Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201, 3rd Edition

Threat and Hazard Identification

and Risk Assessment (THIRA)

and Stakeholder Preparedness

Review (SPR) Guide

Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201

3rd Edition

May 2018

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Preface CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Preface

Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201, 3rd Edition, provides guidance for conducting a

Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) and Stakeholder Preparedness

Review (SPR), formerly State Preparedness Report. The 1st Edition of CPG 201 (April 2012)

presented the basic steps of the THIRA process. Specifically, the 1st Edition described a

standard process for identifying community-specific threats and hazards and setting targets for

each core capability identified in the National Preparedness Goal. The 2nd Edition (August

2013) expanded the THIRA process to include resource estimation, streamlined the number of

steps in the process, and provided additional examples of how to develop a THIRA.

CPG 201, 3rd Edition, includes both the THIRA and SPR because they are interconnected

processes that, together, communities use to evaluate their preparedness. The 3rd Edition also

introduces updates to both methodologies. The THIRA includes standardized language to

describe threat and hazard impacts and capability targets. This allows communities to collect

more specific, quantitative information while also providing important context. Through the

updated SPR process, communities collect more detailed and actionable data on their current

capabilities and identified capability gaps. Communities then indicate their intended approaches

for addressing those gaps, and assess the impact of relevant funding sources on building and

sustaining capabilities.

Where appropriate, the 3rd Edition highlights key changes from previous editions of CPG 201.

This 3rd Edition supersedes the 2nd Edition of CPG 201.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Contents

Preface ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5

The National Preparedness Goal ................................................................................................. 5

The National Preparedness System ............................................................................................. 6

Using the THIRA/SPR Strategically ........................................................................................... 7

Community-Wide Involvement .................................................................................................. 9

The THIRA Process .................................................................................................................... 10

Introduction to the Three Steps of the THIRA ......................................................................... 10

Step 1: Identify the Threats and Hazards of Concern ............................................................... 11

Step 2: Give the Threats and Hazards Context ......................................................................... 15

Step 3: Establish Capability Targets ......................................................................................... 19

The SPR Process .......................................................................................................................... 23

Step 1: Assess Capabilities ....................................................................................................... 24

Step 2: Identify and Address Capability Gaps .......................................................................... 34

Step 3: Describe Impacts of Funding Sources .......................................................................... 39

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 41

Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................................... 42

Introduction CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Introduction

The National Preparedness Goal

The National Preparedness Goal, Second Edition (2015)

defines what it means for all

communities to be prepared for the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk to the security

of the United States. The National Preparedness Goal (“the Goal”) is:

A secure and resilient Nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to

prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that

pose the greatest risk.

The Goal identifies 32 distinct activities, called core capabilities,

needed to address the greatest

risks facing the Nation (see Figure 1).

The Goal organizes these core capabilities into five

categories, called mission areas.

Some core capabilities apply to more than one mission area.

For example, the first three core capabilities—Planning, Public Information and Warning, and

Operational Coordination—are cross-cutting capabilities, meaning they apply to each of the five

mission areas.

The National Preparedness Goal describes the five mission areas as follows:

• Prevention: Prevent, avoid, or stop an imminent, threatened, or actual act of terrorism.

• Protection: Protect our citizens, residents, visitors, and assets against the greatest

threats and hazards in a manner that allows our interests, aspirations, and way of life to

thrive.

• Mitigation: Reduce the loss of life and property by lessening the impact of future

disasters.

• Response: Respond quickly to save lives; protect property and the environment; and

meet basic human needs in the aftermath of an incident.

• Recovery: Recover through a focus on the timely restoration, strengthening, and

revitalization of infrastructure, housing, and a sustainable economy, as well as the

health, social, cultural, historic, and environmental fabric of communities affected by an

incident.

The mission areas and core capabilities organize the community-wide activities and tasks

performed before, during, and after disasters into a framework for achieving the goal of a

secure and resilient Nation.

