NECP Goals 1 & 2 Demonstration of Response-Level Emergency Communications

Transcription

1 NECP Goals 1 & 2 Demonstration of Response-Level Emergency Communications Ryan Oremland December 2, 2009

2 Your Contribution: Review of Past SWIC Involvement Statewide Interoperability Coordinators Council (SWIC) December 3-4, 2008 Orlando, FL Initial Presentation of Goals and Observational Elements Conducted NECP Goals Working Breakout with SAFECOM ERC Members Statewide Interoperability Coordinators Council (SWIC) June 25, 2009 San Diego, CA Detailed Review of Response-Level Emergency Communications Criteria Brainstorming Around Goal 2 Implementation Options Statewide Interoperability Coordinators Council (SWIC) December 2-3, 2009 Boston, MA Goal 1 Update Goal 2 Implementation Presenter s Name June 17,

3 The NECP Goals NECP Goal 1 By 2010, 90 percent of all high risk urban areas designated within the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) are able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies (UASIs as of July 31, 2008). NECP Goal 2 By 2011, 75 percent of non-uasi jurisdictions are able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. Demonstrate Multiple Jurisdictions and Agencies Response-Level Emergency Communications Primary Operational Leadership 3 Presenter s Name June 17, 2003

4 The NECP Goals NECP Goal 1 By 2010, 90 percent of all high risk urban areas designated within the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) are able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies (UASIs as of July 31, 2008). NECP Goal 2 NECP Vision Strategic Data By 2011, 75 percent of non-uasi jurisdictions are able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. Capability Data Inputs Performance Data Outcomes Demonstrate Multiple Jurisdictions and Agencies Response-Level Emergency Primary Operational Communications Leadership Presenter s Name June 17, 2003

5 What to Measure: Command-level Primary Operational Leadership Response-level Capability Data: (Governance, SOPs, Tech., Training/Exercise, Usage) Provides the foundation for consistent response-level success Performance Data: (NECP Goals Criteria) Operational demonstration of response-level communications Presenter s Name June 17,

6 NECP Goals Roadmap: A Progression Timeline Capability Data Goal 1: UASI Measures Capability Data for UASI Regions Presented in FY 2010 SCIPs Goal 2: County/Tribal Measures Capability Data for Counties Performance Data Measures Performance Data Through Peer Evaluation Presented in After- Action Report directly to UASI, State, OEC Measures Performance Data Through Self Evaluation Presented in FY 2011 SCIPs April 2008 SCIPs Approved July nd SCIP Report July 2010 FY 2010 SCIP Report Due with UASI Capability Data 2007 UASI Performance Data (Goal 1) Collected County Data (Goal 2) Collected 2011 July st SCIP Report January 2010 July 2010 FY 2011 SCIP Report and Goal 2 Submitted Due with County Capability and Presenter s Name Performance June 17, Data 2003 Deadline for Goal 2 Methodology July 2011

7 Why Measure: Congressional and Grant Requirements Title 18 directs OEC to: Determine capabilities that have been obtained and gaps that remain for interoperability to be achieved. Set a date in the NECP stakeholders expect to achieve a baseline level of national interoperable communications. SCIP Implementation Reports: Congress directs States to report to OEC annually on SCIP progress Presenter s Name June 17,

8 Why Measure: New Congressional Legislation Legislation has been introduced directing the collection of performance data and the establishment of metrics for DHS grant programs Presenter s Name June 17,

9 Why Measure: State and Local Benefits Statewide and Local: Reporting to Governors, State Legislatures, County Commissioners, Mayor s, etc Identification of successes, challenges and next steps Project justifications Strategic planning A shared understanding and awareness of outcomes Presenter s Name June 17,

10 Deep Dive: Capability Data for Goal Strategic Data NECP Vision Performance Data Outcomes Capability Data Inputs Presenter s Name June 17, 2003

