1. TCL Implementation Project October 2009

2. Capability-Based Preparedness in Risk Management2 2

3. 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Out-of-date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

4. TCL 2.0 Excerpt: Structural Damage Assessment

5. 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

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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

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