For additional information on the National Preparedness Goal, please visit: https://www.fema.gov/national-

preparedness-goal.

For additional information on core capabilities, please visit: https://www.fema.gov/core-capabilities.

For additional information on mission areas, please visit: https://www.fema.gov/mission-areas.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition Introduction

Figure 1: Five mission areas organize the 32 core capabilities needed to address threat and hazards of

concern.

The National Preparedness System

Communities assess, build, sustain, and deliver the core capabilities through an organized

process called the National Preparedness System.

The National Preparedness System has six

components (see Figure 2), each of which ties into the others to guide community-wide

preparedness activities and achieve the Goal of a secure and resilient Nation.

For additional information on the National Preparedness System, please visit: https://www.fema.gov/national-

preparedness-system.

Introduction CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Figure 2: There are six components of the National Preparedness System.

Using the THIRA/SPR Strategically

The THIRA/SPR sets a strategic foundation for putting the National Preparedness System into

action. Communities complete the THIRA every three years and use the data from the process to

assess their capabilities in the SPR, which is an annual review. It is important that communities

complete the THIRA on a multi-year cycle, as it enables them to assess year-over-year trends in

changes to their capabilities, while still periodically reviewing the capability targets to keep them

relevant.

The three-year THIRA/SPR cycle starts with the first step in the National Preparedness System:

Identifying and Assessing Risk. Risk is the potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from an

incident or occurrence, as determined by its likelihood and the associated consequences.

In the

THIRA, communities identify risks with the potential to most challenge their capabilities and

expose areas in which the community is not as capable as it aims to be. These areas, or capability

gaps, create barriers in a community’s ability to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and

recover from a threat or hazard. Understanding the risks they face will make it easier for

communities to determine what level of capability they should plan to build and sustain.

Communities can use the information that comes from the THIRA/SPR process to answer five

key strategic questions about their preparedness risks and capabilities (see Figure 3).

DHS Risk Lexicon, June 2010: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/dhs-risk-lexicon-2010_0.pdf.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition Introduction

Figure 3: Communities use the THIRA/SPR to answer five key questions.

Since 2012, communities have used the THIRA/SPR to answer these questions, helping them

better understand the risks their communities face. This helps communities make important

decisions on how to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats

and hazards that pose the greatest risks.

In addition to the Identifying and Assessing Risk component of the National Preparedness

System, communities use the THIRA/SPR for Estimating Capability Requirements. This

involves determining the specific level of capability that best addresses a community’s risks.

These community-specific capability levels are what communities use to determine their current

level of capability, identify their capability gaps, and identify how they can close those gaps. At

the end of the three-year THIRA/SPR cycle, communities reassess their risks by completing the

THIRA again and the process restarts. The outputs of the THIRA/SPR provide communities a

foundation to prioritize decisions, close gaps in capability, support continuous improvement

processes, and drive the other National Preparedness System components (see Figure 4).

Introduction CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Figure 4: The THIRA/SPR fuels NPS implementation.

Community-Wide Involvement

Recognizing that preparedness is a shared responsibility, the National Preparedness System calls

for everyone—not just government agencies—to be involved in preparedness efforts.

Community-wide involvement is an important principle in preparedness that entails involving

stakeholders throughout preparedness development, and ensuring preparedness materials reflect

their roles and responsibilities. Including stakeholders early on and throughout the THIRA/SPR

process helps the community to conduct accurate and comprehensive assessments. Furthermore,

involving stakeholders throughout the process empowers them to use the data to help drive

priorities and investments within their own organizations.