11 What is Measured: Capability Data for Goal 1 & 2 Capability Early Implementation Intermediate Implementation Established Implementation Advanced Implementation Governance Urban Area/Countywide/ Tribal decision-making groups are informal and do not yet have a strategic plan to guide collective communications interoperability goals and funding. Some formal agreements exist and informal agreements are in practice among members of a(n) Urban Area/countywide/tribal decisionmaking group; Urban Area/ countywide/tribal strategic and budget planning process are beginning to be put in place. Formal agreements outline the roles and responsibilities of a(n) Urban Area/countywide/tribal decisionmaking group, which has an agreed upon strategic plan that addresses sustainable funding for collective, regional interoperable communications needs. Urban Area/Countywide/tribal decision-making bodies proactively look to expand membership to ensure representation from broad public support disciplines and other levels of government, while updating their agreements and strategic plan on a regular basis. SOP Urban Area/Countywide/ Tribal interoperable communications SOPs are not developed or have not been formalized and disseminated. Some interoperable communications SOPs exist within the Urban Area/county/tribal community and steps have been taken to institute these interoperability procedures among some agencies. Interoperable communications SOPs are formalized and in use by all agencies within the Urban Area/county/tribal community. Despite minor issues, SOPs are successfully used during responses and/or exercise(s). Interoperable communications SOPs within the Urban Area/county/tribal community are formalized and regularly reviewed. Additionally, NIMS procedures are well established among all agencies and disciplines. All needed procedures are effectively utilized during responses and/or exercises(s). Technology Interoperability within the Urban Area/county/tribal community is primarily achieved through the use of gateways (mobile/fixed gateway, console patch) or use of a radio cache. Interoperability within the Urban Area/county/tribal community is primarily achieved through the use of shared channels or talk groups. Interoperability within the Urban Area/county/tribal community is primarily achieved through the use of a proprietary shared system. Interoperability within the Urban Area/county/tribal community is primarily achieved through the use of standards-based shared system (e.g., Project 25). Training & Exercises Urban Area/Countywide/ tribal community public safety agencies participate in communications interoperability workshops, but no formal training or exercises are focused on emergency communications. Some public safety agencies within the Urban Area/county/tribal community hold communications interoperability training on equipment and conduct exercises, although not on a regular cycle. Public safety agencies within the Urban Area/county/tribal participate in equipment and SOP training for communications interoperability and hold exercises on a regular basis. Urban Area/county/tribal community public safety agencies regularly conduct training and exercises with communications interoperability curriculum that is modified as needed to address the changing operational environment. Usage First responders across the Urban Area/county/tribal community seldom use solutions unless advanced planning is possible (e.g., special event). First responders across the Urban Area/county/tribal community use interoperability solutions regularly for emergency events, and in limited fashion for day-to-day communications. First responders across the Urban Regular use of solutions for all day-today Area/county/tribal community use and out-of-the-ordinary events interoperability solutions regularly and across the Urban Area/county/tribal easily for all day-to-day, task force, community on demand, in real time, and mutual aid events. Presenter s Name when June needed, 17, as authorized

12 Deep Dive: Performance Data Strategic Data NECP Vision Performance Data Outcomes Capability Data Inputs Presenter s Name June 17, 2003

13 What is Measured: Performance Outcome Observational Elements Measure Performance outcomes, effects, and usage Simple, clear, flexible and not burdensome to respondents Allows for self-assessment of an actual incident Elements focuses on 3 key areas: Common Policies & Procedures Leadership Rules & Responsibilities Quality and Continuity of Communications Presenter s Name June 17,

14 Goal 1 UASI Demonstration UASIs to submit 3 planned events to OEC for observation. The events should: Occur between January and July Involve multiple jurisdictions and responder disciplines. Involve the participation of the UASI s major jurisdiction. Be managed under a NIMScompliant incident command system. Presenter s Name June 17,

15 Goal 1 Event Types Goal 1 Initiative events could include: Civic festivals Parades Sporting events Concerts Air shows Political events Public Celebrations Etc. Presenter s Name June 17,

