Is ICS Missing an Essential Function?

In a Journal of Emergency Management article titled The evolution of shortcomings in Incident Command System: Revisions have allowed critical management functions to atrophy, researchers Kimberly Stambler and Joseph Barbera make a strong argument that four decades of policy/procedure changes have reduced the effectiveness of the Planning Section and Public Information Officer position. In particular, the shift from fire-specific ICS to an all-hazards model inadvertently eliminated responsibilities for predicting the future status of an incident and developing potential strategies and tactics for disseminating information within the ICS structure.

To make their case, Stambler and Barbera trace the many changes to ICS that have occurred over the past 40 years, demonstrating how the elimination of the Fire Behavior Prediction Unit, an element specifically tasked with intermediate and long range planning, led to the current situation where no element in the Planning Section has responsibility for detailed planning beyond the next operational period. Similarly, the role of the Information Officer has evolved from providing information both internally to the ICS structure and externally to the public and governmental agencies to a more constricted role as the public information officer responsible for primarily external communications.

I experienced this problem first-hand when FEMA was trying to reorganize the Information and Planning Section under ICS principles during the development of the Federal Response Plan. We recognized that demobilization planning alone was insufficient and developed what we called the Advance Planning Unit. This unit has three principal functions:

1. Forecasting. We analyzed incident data and extrapolated trends to produce predictions for use by the Operations Section. In our case, we were focused on trends such as shelter populations and assistance requests that would have a bearing on the future commitment of federal resources.
   
   
2. Contingency planning. An example of this type of planning was the contingency plan we developed in response to a hurricane that had the potential to disrupt our relief operations in the Virgin Islands. Our plan identified potential protective actions for our staff and key decision points for the Federal Coordinating Officer.
   
   
3. Demobilization planning. This was a bit of reverse planning in that we didn’t direct demobilization but rather requested information about expected project completion and anticipated staff reductions from each section and agency, allowing the FCO to adjust plans as necessary and better forecast budget and resource needs.
   
   

Stambler and Barbera recommend that planning beyond the next incident period be restored as a function of the Planning Unit, either as a specific position within the Situation Unit or as a separate Intermediate and Long Range Planning Unit. While one can argue that this function might not always be needed at the tactical level, the more complex the incident, the more essential it becomes. This is particularly true in the emergency operations center and disaster operations. Intermediate and long-range planning is definitely a function that should be restored to ICS.