The National Disaster Housing Strategy (the Strategy) serves two purposes. First, it describes how we as a Nation currently provide housing to those affected by disasters. It summarizes, for the first time in a single document, the many sheltering and housing efforts we have in the United States and the broad array of organizations that are involved in managing these programs. The Strategy also outlines the key principles and policies that guide the disaster housing process. Second, and more importantly, the Strategy charts the new direction that our disaster housing efforts must take if we are to better meet the emergent needs of disaster victims and communities. Today we face a wider range of hazards and potentially catastrophic events than we have ever faced before. These include terrorist attacks and major natural disasters that could destroy large sections of the Nation's infrastructure. This new direction must address the disaster housing implications of all these risks and hazards and, at the same time, guide development of essential, baseline capabilities to overcome existing limitations. The new direction for disaster housing must leverage emerging technologies and new approaches in building design to provide an array of housing options. It must also be cost effective and draw on lessons learned and best practices. Above all, this new direction must institutionalize genuine collaboration and cooperation among the various local, State, tribal, and Federal partners, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to meet the needs of all disaster victims. Current practices in disaster housing vary based on the nature and scope of a disaster and can range from providing short-term shelters to arranging temporary and, in some cases, permanent housing. Establishing emergency shelters is generally a well-choreographed effort that unfolds smoothly at the local level as emergency management officials and nongovernmental organizations execute their emergency plans. The challenges increase when disaster victims are displaced from their homes for longer periods of time and temporary housing must be provided. The process of meeting individual and household needs becomes more challenging, and the responsibilities and roles of those involved must be absolutely clear. States monitor and support local government efforts and activate their capabilities as needed to augment local capabilities. The Federal Government stands alongside the States as an engaged partner, maintaining disaster housing resources and ready to deploy those resources, if required, to fill any emerging gap. While this process generally works very well, it broke down in August 2005 when Hurricane Katrina struck the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi and overwhelmed the capabilities of responders at all jurisdictional levels. And now, more than 3 years after Hurricane Katrina, we are still wrestling with many technical and policy issues related to disaster housing that Katrina brought to light. This Strategy outlines a vision, supported by specific goals, that will point the Nation in a new direction to meet the disaster housing needs of individuals and communities.

This document updates and consolidates the guidance provided in the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) Planning Guidance (2008) and CSEPP Programmatic Guidance (2008) and supersedes these documents. This guidance has also been reorganized into a structure consistent with the CSEPP National Benchmarks. This document provides the basis for Federal, State, and local program managers to implement CSEPP in keeping with the Department of the Army (Army)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) CSEPP Strategic Plan. References have been made throughout this document to the following function-specific guidance documents that serve as its technical companions: Annual CSEPP Cooperative Agreement Guidance; CSEPP Exercise Policy and Guidance (December 2012), (aka The Blue Book); CSEPP Medical Resource Guide; CSEPP Public Affairs Compendium Workbook. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the statutory and programmatic history of CSEPP, the organizational roles and responsibilities, and the management structure. Chapter 2 provides a summary of the hazards and risks associated with the U.S. Army chemical weapons stockpile. Chapters 3-14 provide guidance on each of the twelve CSEPP National Benchmarks. They are intended to provide a description of the critical components of each benchmark to assist program managers at the Federal, State, and local level in assigning responsibilities and developing budgets. Appendices A and B provide a summary of the specific hazard and risk associated with the stockpiles at Blue Grass (Kentucky) and Pueblo (Colorado). Appendix C provides a glossary of the terminology that may be unfamiliar and a list of acronyms. Appendix D explains how the Policy Papers that originally guided the program have been incorporated into CSEPP Guidance.

