Presidential Policy Directive/ PPD-8: A National Preparedness (Case Study Sample)

Presidential Policy Directive/ PPD-8: A National Preparedness Case Study
Name
Institutional Affiliations
Date
Presidential Policy Directive/ PPD-8: A National Preparedness Case Study
The national preparedness goal has been challenged a few times since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The government addressed criticism about a lack of coordination by forming the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the aim of having a coordinated guidance for preparedness. On March 30, 2011, a presidential policy directive (PPD-8) was issued to assess the national preparedness efforts and make plans to build capacity to respond to future large-scale disasters. The PPD-8 forms the basis of this analysis. The purpose of the analysis is to identify the level of national preparedness surrounding the period before after the issuance of PPD-8. Findings indicate that there was a national preparedness goal prior to PPD-8. In addition, failures were not in development of plans rather than in the implementation of the plans when a disaster occurs.
National Preparedness Goal
The US has made great strides towards the setting standards for measuring national preparedness. According to the PPD-8, national preparedness goal refers to setting achievable goals in preventing, mitigating, and responding to large-scale disasters goals as well as setting standards for measuring national capacity to respond to and recover from the disasters (US Department of Homeland Security, 2011). As one of the areas identified in the PPD-8, research indicates that there has been great improvement on this area since 9/11, the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 (Brattberg, 2012). Reissman & Howard (2008) discusses that DHS involved multiple stakeholders in the development of a national preparedness goal in 2006, four years prior to the release of PPD-8. The goals and standards set by the National Strategy for Homeland Security framework and the annual reviews by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) are great improvements in the preparedness goal-setting. In addition, Brattberg (2012) also highlights the Target Capabilities List (TCL), which identifies 37 capabilities that both public and private stakeholders need to develop to be prepared for national disasters. These four factors are an indication that there is an improvement in clarifying goals and identifying capabilities that stakeholders need to develop in preparation for national disasters.
National Preparedness System
The preparedness system is actually a framework for achieving the goals identified in the first part. According to the PPD-8, it includes directions for planning and allocating resources as well as engaging in activities and exercises for capacity-building (DHS, 2011). In this area, Brattberg (2012) indicates that there is an integrated national system for allocating resources to state and local agencies. Examples of funding programs include the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), and the Office of Grant Programs (OGP), which try to align resources with needs (Brattberg, 2012). However, Brattberg (2012) discusses that the funding system needs improvement since it limits states' autonomy to determine the use of funds. On the contrary, it directs that funds be disbursed to the local levels. States have a significant role to play in national security issues due to their role in globalization (Kuhn, 2014). Allocating resources before another disaster occurs is one of the areas that need improvement.
Training and carrying out simulations are some of the activities expected to be planned and implemented under the national preparedness system. Brattberg (2012) identifies programs that have been implemented on this area, such as the National Exercise Program (NEP). However, federal, state, and local agencies need to consistently train and exercise. In some cases, such activities leave out the private sector, which means they may be less prepared than the public sector (Brattberg, 2012, Kuhn, 2014). Having a primary focus on preparedness efforts carried out at the federal level creates a weakness at other levels of governance.
National Preparedness Report
The national preparedness report proposal required that the DHS conduct an annual assessment on whether goals have been met towards preparedness (DHS, 2011). Prior to PPD-8, there were efforts to have periodical reviews about the level of preparedness that federal, states, local governments, private organizations, and the general public have made. Brattberg (2012) discusses the first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), which was published in 2010, together with annual performance plans produced by the OIG. The federal government has set plans for conducting reviews towards the goals and what actors need to do each year to improve preparedness.
National Preparedness Frameworks
There is an updated national framework for preparedness. According to FEMA (2016), the national preparedness framework is a component of the national preparedness system. It involves the approaches that can be used to attain capabilities in five mission areas, which include "prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery" (FEMA, 2016, para 11). The National Planning Frameworks provide guidance on how the government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels can increase their capacity to respond in each of the five areas necessary for preparedness. It also identifies what nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, and commercial entities can do to build their capabilities in the five areas.
In identifying a framework for response, the National Incident Management System (NIMS) is one of the frameworks that have been successfully implemented. Brattberg (2012) discusses its failures in response to Hurricane Katrina while also recognizing its successful guidance in a creating a unified approach to disaster management, such as establishing a unified command center. The National Response Framework (NRP) also proved effective during the 2008 Midwest floods (Brattberg, 2012). Kuhn (2014) highlights the effectiveness of the Incident Command System (ICS) in managing pooled resources during a large-scale disaster. The ICS is considered using a combination of the network and hierarchical organizational models (Kuhn, 2014). Brattberg (2012) finds that it is necessary to combine the models to come up with an effective structure for use during national disasters as each model has shortfalls. The analyses indicate that managers may need to be trained to apply the different frameworks to increase their effectiveness. While preparedness efforts have created good frameworks, there is a need for training to adhere to frameworks during implementation.
Federal Interagency Operational Plans
The PPD-8 identifies the importance of including multiple agencies at different levels of government, the private sector, including non-for-profit organizations, and the general public under clarified roles and responsibilities (DHS, 2011). FEMA (2016) elaborates on the development of the Federal Interagency Operational Plans (FIOP) to be used as a guide to build capacity for collaborative engagements at different levels of government. The PPD-8 expects that different agencies will incorporate their old responsibilities into new roles within the preparedness framework without altering their old duties. Brattberg (2012) identifies that there is a challenge of combining new and old responsibilities. However, government agencies have made progress by defining the roles that each agency can play in a unified command and all-hazards approaches, especially in the Annexes of the NRP.
Interagency operational plans have been in existence since the 1990s, encouraging multicity and multistate engagements during national disasters (Kuhn, 2014). The DHS was established in 2003 with the aim of coordinating the efforts of different agencies in ensuring preparedness (Reissman & Howard, 2008; Brattberg, 2012). Kuhn (2014) discusses the usefulness of the security infrastructure that the private sector owns. Brattberg (2012) explains that mutual aid agreements are an area that has been used to enhance preparedness. Interagency collaborations should become the main pillar of national preparedness (Kuhn, 2014). It is better due to their closeness to localities, as first responders, and due to their ability to mobilize resources.
Another area that needs interagency operational plans is responder safety. As Reissman & Howard (2008) explain, it is one of the areas that need improvement. Good plans exist, such as the Worker Safety and Health Support Annex (WSH-A). However, they are poorly implemented when an incident occurs due to a lack of awareness among multiple actors involved in the rescue efforts, as witnessed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (Reissman & Howard, 2008). The plans clarify the role of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) workforce in ensuring responder safety. Plans should shift to how ...