16 UASI Goal 1 Pilots Clearwater, Florida November 14 th San Diego, California December 30, 2009 Pam Montanari Radio and Data Systems Manager Pinellas County Public Safety Services Department Arlington County, Texas December 5, 2009 Presenter s Name June 17,

17 Potential Goal 3 Pilot There's something strange and big swimming in the canals of Madiera Beach along the Pinellas County coast. Those who have seen it say it's no fish and think it could be a sea serpent locals call the creature "Normandy Nessie. Tampa Bay Online November 17, 2009 Presenter s Name June 17,

18 Goal 2 Demonstration Leverage statewide and regional governance structures States can use a suite of measurement options to determine level of achievement by county Exercises, Planned Events, Incidents, etc 2010 SCIP Update OEC will assist and validate each State s measurement methodology as part of 2010 SCIP Implementation Report 2011 SCIP Update State Coordinators to submit statewide level of demonstration and major capability findings by county Presenter s Name June 17,

19 NECP Goals Supporting Services & Programs Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) Education and outreach for NECP Goals Measurement (may include travel costs or web based applications) Contractual support as needed (to conduct NECP Goals related measurement and reporting) Overtime and backfill costs (to focus on NECP Goals Measurement outside of normal duty hours) Development of database and surveying tools Communications Exercises for Goal 2 and 3 SCIP Implementation Workshops 2010 Workshops Preparation for statewide assessments 2011 Workshops Support for data collection and analysis Presenter s Name June 17,

20 NECP Goals Supporting Services & Programs Technical Assistance Supporting Urban Area FY 2010 TA requests Set aside special support for new UASIs not required to develop a TICP in 2006 Will provide tiger team assistance to address gaps in any UASIs unable to demonstrate Goal 1 OEC Help Desk Contact us at: us at: necpgoals@dhs.gov Ryan.oremland@dhs.gov Presenter s Name June 17,

21 Questions Presenter s Name June 17, 2003

22 How is it Measured: Implementation Options Goal 2 Statewide Approach Regional Approach County Approach Your State s Approach 1. SWIC leverages SIGB to complete county-wide capabilities questionnaire. 2. SWIC leverages county approach to complete performance report using either an exercise, planned event or incident. SWIC leverages regional governance groups to complete county-wide capabilities questionnaire and response-level emergency communications after-action report using either an exercise, planned event or incident. SIWC directly contacts county officials to complete county-wide capabilities questionnaire and performance report using either an exercise, planned event or incident. What methodology can your State deploy for Goal 2 measurement? Presenter s Name June 17,

23 How is it Measured: Implementation Phases for Regional Approach Phase 1 Phase 2 DAY Phase 2 3 Phase 4 DAY Phase 3 5 Regional Meeting Organize d Conduct Regional Meeting Demonstrate Performance Response-Level Data Validated Data Submitted to DHS & State SWIC organizes regional governance group meeting with one representative from each county. Committee completes capabilities data. Regional Chair champions commitment from one POC per county to complete response-level emergency communications performance data. POC works with county emergency response agencies to complete the response-level emergency communications web-based after-incident report. POC submits performance data to regional governance group for review and validation. Regional Chair submits all forms to SWIC. SWIC completes Statewide Goal 2 capabilities and performance forms and submits information as part of 2011 SCIP Implementation Report. Presenter s Name June 17, 2003

24 Your Goal 2 Methodology: State Name: Statewide Approach Regional Approach County Approach Your State s Approach Step 1 - SWIC leverages SIGB to complete county-wide capabilities questionnaire. Step 2 - SWIC leverages county approach to complete performance report using either an exercise, planned event or incident. SWIC leverages regional governance groups to complete county-wide capabilities questionnaire and identify POCs within counties to complete response-level emergency communications after-action report using either an exercise, planned event or incident. SIWC directly contacts county officials to complete countywide capabilities questionnaire and performance report using either an exercise, planned event or incident. What s your State s preferred Goal 2 methodology? * Use back if more space is needed