The purpose of this primer is to provide the design community and school administrators with the basic principles and techniques to make a school that is safe from terrorist attacks and at the same time is functional, aesthetically pleasing, and meets the needs of the students, staff, administration, and general public. Protecting a school building and grounds from physical attack is a significant challenge because the ability to design, construct, renovate, operate, and maintain the facility is spread across numerous building users, infrastructure systems, and many building design codes. There is a strong interest in the United States (U.S.) in ensuring the safety of students, faculty, and staff in our schools. Schools are integral parts of their communities. Many schools are used as shelters, command centers, or meeting places in times of crisis. Schools are also used widely for polling and voting functions. In some communities, schools are places of health care delivery. Schools may or may not be the targets of terrorism, but they are certain to be affected by terrorism, whether directly or indirectly. On September 11, 2001, four elementary schools and three high schools located within 6 blocks of the World Trade Center were just beginning classes when the first plane hit the north tower. Thousands of children were exposed to the dust clouds from the collapsing buildings. Even those children not in the immediate vicinity experienced a great deal of anxiety. Children in at least three states (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) had parents working in or around the World Trade Center that day. In the Washington, DC, area, schools faced similar situations after the Pentagon was attacked. Many Americans feel that schools should be the safest place our children can be, perhaps at times even safer than the homes in which they live. Security is not a standalone capability; it is a critical design consideration that should be constantly reviewed and scrutinized from the design phase through construction or rehabilitation and onto building use. The focus of this primer will be on the threats posed by potential physical attacks on a school by terrorists. Attacking schools and school children could be a highly emotional and high profile event. At the time of publication of this primer, there have been no direct terrorist threats against a school known to the public; however, schools could be indirectly threatened by collateral damage from a terrorist attack directed at nearby facilities. Protecting a school against terrorist attack is a challenging task. A school may have considerable vulnerabilities, because of its well defined periods of use, designated access points, storage of sensitive personal information, minimal security forces, and numerous avenues of penetration and escape for attackers. This primer should be used in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 426, Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings, and FEMA 427, Primer for Design of Commercial Buildings to Mitigate Terrorist Attacks. This primer presents an approach to protecting schools at risk from terrorist attacks. The information presented is intended primarily for architects and engineers, or school administrators with a technical background. This publication is designed to meet the needs of all schools, including those with serious security concerns. Because security concerns of individual schools vary greatly, some users with modest security concerns may feel beleaguered by the amount of information and technical approach presented. They should feel free to select the methods and measures that best meet their individual situations while gaining a general appreciation of security concerns and risk management.

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage to the coast along the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an unprecedented relief, recovery, and reconstruction effort. This reconstruction presents a unique opportunity to rebuild the communities and public infrastructure using the latest hazard mitigation techniques proven to be more protective of lives and property. Critical facilities comprise all public and private facilities deemed by a community to be essential for the delivery of vital services, protection of special populations, and the provision of other services of importance for that community. This manual concentrates on a smaller group of facilities that are crucial for protecting the health and safety of the population: health care, educational, and emergency response facilities. The Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds (FEMA 543) was developed with the support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This manual recommends incorporating hazard mitigation measures into all stages and at all levels of critical facility planning and design, for both new construction and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing facilities. It provides building professionals and decision makers with information and guidelines for implementing a variety of mitigation measures to reduce the vulnerability to damage and disruption of operations during severe flooding and high-wind events. The underlying theme of this manual is that by building more robust critical facilities that will remain operational during and after a major disaster, people's lives and the community's vitality can be better preserved and protected. The poor performance of many critical facilities in the affected areas was not unique to Hurricane Katrina. It was observed in numerous hurricanes dating back more than three decades. Several reasons may explain this kind of performance. In many cases the damaged facilities were quite old and were constructed well before the introduction of modern codes and standards. Some of the older facilities were damaged because building components had deteriorated as a result of inadequate maintenance. Many fa-cilities occupy unsuitable buildings that were never intended for this type of use. Some newer facilities suffered damage as a result of deficiencies in design and construction or the application of inappropriate design criteria and standards. The primary objective of this manual is to assist the building design community and local officials and decision makers in adopting and implementing sound mitigation measures that will decrease the vulnerability of critical facilities to major disasters. The goals of this manual are to: Present and recommend the use of building design features and building materials and methods that can improve the performance of critical facilities in hazard-prone areas during and after flooding and high-wind events. m Introduce and provide guidelines for implementing flooding and high-wind mitigation best practices into the process of design, construction, and operation and maintenance of critical facilities; and To aid in the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this manual presents an overview of the principal planning and design considerations for improving the performance of critical facilities during, and in the aftermath of, flooding and high-wind events. It provides design guidance and practical recommendations for protecting critical facilities and their occupants against these natural hazards. It presents incremental approaches that can be implemented over time to decrease the vulnerability of buildings, but emphasizes the importance of incorporating the requirements for mitigation against flooding and high winds into the planning and design of critical facilities from the very beginning of the process.

