In a recent article ESFs Aren’t for Everyone, my colleague, Tim Riecker argues against the use of the Emergency Support Function (ESF) system for local emergency operations centers (EOC). As someone who was in almost at the adoption of the ESF system by FEMA, I wholeheartedly concur with Tim’s assessment.
To provide a bit of context, the ESF concept was developed just prior to the Loma Prieta earthquake by FEMA Region IX to coordinate decentralized federal operations following a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region. The plan was for each federal agency to perform its assigned mission independently on the assumption that communications would be disrupted and central coordination sporadic. The concept was never implemented as planned, instead defaulting to coordination via the Regional Operations Center and the Disaster Field Office. The ESF concept was later adopted for general use by FEMA in all disasters.
The problems began as FEMA moved towards adoption of the Incident Command System and attempted to merge the two systems in the years following Hurricane Iniki. ICS was developed specifically for to facilitate centralized coordination of response activities by agencies that were primarily hierarchical in nature. ESFs, as Tim points out, while capable of providing immediate response support, also have primary recovery missions. For example, the primary mission of ESF 2 Communications is the restoration of communications infrastructure. Immediate response support is secondary to this mission. Communications support to the operations center is generally handled by a separate team in the Logistics Section. This conflict in focus means that merging ICS and ESFs is an exercise in futility. I know this from personal experience.
This is not to say that either system is wrong. ESFs are an excellent planning tool as they can bring together the various resources required to address a particular need. However, even at the federal level the system is not implemented as written. There are no multi-agency teams in each ESF. Instead, you’ll find anywhere from a single representative to a small team from the lead agency, sometimes representing more than on ESF. If a support agency is needed, the request is passed to the person representing that agency as the lead in a different ESF. The relationships and pre-planning are important, not the operating structure.
The Incident Command System has also been proven to be a highly effective system. However, the problem I have found is the tendency to over structure EOC management teams. I find that there is a tendency to confuse the overall organization chart for the community with that of the team required to coordinate activities in the EOC. Like ESFs, what’s printed in the emergency plan is not what actually occurs in the EOC. In applying ICS, commitment to ICS principles is important, not the operating structure. Determine your needs and build your EOC management team accordingly.
Like Tim, I recommend against using ESFs in the EOC. I believe they are good planning tool but a poor operational one. There are no mandated operating structures for your EOC; you don’t have to use ESFs. If you are committed to ICS principles and focus on accomplishing the core functions (command, finance/admin, operations, planning, and logistics) you have a lot of latitude to build an operating structure that works for your jurisdiction. There are no “correct” operating structures, only those that work and those that fail.