As such, developing a comprehensive and accurate THIRA/SPR requires active community

involvement from stakeholders and subject-matter experts (SMEs), such as:

 Colleges/universities, and other research organizations

 Cybersecurity experts

 Emergency management/homeland security agencies

 Emergency Planning Committees

 Federal agencies (e.g. Department of Health and Human Services)

 FEMA regional offices

 Fire, police, emergency medical services, and health departments

 Hazard mitigation offices

 Infrastructure owners and operators

 Major urban area and state fusion centers

 National Laboratories

 National Weather Service offices

 Port or transit organizations

 Supply chain stakeholders

 Private sector partners (including the 16 critical infrastructure sectors)

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition The THIRA Process

 Professional associations

 Tribal governments

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Protective Security Advisors

 Volunteer Organizations Active in Disasters (VOAD)

 Other organizations or agencies with significant impact on the local economy

Communities should also include SMEs

from planning, exercises, mitigation,

training, and other key areas in their

THIRA/SPR process. Including the

perspectives and expertise of these key

stakeholders gives communities critical

information regarding planning factors

and capability levels across all mission

areas. As a result, emergency managers

will be well-positioned to provide

essential information about the status of

capabilities and consider THIRA/SPR data in their planning efforts, including the development

of strategic, operational, and tactical plans.

Importance of Community-Wide Involvement

The outputs of the THIRA/SPR process inform

all other preparedness activities; helping

communities identify challenges, drive priorities,

and close gaps in capabilities. Therefore, when

developing and updating THIRA/SPRs,

communities should ensure their assessment and

planning efforts include community-wide input

and perspectives.

The THIRA Process

Introduction to the Three Steps of the THIRA

The THIRA is a three-step risk assessment completed every three years. It helps communities

answer the following questions:

 What threats and hazards can affect our community?

 If they occurred, what impacts would those threats and hazards have on our community?

 Based on those impacts, what capabilities should our community have?

The THIRA helps communities understand their risks and determine the level of capability they

need in order to address those risks. The outputs from this process lay the foundation for

determining a community’s capability gaps during the SPR process.

This section describes the three-step process for developing a THIRA (see Figure 5):

Figure 5: There are three steps in the THIRA process.

THIRA Step 1 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

1. Identify Threats and Hazards of Concern: Based on a combination of experience,

forecasting, subject matter expertise, and other available resources, develop a list of threats

and hazards that could affect the community. When deciding what threats and hazards to

include in the THIRA, communities consider only those that challenge the community’s

ability to deliver at least one core capability

more than any other threat or hazard; the

THIRA is not intended to include less

challenging threats and hazards.

2. Give Threats and Hazards Context:

Describe the threats and hazards identified in

Step 1, showing how they may affect the

community and create challenges in

performing the core capabilities. Identify the

impacts a threat or hazard may have on a

community.

3. Establish Capability Targets: Using the impacts described in Step 2, determine the level of

capability that the community plans to achieve over time in order to manage the threats and

hazards it faces. Using standardized language, create capability targets for each of the core

capabilities based on this desired level of capability by identifying impacts, objectives, and

timeframe metrics.

THIRA: Key Changes

▪

FEMA now recommends that

communities complete the THIRA on a

three-year cycle, rather than annually.

▪ The THIRA is now a three-step

assessment; FEMA has removed

THIRA Step 4—Apply Results—from

the process.

Step 1: Identify the Threats and Hazards of Concern

In Step 1 of the THIRA process, communities develop a list of threats and hazards (see Figure

6).

Figure 6: The output of Step 1 of the THIRA is a list of threats and hazards of concern.

Categories of Threats and Hazards

For the purposes of the THIRA, threats and hazards are organized into three categories.

 Natural hazards: acts of nature

 Technological hazards: accidents or the failures of systems and structures

 Human-caused incidents: the intentional actions of an adversary

Table 1 provides example threats and hazards for each of the three categories.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition THIRA Step 1

Table 1: Example threats and hazards by category.