Our society places great importance on the education system and its schools, and has a tremendous investment in current and future schools. Nearly 50 million students were expected to attend approximately 99,000 public elementary and secondary schools in the fall of 2009, with an additional 5.8 million expected to attend private schools. The sizes of these school facilities range from one-room rural schoolhouses to citywide and mega schools that house 5,000 or more students. The school is both a place of learning and an important community resource and center. This publication is concerned with the protection of schools and their occupants against natural hazards. Architects and engineers deal with natural hazards in building design and construction and building codes have provisions for protection against natural hazards. This manual addresses two core concepts: multi-hazard design and performance-based design. Multi-hazard design recognizes the fundamental characteristics of hazards and how they interact, so that design for protection becomes integrated with all the other design demands; and Performance-based design suggests conducting a systematic investigation to ensure that the specific concerns of building owners and occupants are addressed, rather than relying on only the minimum requirements of the building code for protection against hazards. Building codes focus on providing life safety, while property protection is secondary. Performance-based design provides additional levels of protection that cover property damage and functional interruption within a financially-feasible context. This publication stresses that the identification of hazards and their frequency and careful consideration of design to resist these hazards must be integrated with all other design issues, and be included from the inception of the site selection and building design process. Although the basic issues to be considered in planning a school construction program are more or less common to all school districts, the specific processes differ greatly because each school district has its own approach. Districts vary in size, from a rural district responsible for only a few schools, to a city district or statewide system overseeing a complex program of all school types and sizes. Any of these districts may be responsible for new design and construction, renovations, and additions. While one district may have a long-term program of school construction and be familiar with programming, financing, hiring designers, bidding procedures, contract administration, and commissioning a new building, another district may not have constructed a new school for decades, and have no staff members familiar with the process. This publication is intended to provide design guidance for the protection of school buildings and their occupants against natural hazards. It focuses on the design of elementary and secondary schools (K-12), as well as repair, renovation, and additions to existing schools. It is one of a series of publications in which multi-hazard and performance-based design are addressed (FEMA 577, Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds, and FEMA 543, Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds). This publication considers the safety of school buildings to occupants, and the economic losses and social disruption caused by building damage and destruction. The volume covers three natural hazards that have the potential to result in unacceptable risk and loss: earthquakes, floods and high winds. A companion volume, FEMA 428, Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks, covers the manmade hazards of physical, chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. This publication is intended to assist design professionals and school officials involved in the technical and financial decisions related to school construction, repair, and renovations.

The residential portion of the fire problem continues to account for the vast majority of civilian casualties. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimates show that, while residential structure fires account for only 25 percent of fires nationwide, they account for a disproportionate share of losses: 83 percent of fire deaths, 77 percent of fire injuries, and 64 percent of direct dollar losses. Analyses of the residential structure fire problem were published formerly as a chapter in each edition of Fire in the United States. The most recent edition of Fire in the United States, the fourteenth edition published in August 2007, featured an abbreviated chapter on residential structures. This full report is the most current snapshot of the residential fire problem as reflected in the 2005 National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) data and the 2005 NFPA survey data. In this report, as in previous chapters in Fire in the United States, an attempt has been made to keep the data presentation and analysis as straightforward as possible. It is also the desire of the United States Fire Administration (USFA) to make the report widely accessible to many different users, so it avoids unnecessarily complex methodology.

