20-297, 2020, p. 39.
Congressional Research Service
18

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Appendix A. Select Preparedness Grants
Several agencies administer grants intended to develop preparedness, either explicitly or
implicitly. The grants identified in the table support preparedness activities in some or all of the
mission areas. For more information on the preparedness grants administered by DHS, see CRS
Report R44669, Department of Homeland Security Preparedness Grants: A Summary and Issues,
by Shawn Reese.
Table A-1. Major Preparedness Grants
Grant Program
Description
Administering Agency
Assistance to Firefighters Grants
Three grant programs focused on
DHS
enhancing the safety of the public
and firefighters in fire-related
hazards.
Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Supports hazard mitigation projects
DHS/FEMA
Communities (BRIC)
to reduce risks from disasters and
natural hazards. BRIC replaces the
FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation
(PDM) program.
Emergency Management
Enhancing and sustaining all-hazards
DHS/FEMA
Performance Grant (EMPG)
emergency management capabilities.
Homeland Security Grant Program
Preventing, preparing for,
DHS/FEMA
(HSGP)
protecting against and responding
to acts of terrorism.
Hospital Preparedness Program
Establishes a foundation for national HHS/Office of the Assistant
(HPP)
health care preparedness.
Secretary for Preparedness and
Response
Intercity Bus Security Grant
Protecting private operators of
DHS/FEMA
intercity over-the-road bus
transportation systems from acts of
terrorism.
Intercity Passenger Rail Grant—
Protecting Amtrak rail system from
DHS/FEMA
Amtrak
acts of terrorism.
National Earthquake Hazards
Funding to support the
DHS
Reduction Program Grant
establishment of earthquake
hazards reduction programming and
implementation of earthquake
safety, mitigation, and resilience
activities at the local level.
Nonprofit Security Grant
Funds physical security
DHS/FEMA
enhancements and activities for
nonprofit organizations that are at
high risk of a terrorist attack.
Operation Stonegarden (OPSG)
Provides funding to enhance
DHS
cooperation and coordination
among state, local, tribal, territorial,
and federal law enforcement
agencies to jointly enhance security
along the United States land and
water borders.
Congressional Research Service
19

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Grant Program
Description
Administering Agency
Port Security Grant
Protecting ports from acts of
DHS/FEMA
terrorism.
Presidential Residence Security
Reimbursements to state and local
DHS/U.S. Secret Service
Assistance Grant
law enforcement agencies for costs
incurred while protecting any non-
governmental residence of the
President being secured by the
United States Secret Service
Public Health Emergency
Build and strengthen the abilities of
HHS/Centers for Disease Control
Preparedness (PHEP) Grant
state, local, and territorial health
and Prevention
Program
departments to effectively respond
to a range of public health threats,
including infectious diseases, natural
disasters, and biological, chemical,
nuclear, and radiological events.
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Funding for local governments to
DHS
Grant Program
encourage innovative regional
solutions catastrophic incidents.
Tribal Homeland Security Grant
Support for Tribal Nations in
DHS/FEMA
Program (THSGP)
preventing, preparing for,
protecting against, and responding
to acts of terrorism.
Transit Security Grant
Protecting critical public
DHS/FEMA
transportation systems (intra-city
bus, ferries, and all forms of
passenger rail) from acts of
terrorism.
Urban Area Security Initiative
Provides funding to enhance
DHS
(UASI)
regional preparedness and
capabilities in designated high-
threat, high-density areas.
Source: https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness
Notes: This table is not comprehensive, and does not provide information on grant programs outside of the
Department of Homeland Security, with the exception of those available through the Department of Health and
Human Services. Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, grant and cooperative agreement programs to support
public health and medical services were included.

Congressional Research Service
20

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Appendix B. NRF’s Emergency Support Functions
The National Response Framework’s Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) are not the
responsibility of a single agency or department, and the support functions are not mechanisms for
executing an agency’s statutory authorities. Instead, ESFs group the capabilities of federal entities
and their assets. ESFs are designed to support a number of core response capabilities. Federal
ESF coordinators oversee the response activities for a particular ESF, and coordinate with its
primary and support agencies.57
ESF primary agencies are responsible for the following:
 orchestrating support and strategy development within their functional area for
the appropriate response core capabilities and other ESF missions;
 notifying and requesting assistance from support agencies;
 managing mission assignments (in Stafford Act incidents), and coordinating with
support agencies, as well as appropriate state officials, operations centers, and
other stakeholders;
 coordinating resources resulting from mission assignments;
 working with all types of organizations, including nongovernmental
organizations, to maximize use of resources;
 monitoring progress in delivering core capability and other ESF missions, and
providing that information as part of situational and periodic readiness or
preparedness assessments;
 planning for incident management, short-term recovery operations, and transition
to long-term recovery support operations;
 maintaining trained personnel to support interagency emergency response and
support teams;
 identifying new equipment or capabilities required to prevent or respond to
emerging threats and hazards or to validate and improve capabilities to address
evolving risks; and
 promoting physical accessibility, programmatic inclusion, and effective
communication for the whole community, including individuals with disabilities
and those with access and functional needs.58
ESF support agencies have specific capabilities, resources, and assets that support primary federal
entities in executing an ESF mission. These support agencies’ activities typically include the
following:
 planning for incident management, short-term recovery operations, transition to
long-term recovery support operations, and the development of supporting
operational plans and standard operating procedures;
 providing input to periodic preparedness assessments;
 maintaining trained personnel to support interagency emergency response and
support teams;

