FEMA Releases the National Planning System. So What?

FEMA has just released the National Planning System, a much anticipated document intended to provide a unified approach and common terminology to all-hazards planning. It’s a bit underwhelming.

The eight-page document describes two key elements to the System: A Planning Architecture that recognizes the different levels of planning and distinguishes between deliberate and incident action planning and a Planning Process that describes the steps necessary to develop a comprehensive plan.

There is nothing wrong with the document, per se. It summarizes an approach to planning with which most of us are familiar and already using. The three planning tiers (strategic, operational and tactical) are documented in CPG 101 Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans and have been around well before being incorporated in the latest version. The document does distinguish between deliberate or pre-event planning and time-constrained incident action planning but this is a fundamental concept that has never presented any problems for planners.

There are no surprises in the Planning Process element either. It is taken straight from CPG 101’s six-step planning process:

1. Form a Collaborative Planning Team
2. Understand the Situation
3. Determine Goals and Objectives
4. Plan Development
5. Plan Preparation, Review and Approval
6. Plan Implementation and Maintenance

So if the National Planning System does nothing but reiterate the content already provided in a six-year-old document, one has to question what purpose it really serves. This document has been in development for several years and has been much anticipated but it really adds nothing to the discussion around national planning. There is no attempt to integrate the various planning frameworks or various national plans into a cohesive framework. There is no mention of the relationship of response planning to continuity of operations planning. There is no theoretical basis for planning or planning methodology that builds on the vast amount of research done on planning. The document could easily have been produced six years ago and saved whatever it cost the government to develop it.

While the document summarizes good, proven concepts it really does not present a true system. If you are familiar with CPG 101, you can probably give the National Planning System a pass.