This publication helps to develop a comprehensive juvenile firesetter prevention training workshop for the various agency professionals who work with juvenile firesetters. Juveniles are responsible for a significant proportion of both the accidental and intentional fires that occur each year in the United States. Since the mid-1970's, national, state, and local officials have been turning more attention to the problem of juvenile firesetting and have experimented with various approaches to reducing it. Nonetheless, many experts believe that there are significant gaps in our knowledge and practice. In response to these concerns, in 1987 the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) began a new research and development program intended to conceptualize, design, develop, and evaluate a variety of community-based approaches to prevent and control juvenile firesetting. The initiative was known as the National Juvenile Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention Program (NJF/ACP). This Users' Guide is designed to accompany The Juvenile Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention Program (JFACPP) Program Materials. The Users' Guide is intended to accomplish the following objectives: 1. To provide a summary of how to plan and implement a juvenile firesetter/arson control and prevention program. This is achieved by outlining critical decision points in building each component of the juvenile firesetter/arson program. The result is a cookbook format that guides the reader from the planning to the execution of an effective community program. 2. To highlight the key information contained in The JFACPP Guidelines for Implementation.

The range of services provided by America's fire service continues to expand. In many areas, the local fire department is responsible for mitigating hazardous materials incidents, performing technical rescues, and providing emergency medical services. The threat of terrorist incidents further increases the fire department's responsibility, as firefighters must be taught to recognize the signs of a chemical or biological attack and the proper response. This expansion of the fire service's responsibilities means that less time and energy are available to focus on basic fire suppression skills and scenarios. Also, some of the newer missions present their own, inherent training dangers. In addition, the personal protective gear being worn by firefighters today is excellent; some say that it is even too protective. Firefighters now can advance deeper into structures and get closer to the seat of a fire than in years past because the turnout gear protects well against heat, but this can create problems. A longer exposure to fire will rapidly deplete a firefighter's energy and air supply; and the firefighter will have a greater distance to travel to an exit in an emergency situation. Furthermore, as firefighters progress farther into a structure, more time elapses, which means the fire is more devel-oped, hotter, and often closer to flashover. Due to the increased use of synthetic and polycarbonate construction materials, fires are burning hotter and faster than in the past, resulting in a higher potential for building collapse and flashover. Collapse becomes more likely because of the increased damage from the fire. Safe, effective, and realistic firefighter training is essential in preparing the fire service to achieve its mission of preserving life and property. The dilemma posed by conducting realistic fire training is that fires, even in a training setting, are inherently dangerous. Yet, the fire service needs realistic scenarios to fully experience the environment of a fire and how to combat it. Even without the presence of live fire, training on the physically challenging and labor-intensive tasks of hose handling, tool work, and ladder operations pose a high potential for injuries. From 1987-2001 there has been a 31 percent decrease in the incidence of structure fires throughout the United States. As a result of the decline in fires, firefighters on the whole have less fireground experience than their predecessors had a generation ago. As many of the more experienced firefighters and officers retire, they are replaced by young officers with comparably less fire experience. As today's firefighters' collective, direct experience in fighting fires continues to diminish, there is great concern in the fire service that the inability to recognize flashover and building collapse-and to react quickly enough to avoid being caught by these two potentially fatal conditions-will continue to result in injuries and fatalities to firefighters. Complicating this situation is that live fire training with Class A combustible materials (especially in acquired structures) is being replaced by temperature-controlled, fuel-fed fires in non-combustible structures. Departments are relying less on live fire training for myriad reasons, including among others, environmental, safety, and cost. This report examines recent injurious and fatal incidents involving training to determine lessons that can be used to prevent future injuries and deaths. The emphasis in this report is on fire-related training, particularly live-fire evolutions. It is, however, important to note that training-related injuries can and do occur during a variety of types of training. Also included is a discussion of training standards and common hazards as well as a brief analysis of the available data on the number and cause of training-related injuries and deaths.