Natural Technological Human-caused

Avalanche

Drought

Earthquake

Epidemic

Flood

Hurricane/Typhoon

Space weather

Tornado

Tsunami

Volcanic eruption

Winter storm

Dam failure

Hazardous materials release

Industrial accident

Levee failure

Mine accident

Pipeline explosion

Radiological release

Train derailment

Transportation accident

Urban conflagration

Utility disruption

Active shooter incident

Armed assault

Biological attack

Chemical attack

Cyber-attack against data

Cyber-attack against

infrastructure

Explosives attack

Improvised nuclear attack

Nuclear terrorism attack

Radiological attack

Communities consider two criteria when

identifying threats and hazards for the

assessment: (1) the threat or hazard is

reasonably likely to affect the community;

and (2) the impact of the threat or hazard

challenges at least one of the 32 core

capabilities more than any other threat or

hazard. As a single incident may most

challenge the ability to perform multiple

core capabilities, the number of threats and hazards that each community includes will depend

on the specific risk profile of the community.

See Figure 7 for an example where a community selected an earthquake, a cyber-attack, a flood,

an active shooter, and a chemical hazmat release—each of which most challenged at least one

core capability.

The Most Challenging Threat or Hazard

For the purposes of this Guide, if a threat or

hazard “most challenges” a core capability, it

means that the community would struggle to

deliver the core capability during that specific

incident more so than for any other threat or

hazard.

THIRA Step 1 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Figure 7: A single threat or hazard may most challenge more than one core capability.

Sources of Threat and Hazard Information

Consulting multiple sources during the THIRA process helps establish a comprehensive list of

the threats and hazards that communities may face. These sources may include, but are not

limited to:

 Existing Federal, state, local, and tribal strategic and operational plans

 Existing threat or hazard assessments (e.g., the Hazard Identification and Risk

Assessment)

 Forecasts or models of future risks due to changing weather and demographic patterns or

emerging threats

 Hazard mitigation plans

 Intelligence fusion center bulletins and assessments

 Local, regional, tribal, and neighboring community THIRAs

 Records from previous incidents, including historical data

 Homeland security and emergency management laws, policies, and procedures

 Private-sector plans and risk assessments, including those for lifeline functions

(communications, energy, transportation, and water)

Factors for Selecting Threats and Hazards

When identifying threats and hazards to include in the THIRA, communities consider two key

factors: (1) the likelihood of a threat or hazard affecting the community; and (2) the challenge

presented by the impacts of that threat or hazard, should it occur.

Lifeline functions are functions that are essential to the operation of most critical infrastructure sectors. For

additional information on lifeline functions please visit:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/national-infrastructure-protection-plan-2013-508.pdf

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition THIRA Step 1

Factor #1: Likelihood of a Threat or Hazard Affecting a Community

For the purposes of the THIRA, “likelihood” is the chance of a given threat or hazard affecting a

community. Likelihood is important to consider because communities must allocate limited

resources strategically. A particular threat or hazard might be possible, but communities should

determine whether the likelihood of its occurrence is large enough to drive investment decisions.

Through the THIRA, communities

identify the threats and hazards that

are challenging enough to expose

their capability gaps, and are likely

enough that a community can

justify investing in the capabilities

necessary to manage those threats

and hazards.

The ability to predict the likelihood

of a specific incident varies greatly

across threats and hazards. Some

hazards, such as floods, have

mature prediction models that can

allow communities to calculate the

numerical probability of a specific

incident, such as 1 in 100 or 1 percent a year, with a moderate degree of accuracy. Other

incidents, such as terrorism, are more difficult to predict and communities may most easily

express them on a logarithmic scale, such as 1 in 1,000, or on an ordinal scale, such as low,

medium, and high. Regardless of how communities express the probability of a specific

incident, understanding the likelihood of their threats and hazards can help communities

understand capability requirements and prioritize investments.

Including estimates of probability in the THIRA is not necessary, but communities may do so if

they deem it appropriate. Communities can also consider additional sources for useful likelihood

and consequence information to inform their threat and hazard selections, such as hazard

mitigation plans. Regardless of whether probability is included in the THIRA process,

communities only consider those threats and hazards that could realistically occur.

