Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

January 28, 2009

DHS Rolls Out Integrated Planning System

Filed under: General Homeland Security,Organizational Issues,Preparedness and Response,Strategy — by Jonah Czerwinski on January 28, 2009

Last October I wrote about a briefing to be hosted by the DHS Office of Strategic Plans to describe the new DHS Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) process and the FY 2011-2015 Integrated Planning Guidance that derives from it. Readers may have noticed that yesterday’s Action Directives issued by Secretary Napolitano included reference to the “Integrated Planning System.” Thanks to reader WRC and other readers we can make a copy of it available here so those interested can place this Directive in better context.

The Action Directive addresses the HSC Planning Scenarios in this context as follows:

The Department is leading an interagency effort to develop plans at multiple levels to address eight scenario sets, which are based on the 15 National Planning Scenarios crafted by the Homeland Security Council. DHS and the federal interagency are utilizing the Integrated Planning System to develop and adjudicate interagency plans for each scenario. What is the status of each of these plans and the anticipated timeframe and actions needed to complete the process? Are there any recommendations for restructuring or consolidation? Where can state and local emergency management agencies provide input and assistance? An oral report is due Feb. 9, with a final report due Feb. 23.

The IPS was just issued this month. It establishes a standard approach to national planning to provide guidance for conducting planning under the Homeland Security Management System, which is described in the 2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security. However, the IPS is the result of taskings assigned as part of Annex I of HSPD 8. The IPS is intended to compliment the Incident Command System (ICS) established in the National Incident Management System (NIMS).

Perhaps appropriately, the IPS is to be considered only the “first step” in standardizing homeland security planning. It’ll be updated 1 year after approval and then every 2 years after that. Five key concepts underpin the current version:

1. The IPS has been developed recognizing that homeland security planning is based on coordination and synchronization rather than command and control.

2. The IPS applies to Federal departments and agencies with a role in homeland security when conducting scenario-based planning.

3. State, local, and Tribal governments are encouraged to comply with IPS by using the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101.

4. The IPS establishes a process for developing Federal plans.

5. The IPS is not designed to solve every planning problem.

Its my impression that the IPS responds to a coordination imperative most everyone in the homeland security community recognized as being needed for a long time. It was needed to rationalize investments, to clarify roles and missions, and to define what success looks like, not to mention to establish a more robust connection at the Federal-State-Local levels.

Several agencies with equities relevant to the homeland security mission do not plug into a standardized planning process across the Federal Government. The result is insufficient integration of plans and planning. Those agencies with existing planning systems and plans must ensure their planning products are compatible with the IPS. Agencies without existing planning processes can employ the IPS.

Click to enlarge.

Ultimately, this effort may look familiar to DOD hands. The IPS operates on three planning levels: strategic, operational, and tactical. Moreover, the IPS is intended to develop a set of interrelated documents as follows: Strategic Guidance Statements (SGSs), Strategic Plans, Concept Plans (CONPLANs), Operations Plans (OPLANs), and tactical plans. This is envisioned to unfold in a timeline like this one:

National Level
Phase 1 (July 08 – June 09)
• 4 CONPLANs completed
• IND & TUE by Jan 09
• RDD & Bio by Jun 09
• Updated CIS

Phase 2 (June 09 – Dec 09)
• 8 CONPLANs completed
• Imbedded pieces of CIS

Phase 3 (FY10)
• All Hazards Plan completed
• Full set of Scenario Annexes

Regional Level
Phase 1 (July 08 – Mar 09)
• Regional All Hazards CONPLAN completed
• Regional planning reps part of National CONPLAN development

Phase 2 (Jan 09 – Dec 09)
• 4 Scenario Annexes completed
• Assign one scenario to each Region

Phase 3 (FY10)
• Full set of scenario annexes

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print


Comment by William R. Cumming

January 28, 2009 @ 9:16 am

Very helpful post. It is interesting to note that key homeland security programs, functions, and activities (in my opinion) were not included in DHS when formed. I give as a specific example the Drug Enforcement Administration. The linkage between drug enforcement, narco-terrorism, and homeland security is even stronger today than known in 2002. This goes in part to what the culture of DOJ is even beyond the FBI which as is known for the HOOVER era took NO interest in either organized crime or drug enforcement based on HOOVER’s fears that to do so would corrupt the FBI!
So now let’s see how well other key contributors to homeland security sign on to even Presidentially mandated concepts on homeland security. Notice one of the likely scenarios for homeland security specifically a mass immigration emergency is not one of the 15 and of course no regulated industry such as a core-melt accident involving the nuclear power industry, or a large-scale grid outage is a planning scenario either.

Comment by Chris Stevenson

January 28, 2009 @ 10:14 am

Wouldn’t it make more sense to review the scenarios on an as needed basis, updating them as such, with a max of 2 years for them to be updated?

Comment by William R. Cumming

January 28, 2009 @ 10:18 am

Clarification. Although HSPD-8 called for this type of planning the annex to HSPD-8 was only issued in late December 2007.

I it probably would make sense to have Janet N. issue a brief ratication document for the many crucial issuances of DHS in last 90 days. She could adopt the concept that they should be considered as guidance until superseded formally or otherwise modified. Most of these items were contractor produced, not fully circulated for comments even within DHS or the HS Community. Certainly many never had State and local input. Nonetheless, let’s not waste any time and they are what they are–some contribution in some cases and excellent guidance in others. Hey, let’s get going. Interesting how the transition period after the election prompted a number of contractors to get their deliverables into DHS.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>