This report compiles the best practices and common problems of fire protection and criminal justice agencies in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing arson. Commonly, the crime of arson is motivated by spite and revenge. Perpetrators strike with fire at buildings where people live, work, or socialize-causing injury, property loss, and death. Civilians and firefighters alike die in arson fires every year. Thirty years ago, arson captured media attention because so-called arson-for-profit rings were burning down decaying urban neighborhoods that had ceased to be profitable, and then rebuilding them at a substantial profit. Other high-profile cases involved arsonists who were connected to gangs and drug lords, and who set fires to intimidate their rivals or as retribution for deals gone bad. Some of the most publicized cases occurred in the cities of New York, Boston, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Baltimore, and others. There even were situations where neighborhood vigilantes, who were frustrated with crime and run-down buildings, took it upon themselves to torch structures to rid the neighborhood of vagrants, prostitutes, and drug dealers. Insurance companies were perceived as the main victims from intentional fires. As a crime com-mitted against property, the economics of arson played center stage to the less well-defined statistics on injuries and deaths. Since arson fires do, on average, cause proportionately higher losses than fires from other causes, insurance companies committed many resources toward investigation and control. From establishing tip reward programs, training accelerant detection canines (ADC's), supporting arson reporting immunity legislation, and establishing the property insurance loss register (PILR), the insurance industry was a strong partner at that time. There is a dichotomy between arson as a property crime and arson as a crime against people, and that lies at the heart of today's challenges with cases of arson. As a crime, arson's long-standing definition as the willful and malicious burning of property does not do justice to the fact that today arson is usually a personal crime that is directed intentionally against specific victims. It is time for arson to be dealt with as a violent crime against persons, not just a crime against property. Today, spite and revenge dominate as the motives in intentional property fires, especially where there are casualties. Revenge-minded arsonists torch nightclubs, occupied residences, hotels, and other settings where their intended victims, and often other innocent people, are injured and killed. First responders get injured or die battling these blazes and trying to save others. Even though a portion of incendiary fires are motivated by other reasons (e.g., excitement, economic relief, peer pressure, a cry for help, and so forth) most set fires happen because someone wanted to inflict harm on another person using fire as the weapon of choice. Fire investigation units from The U.S. Fire Administration's (USFA's) project indicated that spite and revenge were the most common motives behind incendiary fires. Among project sites from the past 5 years, spite and revenge ranked as the highest leading motives, when investigation units were queried about prevailing motives.

This Wildfire Prevention Guide is a project of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. This is one in a series designed to provide information and guidance for personnel who have interests and/or responsibilities in fire prevention. Each guide in the series addresses an individual component of a fire prevention program. In addition to providing insight and useful information, each guide suggests implementation strategies and examples for utilizing this information. Each Wildfire Prevention Guide has been developed by Fire Prevention Specialists and subject-matter experts in the appropriate area. The goal of this series is to improve and enhance wildfire prevention programs and to facilitate the achievement of NWCG program goals.

