the most effective was requiring any agency that provided emergency response (or supported emergency response), and who received government funding were required to become NIMS compliant in order to continue to receive federal funds (FEMA, 2004a; 2015a; 2008). Essentially, it was the concept of the “Golden Rule”: he who has the gold makes the rules.
The ability to receive, or to continue to receive, federal funds (or contracts) was contingent upon the agency becoming “NIMS Compliant.” This was first initiated in Fiscal Year 2006, shortly after Hurricane Katrina. It began with the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program. While the concept of being NIMS compliant to receive federal funds appeared to be sound, the implementation was not well received by all.
In 2005, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant had 20 972 applicants with approximately 5990 grants awarded, but in 2006, only 18 160 applied for the same grant with approximately 5000 receiving grants. The trend of fewer applications held steady through 2007 where only 18 170 applied for grants. It was not until 2008 that the number of applicants returned to over 20 000 (FEMA, 2014). No empirical evidence was ever submitted which might identify the reason for the decline in the AFG applications, but there are multiple theories.
There were several trends of thought from multiple agencies in the fire service. Some of these agencies believed that the NIMS requirement played a role in the lower number of grant applications, however, it should be realized this was only conjecture. If the requirements did deter fire departments from applying for AFG Grants during this time, it could also be speculated that a certain amount of fire departments were in the process of becoming NIMS compliant and therefore did not apply. It could also be surmised that some departments were defiant about the requirement, as was evident through numerous discussions on the Internet. Of course, there were also a few conspiracy theorists who were worried about “Big Brother” sticking their nose into the local volunteer fire departments business. No matter what the reason, it was obvious that something affected the number of applicants for the AFG Grants over a three‐year period, and it was likely some type of an aftereffect from the NIMS requirement.
Another way that the federal government inconspicuously pushed NIMS compliance was through a “No NIMS‐no play” policy. Essentially, if you wanted to participate in an exercise that involved federal resources, or you wanted to be involved in a disaster response, you could not do so unless you were NIMS compliant. The reasoning behind this policy was simple. If your agency was not trained and certified in the National Incident Management System, it would add more confusion and chaos to the incident, drill or exercise. While not articulated, part of the reasoning behind this policy may be due to a concern that non‐NIMS‐compliant agencies may not understand resource typing, they could have potentially responded with equipment that was not needed, or the wrong equipment altogether.
Similarly, law enforcement agencies were required to be NIMS compliant. The dangling carrot that led NIMS compliance in fire department was also used in law enforcement. In order to receive federal funds, or even federal reimbursement for services, it was required that the law enforcement agency be compliant with NIMS. Much like the fire departments, law enforcement agency had a “No NIMS‐No play” policy for law enforcement agencies.
This mandate also applied to the Superfund Amendment and Re‐authorization Act title III. In accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120(q), it was mandated that all first responders who responded to a hazardous materials emergency must be properly trained in ICS component and NIMS, and they must be equipped to the basic minimum standard of NIMS (United States Department of Labor, 2008). This standard was Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) way of recognizing and implementing the 2004 ICS/NIMS mandate.
Additionally, hospitals, nursing homes, community clinics, and all healthcare facilities were informed that they too must meet NIMS compliance. Much like other disciplines, it was mandated that a healthcare facility be compliant with NIMS to receive federal funding (FEMA, 2007; “Research Brief”, 2008). While the requirement of NIMS was not mandated to receive accreditation, or for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, it was still quite effective because numerous healthcare facilities and research centers received federal funds.
With the federal government taking a hard stance on NIMS, it quickly evolved into a mainstay of emergency mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. As a part of the Presidential Directive, it was required that NIMS change as the needs of public safety changed. To change with those needs, the Presidential Directive mandated that there should be ongoing research and development of the entire method, including the ICS component.
Even as this book was being written, changes were being considered to the NIMS method, and some changes were made. It is important to realize that NIMS is considered a living document, and a living system. This means that the system should change as the needs of those providing emergency services change. The NIMS method also changes as new research and systems advancements are modified.
1.13 NIMS Updates/Changes (2008) and Training
In 2008, ongoing research into the utility of NIMS led to changes that made the system more integrated and more useful. Many of these changes were made based on the identified difficulties that users faced in major incidents. These incidents included Hurricane Katrina, the September 11 attacks, and various other major (and minor) disasters.
The new proposed changes to NIMS did not modify the basic purpose, scope, or principles of NIMS. The reason that these were not changed was because they were deemed sound and effective principles. The changes that were made did however adjust the organization and the readability of the NIMS document, plus it put more of an emphasis on the importance of preparedness. While these were the mainstay of the 2008 changes, research and development continued well beyond the new implementations and led to additional changes in 2017.
It is important to realize that the research and development of NIMS was, and is, ongoing, and extremely important to keeping up with the changing times. Every year, new tools, and new innovative technologies are created that changes the way personnel respond. It would only seem to make sense that the NIMS method would become antiquated if it did not keep up with the changes in public safety. For years, crusty old firefighters have stated that “If you aren't keeping up with changes, you are falling behind.” This statement could never be truer because public safety changes in some way from day to day, month to month, and year to year. Research and development of NIMS helps to keep the system current to the ever‐changing times in public safety.
When the first changes to NIMS occurred in 2008, those changes appeared to facilitate better integration with nongovernmental organizations (including the private sector) as well as a more complete relationship between the newly implemented National Response Framework (NRF) and NIMS. While the majority of changes were straightforward and appeared to be a natural progression, one area revealed that NIMS was not only extremely important for natural disasters but also for manmade disasters as well.
With the recollections of 11 September 2001, terrorist attacks, the daunting challenges faced during the response and recovery to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and other criminal and terrorist events in mind, NIMS added the ability of intelligence and investigations to hold its own position as a major (General Staff) section in the ICS component. In the previous version of the ICS component of NIMS, this function was not previously talked about or acceptable. The change was specifically added so that during a terrorist attack or a criminal event that the Incident Commander, at his or her discretion, could have more flexibility to create an Intelligence and Investigations as a section of the command method.
This gave the Incident Commander the flexibility they needed to either incorporate Intelligence and Investigations as part of planning section (as it was originally placed), or they could create a separate General Staff position for this function (FEMA, 2013c). Additionally, efforts were taken to ensure that those with different specialties or different fields in mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, could seamlessly
