No matter what: Ensuring the performance of essential functions through devolution plans

Michael Vesely, JD

doi:10.5055/jem.2010.0001

Authors

Michael Vesely, JD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2010.0001

Keywords:

devolution, COOP, reconstitution, continuity, planning, worst-case scenario

Abstract

This article focuses on the role that devolution planning should occupy in an agency’s continuity planning effort. A devolution plan is an integral part of a Continuity of Operations (COOP) plan; however, many agencies do not expend the necessary time and effort to develop these essential plans. There are several reasons for this, including the difficult nature of the concepts at issue, as well as the practical challenges inherent with implementation of a devolution plan. This article gives a brief overview of COOP planning, with particular attention given to the reconstitution period. It then gives the definition of devolution and attempts to explain different ways that planners approach this issue, considering both internal and external devolution. Finally, the article reviews some of the core elements that should be included in every devolution plan.

Author Biography

Michael Vesely, JD

Staff Attorney, Center for Health and Homeland Security, University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, Maryland.

References

E-mountaincorp.com: Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery, 2009. Available at http://www.e-mountaincorp.com/New_ Design/Continuity/Outline&RecommendationsforaContinuityofO. html. Accessed December 27, 2009.

Department of Homeland Security: Federal Continuity Directive 1 (FCD 1). Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2008: 10.

FEMA: Continuity Guidance Circular 1 (CGC 1). Washington, DC: FEMA, 2009: 10.

FEMA: Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, Emergency Operations Plan Content.Washington, DC: FEMA, 2009: 1-10.

Department of Homeland Security: Federal Continuity Directive 1 (FCD 1).Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2008: Devolution L-1.

Department of Homeland Security: Federal Continuity Directive 1 (FCD 1).Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2008: 2.

FEMA: Continuity Guidance Circular 1 (CGC 1). Washington, DC: FEMA, 2009: 2.

Department of Homeland Security: Federal Continuity Directive 2 (FCD 2).Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2008.

Department of Homeland Security: Federal Continuity Directive 1 (FCD 1).Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2008.

FEMA: Continuity Guidance Circular 1 (CGC 1). Washington, DC: FEMA, 2009: 7.

FEMA: Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, Emergency Operations Plan Content.Washington, DC: FEMA, 2009: 7.

Department of Homeland Security: Federal Continuity Directive 1 (FCD 1). Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2008: 11.

Lengel A: Little Progress in FBI Probe of Anthrax Attack. Washington:Washington Post, 2005.

Department of Homeland Security: Federal Continuity Directive 1 (FCD 1). Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2008: FCD 1 page 10.

Marshalls Creek Volunteer Fire Company: Company History— Explosion. Pennsylvania: Marshall’s Creek. Available at http:// www.marshallcreekfireco.org/History. Accessed December 27, 2009.

EMAC: What is EMAC? Washington, DC: EMAC. Available at http://www.emacweb.org. Accessed December 27, 2009.

Department of Homeland Security: National Response Framework.Washington, DC: FEMA, 2008: 17.

FEMA: Continuity Assistance Tool (CAT). Washington, DC: FEMA, 2009: i.

FEMA: Devolution of Operations Template. Washington, DC: FEMA, 2008.

Department of Homeland Security: Federal Continuity Directive 1 (FCD 1). Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2008: L1.

FEMA: Continuity Guidance Circular 1 (CGC 1). Washington, DC: FEMA, 2009: L1.

University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security: Preparing the States: Implementing Continuity of Operations Planning. Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland, 2006: iRD-9.