Factor #2: The Impacts of a Threat or Hazard

The projected impacts of threats and hazards determine the level of capability that a community

will need to address those impacts. To understand their risks effectively, communities should

identify and select threats and hazards that have impacts that most challenge their communities,

and therefore their capabilities. When assessing impact, it is important to consider that different

incidents present different types of challenges. In some cases, the sheer magnitude of the

incident may be substantial. In other cases, there may be operational or coordination

complexities or economic and social challenges.

Communities may include as many threats or hazards in their THIRA as they desire but should,

at a minimum, include as many threats and hazards as needed to most challenge each of the 32

core capabilities.

Considering the Location of Threat and Hazard

Consequences

Although incidents may have wider regional or national

effects, communities completing the THIRA should

focus strictly on the consequences within their

community. In some cases, it may be useful to include

threats and hazards that occur in other locations if they

trigger local effects.

For Example:

An industrial accident at a chemical plant located in one

particular community could affect people in another

community who are downwind or downriver from the

accident.

THIRA Step 2 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Step 2: Give the Threats and Hazards Context

In Step 2 of the THIRA process, communities create context descriptions and estimate the

impacts of the threats and hazards identified in Step 1 (see Figure 8). Context descriptions and

impacts inform THIRA Step 3 where communities determine the level of capability they would

like to achieve. When creating context

descriptions and estimating impacts,

communities should consider community-wide

sources, such as real-world incidents, SMEs,

exercises, response and recovery plans,

modeling, or tools. Identifying different sources

provides communities with key data points that

they can use to determine how a threat or hazard

may affect their community. For example, SMEs

can help shape context descriptions by outlining

the time, place, and location of the threat or

hazard in a way that shows how it challenges a

community’s capabilities.

Identifying sources of information is extremely

important for continuity of the assessment

process. Communities may not update the THIRA for several years, so there may be changes in

staff involved in the process between updates. The potential resulting loss in knowledge and

experience after staff turnover can make it challenging to maintain continuity between updates.

Citing sources helps to complete future THIRA updates, increasing consistency, improving data

credibility, and reducing duplication of effort.

THIRA Step 2: Key Changes

▪ Communities now identify the impacts

for their chosen threats and hazards in

Step 2, rather than Step 3, because this

flows more naturally from developing

context descriptions.

▪ Communities now estimate the impacts

of each threat and hazard using

standardized impact language

(numerical entry), rather than providing

free-text impacts, establishing a

common language for describing

impacts at all levels of government.

Figure 8: The outputs of Step 2 of the THIRA are context descriptions and impact numbers.

Step 2.1: Context Descriptions

In Step 2.1 of the THIRA, communities add context to each threat and hazard identified in Step

1. Context Descriptions are the details about a threat or hazard needed to identify the impacts it

will have on a community and includes critical details such as location, magnitude, and time

of an incident.

If an element of the scenario is essential to understanding the impact of an incident and the

capabilities required to manage it, that element should be included in the context description.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition THIRA Step 2

For example, at night, residential structures have a higher occupancy, while during the day,

schools and office buildings have higher occupancies. In this example, search and rescue

missions would target different locations based on the time of the day the scenario occurs. See

Table 2 for more examples on how critical details can influence a context description.

Table 2: Questions to Consider When Developing Context Descriptions

Best Practices for Developing Context Descriptions

Questions to Consider

Examples in Practice

How would the timing of an incident affect the

community’s ability to manage it? What time of day

and what season would be most likely or have the

greatest impact?

Community A is a very popular summer tourist

destination. A tornado occurring at 7:00 p.m. in

June might have the greatest impacts, as large

numbers of tourists will be on the roads

returning to their hotels.

How would the location of an incident affect the

community’s ability to manage it? Which locations

would be most likely or have the greatest impacts

(e.g., populated areas, coastal zones, industrial or

residential areas)?

Community B has a high population density in

the north and very low population density in the

south. A pandemic might result in the greatest

impacts in the north, where the disease can

spread among the population more quickly.

What other conditions or circumstances make the

threat or hazard of particular concern (e.g.,

atmospheric conditions like wind speed/direction

and relative humidity, or multiple incidents

occurring at the same time)?