Hurricane Sandy caused extensive human suffering and damage to public and private property. In response to this catastrophic event, Congress considered legislation to provide supplemental appropriations to federal disaster assistance programs. In addition, Congress considered revisions to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288 as amended), which is the primary source of authorities for disaster assistance programs for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As a result, Congress passed the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, which was included as Division B of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2). Division A of P.L. 113-2 provided a $50.7 billion package of disaster assistance largely focused on responding to Hurricane Sandy. Additionally, Congress increased the National Flood Insurance Program's borrowing authority by $9.7 billion (from $20.725 billion to $30.425 billion) (P.L. 113-1). Both of these supplemental relief law are discussed separately in CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief. This report analyzes the provisions of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. In general, these provisions amend the Stafford Act with a stated goal of improving the efficiency and quality of disaster assistance provided by FEMA. Briefly, the amendments to the Stafford Act include: Establishing a new set of alternative procedures for administering the Public Assistance Program, which provides assistance for debris removal and the repair and restoration of eligible facilities (Section 1102 of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013); Authorizing FEMA to enter into agreements with private owners of multi-family rental properties to expand post-disaster housing resources (Section 1103); Revising the administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, to include a possible advancement of 25% of grant funds (Section 1104); Directing the establishment of alternative dispute resolution procedures (including binding arbitration), building on FEMA's current appeals process, to resolve federal and state disagreements on costs and eligibility questions (Section 1105); Directing the creation of a joint process for environmental and historical review for disaster recovery projects with the goal of increasing the speed of the process (Section 1106); Directing FEMA to study, and report to Congress, whether it is appropriate to increase the dollar size of "small projects" eligible for simplified procedures (Section 1107); Including child care as an eligible expense under the "other needs assistance" provided in certain disasters (Section 1108(a)); Specifically authorizing the reimbursement of the base wages of government employees providing emergency work under certain circumstances (Section 1108(b)); Directing FEMA to update the factors considered when assessing the need for Individual Assistance in the declaration process (Section 1109); Authorizing the chief executive of a tribal government to directly request disaster or emergency declarations from the President, much as a governor can for a state (Section 1110); and Directing FEMA to create a comprehensive national strategy for reducing the cost of future disasters (Section 1111). Prospectively, the changes in law apply to disasters declared on or after the date of enactment, January 29, 2013. Further, support can be found in the text and legislative history of the bill for applying at least some of these amendments retrospectively to Hurricane Sandy-related disaster declarations. However, it is less clear whether, and to what extent, some of these revisions will apply to disasters declared before Hurricane Sandy.

The 2005 Fire Service Needs Assessment Survey was conducted as a stratified random sample survey. The NFPA used its own list of local fire departments as the mailing list and sampling frame of all fire departments in the US that report on fire incidents attended. In all, 15,545 fire departments - just over half the total in NFPA Fire Service Inventory (FSI) database, including all departments protecting communities of at least 50,000 population - were mailed survey forms, and 4,709 responded, for a 30% response rate. Because of time constraints, this second survey limited its second mailing to larger departments and states with unusually low response rates, whereas the first survey in 2001 had included a second mailing to all first-mailing non-respondents. This response rate is similar to the response rate in the 2001 survey's first mailing and is sufficient for reliable results at the national and state levels, overall and by community size. The second mailing to small states with low response rates had minimal impact on national estimates. The content of the survey was developed by NFPA in the 2001 survey, in collaboration with an ad hoc technical advisory group consisting of representatives of the full spectrum of national organizations and related disciplines associated with the management of fire and related hazards and risks in the U.S. The survey form was used without modification in order to maximize comparability of results and development of valid timelines.

Families trust schools to keep their children safe during the day. Thanks to the efforts of millions of teachers, principals, and staff across America, the majority of schools remain safe havens for our nation's youth. The unfortunate reality is, however, that school districts in this country may be touched either directly or indirectly by a crisis of some kind at any time. Natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, fires, and tornadoes can strike a community with little or no warning. An influenza pandemic, or other infectious disease, can spread from person-to-person causing serious illness across the country, or around the globe, in a very short time. School shootings, threatened or actual, are extremely rare but are horrific and chilling when they occur. The harrowing events of September 11 and subsequent anthrax scares have ushered in a new age of terrorism. Communities across the country are struggling to understand and avert acts of terror. Children and youth rely on and find great comfort in the adults who protect them. Teachers and staff must know how to help their students through a crisis and return them home safely. Knowing what to do when faced with a crisis can be the difference between calm and chaos, between courage and fear, between life and death. There are thousands of fires in schools every year, yet there is minimal damage to life and property because staff and students are prepared. This preparedness needs to be extended to all risks schools face. Schools and districts need to be ready to handle crises, large and small, to keep our children and staff out of harm's way and ready to learn and teach. Taking action now can save lives, prevent injury, and minimize property damage in the moments of a crisis. The importance of reviewing and revising school and district plans cannot be underscored enough, and Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities is designed to help you navigate this process. The Guide is intended to give schools, districts, and communities the critical concepts and components of good crisis planning, stimulate thinking about the crisis preparedness process, and provide examples of promising practices. This document does not provide a cookbook approach to crisis preparedness. Each community has its own history, culture, and way of doing business. Schools and districts are at risk for different types of crises and have their own definitions of what constitutes a crisis. Crisis plans need to be customized to communities, districts, and schools to meet the unique needs of local residents and students. Crisis plans also need to address state and local school safety laws. Experts recommend against cutting and pasting plans from other schools and districts. Other plans can serve as useful models, but what is effective for a large innercity school district where the population is concentrated may be ineffective for a rural community where schools and first responders are far apart.

The only book to combine emergency management principLEs with proven military concepts

Good disaster plans do not guarantee a good response. Any disaster plan rarely survives the first rain bands of a hurricane or the first tremors of an earthquake. While developing plans is essential, there must be systems in place to adapt these plans to the ever-changing operational environment of a disaster. Currently there is no set of standard disaster response principles to guide a community. The National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS) provide the framework to implement operational decisions, but they were never designed as operational concepts. The military has developed just such concepts and many of them can be adapted for civilian use.

Disaster Operations and Decision Making adapts those military concepts and combines them with disaster lessons learned to create a new opera-tional paradigm. Emphasizing team building, Emergency Operations Center operational systems, and situational awareness, the book details easily adopted methods. All of these methods are designed to be incorporated into the NIMS and ICS framework to enhance a community's response to any type of disaster.

Disaster Operations and Decision Making is an essential resource for emergency managers, fire chiefs, law enforcement officers, homeland security professionals, public health officials, and anyone else involved or interested in crisis management.

Hurricane Ivan made landfall on Thursday, September 16, 2004, just west of Gulf Shores, Alabama. The hurricane brought sustained wind speeds, torrential rains, coastal storm surge flooding, and large and battering waves along the western Florida Panhandle and Alabama coastline. After landfall, Hurricane Ivan gradually weakened over the next week, moving northeastward over the Southeastern United States and eventually emerging off the Delmarva Peninsula as an extratropical low on September 19, 2004. On September 18, 2005, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Mitigation Division deployed a Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) to Alabama and Florida to evaluate building performance during Hurricane Ivan and the adequacy of current building codes, other construction requirements, and building practices and materials. This report presents the MAT's observations, conclusions, and recommendations as a result of those field investigations. Several maps in Chapter 1 illustrate the path of the storm, the depth of storm surge along the path, and the wind field estimates. Hurricane Ivan approximated a design flood event on the barrier islands and exceeded design flood conditions in sound and back bay areas. This provided a good opportunity to assess the adequacy of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) floodplain management requirements as well as current construction practices in resisting storm surge and wave damage. FEMA was particularly interested in evaluating damages to buildings in coastal A Zones where V-Zone construction methods are not required. The recommendations in this report are based solely on the observations and conclusions of the MAT, and are intended to assist the State of Alabama, the State of Florida, local communities, businesses, and individuals in the reconstruction process and to help reduce damage and impact from future natural events similar to Hurricane Ivan. The report and recommendations also will help FEMA assess the adequacy of its flood hazard mapping and floodplain management requirements and determine whether changes are needed or additional guidance required. The general recommendations are presented in Sections 8.1 and 8.2. They relate to policies and education/outreach that are needed to ensure that designers, contractors, and building officials understand the requirements for disaster-resistant construction in hurricane-prone regions. Proposed changes to codes and standards are presented in Section 8.3. Specific recommendations for improving the performance of the building structural system and envelope, and the protection of critical and essential facilities (to prevent loss of function) are provided in Chapter 8. Implementing these specific recommendations, in combination with the general recommendations of Section 8.1 and 8.2 and the code and standard recommendations of Section 8.3, will significantly improve the ability of buildings to resist damage from hurricanes. Recommendations specific to structural issues, building envelope issues, critical and essential facilities, and education and outreach have also been provided. As the people of Alabama and Florida rebuild their lives, homes, and businesses, there are a number of ways they can minimize the effects of future hurricanes.