57 Ibid., p. 36.
58 Ibid., p. 38.
Congressional Research Service
21

link to page 26 National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

 identifying new equipment or capabilities required to respond to emerging threats
and hazards or to improve the ability to address existing threats; and
 coordinating resources resulting from response mission assignments.59
Table B-1 summarizes the federal ESFs and describes their function in terms of core capabilities
associated with response. All ESFs support the common core capabilities of operational
coordination, planning, and public information and warning.
Table B-1. Emergency Support Functions and ESF Coordinators
ESF
Coordinator
Function
1-Transportation
Department of Transportation
Coordinates support for the management of
transportation systems and infrastructure, the
regulation of transportation, management of the
nation’s airspace, and ensures the safety and
security of the national transportation system.
2-Communications
Department of Homeland
Coordinates government and industry efforts for
Security
the reestablishment and provisioning of critical
Cybersecurity and
communications infrastructure and services,
Infrastructure Security Agency
facilitates the stabilization of systems and
applications from malicious activity, and
coordinates communications support to response
efforts.
3-Public Works and
Department of Defense
Coordinates the capabilities and resources to
Engineering
Army Corps of Engineers
facilitate the delivery of services, technical
assistance, engineering expertise, construction
management, and other support to prepare for,
respond to, and recover from a disaster or other
incident.
4-Firefighting
Department of Agriculture
Coordinates support for the detection and
U.S. Fire Administration
suppression of fires. Functions include but are not
limited to supporting wildland, rural, and urban
firefighting operations.
5-Information and
Department of Homeland
Supports and facilitates multiagency planning and
Planning
Security
coordination for operations involving incidents
Federal Emergency Management requiring federal coordination.
Agency
6-Mass Care, Emergency
Department of Homeland
Coordinates the delivery of mass care and
Assistance, Temporary
Security
emergency assistance.
Housing, and Human
Federal Emergency Management
Services
Agency
7-Logistics
General Services Administration Coordinates comprehensive incident resource
Department of Homeland
planning, management, and sustainment capability
Security
to meet the needs of disaster survivors and
responders.
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
8-Public Health and
Department of Health and
Coordinates the mechanisms for assistance in
Medical Services
Human Services
response to an actual or potential public health
and medical disaster or incident.

59 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
22

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

ESF
Coordinator
Function
9-Search and Rescue
Department of Homeland
Coordinates the rapid deployment of search and
Security
rescue resources to provide specialized life-saving
Federal Emergency Management assistance.
Agency
10-Oil and Hazardous
Environmental Protection
Coordinates support in response to an actual or
Material Response
Agency
potential discharge or release of oil or hazardous
materials.
11-Agriculture and
Department of Agriculture
Coordinates a variety of functions designed to
Natural Resources
protect the nation’s food supply, respond to pest
and disease incidents affecting agriculture, and
protect natural and cultural resources.
12-Energy
Department of Energy
Facilitates the reestablishment of damaged energy
systems and components, and provides technical
expertise during an incident involving
radiological/nuclear materials.
13-Public Safety and
Department of Justice
Coordinates the integration of public safety and
Security
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
security capabilities and resources to support the
Firearms, and Explosives
ful range of incident management activities.
14-Cross-Sector
Department of Homeland
Coordinates cross-sector operations with
Business and
Security
infrastructure owners and operators, businesses,
Infrastructure
Cybersecurity and
and their government partners, with particular
Infrastructure Security Agency
focus on actions taken by businesses and
infrastructure owners and operators in one sector
to assist other sectors to better prevent or
mitigate cascading failures between them.
15-External Affairs
Department of Homeland
Coordinates the release of accurate, coordinated,
Security
timely, and accessible public information to
affected audiences, including the government,
media, nongovernmental organizations, and the
private sector. Works closely with state and local
officials to ensure outreach to the whole
community.
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework, Washington, DC, October 28,
2019, pp. 39-41.

Author Information

Shawn Reese
Lauren R. Stienstra
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Section Research Manager
Security Policy

Acknowledgments
The graphics for this report were developed by Brion Long, Visual Information Specialist.
Congressional Research Service
23

National Preparedness: A Summary and Select Issues

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46696 · VERSION 1 · NEW
24

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Feb. 26, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Intelligence and National Security

National Defense

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON