TCL Implementation Project October 2009

Capability-Based Preparedness in Risk Management 2 2

Target Capabilities List (current version 2.0) Structure: Consists of 37 Capabilities grouped within ‘common’, ‘prevention’, ‘protection’, ‘response’, and ‘recovery’ mission areas Each outlines the capability’s description and outcome, major preparedness and operational activities, listing of tasks for each activity, listing of performance measures for each activity, and other reference material Status: Released in September 2007 with the National Preparedness Guidelines, but has been in use as an interim document since 2005 Criticisms: One-size-fits-all approach Not user-friendly Federal focus Out-of-date Huge document Not measurable Inconsistent focus among capabilities Built with a top-down approach

TCL 2.0 Excerpt: Structural Damage Assessment

Role of the NPG and TCL in the Preparedness Cycle Evaluate/Improve Provides content and structure for the Comprehensive Assessment System, State Preparedness Reports, GAP Analysis Helps to characterize lessons learned and corrective actions Plan Provides targets and objectives to plan against (see CPG 101) Exercise Provides structure and content for HSEEP Exercise and Evaluation Guides Informs objectives for testing capabilities Organize/Equip Identifies personnel and equipment needs using Resource Types Provides content and structure for the Cost-to-Capabilities Analysis Train Identifies learning objectives for course development and selection Identifies requisite personnel competencies

NPG/TCL Role in Preparedness Programs Example: Exercise Evaluation Guides Tasks used for exercise evaluation are taken directly from each Target Capability 6

Relationship between the TCL and Standards Emergency Management Standards TCL Standards establish minimum acceptable performance criterion which apply to State, territorial, regional, local, or tribal emergency management programs. TCL guidance reflect preparedness goals for large-scale, non-routine events – not minimum floor requirements that all communities must possess Standards are generally written to be broadly applicable to all State, local, tribal, NGO, and private sector emergency management programs. The TCL intends to provide risk-based guidance on the different levels of capability that a community might need. EMAP provides programmatic benchmarks for emergency manage programs to meet. The TCL identifies target outcomes for a community to strive to meet. Standards outline the “means to an end” (e.g., whether policies, programs, and procedures have been implemented). TCL goals do not prescribe ‘how’ a community meets capability goals. Standards and preparedness goals should be complementary, with standards helping jurisdictions determine ‘how’ to achieve a capability.

Goals for an Updated TCL (version 3.0) Provide flexibility to account for community-specific risks and circumstances Establish measurable target outcomes to guide preparedness investments and priorities Integrate programs across the preparedness lifecycle Link among applicable standards, Federal policies and guidance, and terminologies Update content to reflect current policies, guidance, and capabilities Promote mutual aid and resource sharing 8 8

TCL Framework Elements Each Target Capability Comprises Three Charts: Classes, Target Outcomes, and Resource Elements 1 2 3 Classes Shows up to five levels for capability delivery, based on risk factors or other tiering considerations Target Outcomes Shows the critical outcomes to be achieved and related performance measures by class Resource Elements Offers guidance on plans, personnel/teams, equipment, training, and exercises 9 9

Chart #1: Classes What are the risk characteristics that present a need for a greater or lesser amount of this capability? Jurisdictions, groups of jurisdictions, or other entities are provided primary and secondary risk factors to self select their appropriate capability class, such as population and infrastructure (avoids “one size fits all”) A jurisdiction may align to a different class for each capability depending on its particular characteristics A jurisdiction may be a Class 1 for Livestock and Poultry Disease Emergencies, but a Class 4 or 5 for WMD HazMat Rescue Appropriate risk factors may differ for each Target Capability Population and population density may be appropriate for Incident Management, while annual ridership and passenger miles are appropriate for Mass Transit Protection 10

Chart #2: Target Outcomes TCL Framework Elements Chart #2: Target Outcomes What are the critical few outcomes to serve as goals for building and measuring preparedness? Target outcomes are explained through demonstrable, results-oriented metrics Metrics are graduated by class A Class 1 jurisdiction would have a higher performance expectation than a Class 5 Measures utilize defined resource types or standards as much as possible Users can determine how best to accomplish the desired outcome based on their particular needs and resources (capability-based planning) Example: DRAFT Livestock and Poultry Disease Emergencies Response Capability Target Outcome Develop surveillance plan based on epidemiological investigation Performance Measure Within 24 hours of a confirmed positive case, develop surveillance plan and implement existing diagnostic support plan(s) for known area Draft Content 11 11

Chart #3: Resource Elements What are the planning, organizational, personnel, equipment, training, and exercise elements that may be needed or enhanced to achieve each Target Outcome? Provide guidance on plans, personnel/teams, equipment, training, and exercises to help meet Target Outcomes – each jurisdiction or entity determines ‘what’ resources and ‘how many’ are needed to achieve a target capability Identifies laws, standards, policies, and doctrine applicable to the capability Helps link the performance of activities along the preparedness cycle (e.g., assessments, planning guidance, exercise evaluation guides) Entities are not expected to deliver a capability by itself – mutual aid and regional collaboration are encouraged 12

TCL Update Process (applies to each capability) Step 1: Interagency Coordination Lead departments/agencies/offices with responsibility for the capability must be on- board and are given opportunities to assume as large a role as they desire Step 2: Working Group Composition Members identified by the Homeland Security Consortium and relevant associations, agencies/offices with lead responsibility, relevant NIMS Work Groups, and the Regions hosting workshops Step 3: Education and Outreach Step 4: Research and Development Process At least two in-person sessions held in the Regions for each capability with periodic conference calls to continuously develop and mature the drafts Step 5: National Review Following working group approval, drafts are shared with the NAC, National Disability Council, Consortium, other relevant associations, IAB, relevant ESFs, Department/Agency/Office networks, and to State and local communities through the FEMA Regions. Step 6: Formal Approval process

Current Capability Updates Multi-Agency Coordination/EOC Management Incident Management Livestock and Poultry Disease Emergency Response WMD/HazMat Rescue Mass Transit Protection Intelligence Planning Major Fire Incident Response Communication Isolation and Quarantine Risk Management Emergency Triage and Pre-Hospital Treatment Community Preparedness Medical Surge Critical Resource Logistics and Distribution Mass Prophylaxis Critical Infrastructure Protection Mass Care Epidemiological Surveillance and Investigation Impact Assessment Continuity (new) Radiological/Nuclear Detection and Adjudication Mitigation (new) Explosive Device Risk Reduction Food and Agriculture Safety and Defense

Next Steps The remaining 37 existing capabilities will be updated in 2010. Finalized capabilities will replace existing versions on a rolling basis Upon being updated: The new Target Capabilities will inform the update of Exercise Evaluation Guides, course mapping, CPG developments and other elements of the preparedness cycle. A continuous maintenance process must ensure that the documents accurately reflect current guidance and lessons learned Education and technical assistance must be provided to ensure their implementation within preparedness programs across the federal government

Contact Information FEMA National Preparedness Directorate Kenneth Watman, PPPA Division Director Josh Dozor, Policy Branch Chief Email: Joshua.Dozor@dhs.gov TCL Program Staff: Robert Sullivan Email: Robert.Sullivan@dhs.gov Joe Lombardo Email: Joseph.Lombardo1@dhs.gov Allen King, CEM Email: Allen.King@dhs.gov Comments and suggestions are continuously sought and monitored through the TCL@DHS.GOV mailbox. 16