Following the two damaging California earthquakes in1989 (Loma Prieta) and 1994 (Northridge), many concrete wall and masonry wall buildings were repaired using federal disaster assistance funding. The repairs were based on inconsistent criteria, giving rise to controversy regarding criteria for the repair of cracked concrete and masonry wall buildings. To help resolve this controversy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiated a project on evaluation and repair of earthquake-damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings in 1996. The ATC-43 project addresses the investigation and evaluation of earthquake damage and discusses policy issues related to the repair and upgrade of earthquake-damaged buildings. The project deals with buildings whose primary lateral-force-resisting systems consist of concrete or masonry bearing walls with flexible or rigid diaphragms, or whose vertical-load-bearing systems consist of concrete or steel frames with concrete or masonry infill panels. The intended audience is design engineers, building owners, building regulatory officials, and government agencies. The project results are reported in three documents. TheFEMA306report, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Basic Procedures Manual, provides guidance on evaluating damage and analyzing future performance. Included in the document are component damage classification guides, and test and inspection guides. FEMA 307, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Technical Resources, contains supplemental information including results from a theoretical analysis of the effects of prior damage on single-degree-of-freedom mathematical models, additional background information on the component guides, and an example of the application of the basic procedures. FEMA 308, The Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, discusses the policy issues pertaining to the repair of earthquake-damaged buildings and illustrates how the procedures developed for the project can be used to provide a technically sound basis for policy decisions. It also provides guidance for the repair of damaged components.

Floods, hurricanes, and other disasters can strike with little warning and damage or destroy irreplaceable art, artifacts, books, and historic records. But there are ways to prepare for emergencies and minimize the damage they inflict. Since the events of September 11, 2001, effective emergency management has become a higher priority for the cultural community. More institutions are interested in developing disaster plans, providing staff training, and better protecting their collections. Numerous federal programs now support such important efforts. Before and After Disasters: Federal Funding for Cultural Institutions is designed to help archives, arts centers, libraries, museums, historical societies, and historic sites find the resources they need. This guide is an updated and expanded version of Resources for Recovery: Post-Disaster Aid for Cultural Institutions, first developed in 1992 by Heritage Preservation and then revised in 2000. Before and After Disasters includes summary descriptions and contact information for 15 federal grant and loan programs - almost double the number of resources in the previous edition. It covers sources of federal assistance for preparedness, mitigation, and response, as well as for recovery. Sample projects in disaster planning, training, treatment research, and restoration illustrate the funding guidelines. Before and After Disasters: Federal Funding for Cultural Institutions is an initiative of the Heritage Emergency National Task Force. It was written and produced by Heritage Preservation with funding from, and in partnership with, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Endowment for the Arts as a service to the American cultural community.

On September 22, 1992, at the request of the Mayor of Kauai County, the Federal Coordinating Officer for the Iniki disaster tasked the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) to assemble a team of experts to assess the performance of buildings. The team was tasked with surveying the performance of primarily residential structures under wind and water forces generated during Hurricane Iniki. The goal of this effort is to provide guidance and offer recommendations for reducing damage from future hurricanes. This goal is best met through learning from both failures and successes of building performance. During the field assessment, the team investigated primarily structural systems (i.e., systems in a building that resist lateral and vertical forces. For all buildings, the performance of exterior architectural systems, such as roofing, windows, and doors was analyzed. The analysis also included the effects of windborne and waterborne debris and the quality of construction and materials. The majority of building types observed were one- and two-story, wood-frame, single-family and multi-family residential structures. However, pre-engineered steel commercial and industrial buildings, as well as resort hotels and condominiums constructed of reinforced concrete and masonry, were also examined. This report includes detailed engineering discussions of building failure modes and successful building performance. It also provides detailed recommendations for enhancing building performance under hurricane and flood conditions.