encountering major problems. These changes advanced the method to allow more elasticity in how it was set up based on the needs of the response. If the Intelligence and Investigations taking place were a minimal part of the response, it could stay where it was initially envisioned within the ICS component. On the other hand, if the incident was a major incident that revealed that a large contingency of personnel were needed in Intelligence and Investigations, then that could be accommodated as well.
NIMS could be used in major unexpected emergencies such as an earthquake, tornado, or hurricane, or NIMS could be used to manage planned events such as concerts, fairs, or visits from heads of major countries or businesses. It could be used in criminal or terrorist attacks, or it could be used to manage a major (or minor) investigations. The ability to use NIMS to manage almost any type of emergency soon drove the system to be more and more used, even beyond withholding funds. No matter what was being faced, it could, and did, assist in managing the task at hand.
Training was an important aspect of NIMS updates in the 2008 revisions. Both the Emergency Management Institute and the National Fire Academy offered NIMS training and certifications. In conjunction with other agencies that developed NIMS advancements, the 2008 update suggested more advanced training in using NIMS and the ICS component. In the 2008 update, NIMS was required to be inclusive of all public safety agencies. It was also strongly suggested that all agencies and individuals should receive NIMS training, with certain individuals within an agency receiving more advanced training. Beyond federal agencies that should be trained in NIMS, recommendations were released to include other agencies and government entities that should take NIMS training, including the following:
Law enforcement
Fire departments
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Hospitals
Public health agencies
Public works agencies
Utility companies
Skilled support personnel for the previously mentioned agencies
All emergency management response, support and volunteer personnel.
Local and state governments (including mayors, administrators, and city managers)
NGOs
NIMS guidance did not stop there. The research and development team also made recommendations for nonemergency response individuals that should receive NIMS training. This guidance recommended that local, state, territorial, and tribal nations should provide training to:
All managing supervisors
Those with mission critical positions
Individuals in charge of professional development
Human resource managers (including those that oversee personnel policies)
Individuals responsible for training and credentialing
It was also suggested that all federal policymakers, including elected and appointed officials, receive the training. While this may seem like an extensive list, there were multiple reasons that led to this decision. The primary reason revolved around the fact that when a major incident occurs, outside resources are usually needed. The NIMS training programs, and the NIMS document, was designed to support and create integrative collaboration among people who do not usually work together and/or may not even know each other. By these outside resources utilizing NIMS, these agencies and individuals improved their capacity to seamlessly respond to, and recover from, a disaster. It also allowed elected and appointed officials to understand what was involved in the processes, so they did not have unrealistic expectations or in the event of a disaster, they did not go outside of established standards which thereby created problems for response agencies.
Thousands of changes have been made to NIMS since HSPD‐5 and HSPD‐8 were first implemented. Some of those have occurred since the 2008 updates. In some instances, those changes were only a modification in the names used for resource typing (standardized names for specific equipment), while in other instances, moderate revisions were made to the NIMS Document. This includes items like the previously mentioned Intelligence and Investigation used to manage a crisis. The 2008 changes superseded the NIMS 2004 document, and most changes were integrated rather seamlessly and without issue.
1.14 NIMS Updates (2017)
Seven years after the 2008 changes, the research and development arm of NIMS made additional suggestions to help improve the system. These proposed changes maintained the key concepts and principles found in 2004 and 2008 versions, while incorporating lessons that were learned from the previous seven years. These lessons learned came from a multitude of sources including, but not limited to, drills, exercises, and real‐life incidents. These suggested changes were derived from best practices that were learned, which eventually led to changes in national policy.
While writing this book, FEMA held a 30‐day National Engagement Period in April and May 2016. During this period, stakeholders submitted nearly 3000 comments and provided feedback on the new draft of NIMS updates. This was done to ensure that those proposed changes reflected the collective expertise and experience of the whole community. Unlike the process of some federal entities, those managing NIMS wanted to ensure that those in the field, the individuals who actually use NIMS, had valuable input. This was done in part because the input from the users of NIMS to the proposed changes as was seen as “value added.” After receiving feedback from those who utilize NIMS, final adjustments were made to ensure that the changes were improving the system instead of changing it for the sake of change.
In October 2017, FEMA released the refreshed NIMS doctrine. As was common in the previous iterations of NIMS, the changes that were made applied to all incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity. While changes were made to the living NIMS document, the key concepts and principles from 2004 and 2008 versions of NIMS remained the same.
Because this book was mostly written by the time that the 2017 iteration of NIMS was written, a few of those changes may have been missed in finishing the book. While every effort was made to incorporate these changes, there may have been some missed. There is no doubt that future changes will be made to the NIMS Doctrine. Both the student and the practitioner alike must remember that NIMS is a living document that changes as our professions and our methods of planning, mitigation, response, and recovery change. While there is little chance that the core functions presented in the NIMS document will change, it is very possible that multiple minor portions will change or be better clarified over the coming years.
1.15 Conclusion
Comparatively speaking, emergency incident management is a relatively new concept that was formally conceived within the last 60 years (or thereabouts), even though portions of incident management systems have been used hundreds of years. Current Incident Management Systems are a powerful tool for first responders, providing that they are used and used properly. In order to be a successful in your organization and to be a useful tool, IMS methods must be and remain, comprehensive, flexible, and adaptable.
Changes have been made to all types of Incident Management Systems since the inception of FIRESCOPE. While many versions have been created and used, it is important to note that the standard for incident management in the United States is NIMS. The use and mandate of NIMS is applicable at all jurisdictional levels and across all disciplines.
As