Community C experiences a hazardous

materials release. The worst impacts might

occur on a day with increased wind speed

directed towards the highly populated

residential areas in the community.

What social or physical vulnerabilities make the

threat or hazard of particular concern? (e.g., flood

prone areas, populations with limited or no ability to

evacuate)?

Community D is located in a mountainous

region, with its population spread between the

suburban areas in the foothills and the rural

mountain communities. A wildfire might have

greater impacts in the mountain communities,

which have limited roads that the population

can use to evacuate and is more difficult to

access by response workers.

See the example context descriptions below for a comparison between sufficient and insufficient

levels of detail. The example with sufficient detail provides suggested types of information that

a community might want to consider including in their context descriptions.

Example Context Description: Insufficient Level of Detail

An active shooter incident occurs, involving multiple gunmen and many potential victims.

There are dozens of fatalities and injuries, and first responders arrive to the scene quickly.

There are reports that the incident may be related to terrorism.

THIRA Step 2 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Example Context Description: Sufficient Level of Detail

At approximately 2:00 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon, local police and State Troopers are

dispatched to Thiraland City Mall responding to reports of an active shooter situation. 9-1-1

calls from patrons report between one and four shooters, with varying reports of the types of

weapons, number of weapons, and number of injured people. At the time of the incident—

among the busiest the mall experiences during a normal week—the 1,200,000 square foot

facility was occupied by approximately 8,500 shoppers and employees. Upon arrival,

authorities find crowds pouring out of the mall’s exits. Some are unharmed while others are

severely injured. Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life Support (BLS) units are en

route, with mutual aid EMS being dispatched. Shots are still heard inside, and the injury count

cannot be immediately estimated. The closest hospital facility is approximately 3 miles from

Thiraland City Mall. The closest Level I Trauma Center is approximately 18 miles from

Thiraland City Mall. The medical facilities have been notified of the incoming patients, but

the unknown number and extent of injuries, ongoing shortages of IV bags, and understaffing

raise concern about the facilities’ ability to care for the incoming victims. Within an hour, the

state fusion center is receiving credible intelligence of a terrorism link to the attack.

Step 2.2: Estimate Impacts

In Step 2.2, communities estimate the impacts a scenario would have on their community if the

threat or hazard occurred. Communities write impacts in the language of common emergency

management metrics, such as affected population, number of people requiring shelter, or

number of people requiring screening. The THIRA process uses a uniform set of these common

metrics, or standardized impact language (see Figure 9). The standardized impact language

represents metrics estimated by every community, and in most cases, across multiple different

threats and hazards. The estimated impact from this step provides the basis for creating

capability target statements in Step 3 of the THIRA process (see Figure 10).

When determining the impacts of a threat or hazard, it is important to engage relevant

stakeholders and SMEs that can provide varying perspectives. For example, when estimating

impacts and setting capability targets for the Infrastructure Systems core capability, including

input from each of the infrastructure sectors provides a holistic view of the different ways a

threat or hazard may challenge the capability.

Figure 9: Impacts are developed by adding community-specific numbers to standardized impact language.

For additional information on the Critical Infrastructure sectors, please visit: https://www.dhs.gov/critical-

infrastructure-sectors. More information is also available at: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-

data/1471451918443-dbbb91fec8ffd1c59fd79f02be5afddd/Recovery_FIOP_2nd.pdf.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition THIRA Step 2

Figure 10: Communities use standardized impacts data to create capability targets.

Communities develop capability targets in Step 3 based on their estimated impacts. As such,

communities identify a community-specific number for the standardized impact language in

Step 2.2 before proceeding to Step 3. Ideally, communities will estimate all standardized

impacts for each threat or hazard scenario. However, at a minimum, to develop capability targets

in THIRA Step 3, communities will

develop an estimate for each

standardized impact at least once

across all included threats and

hazards.

In addition to the impacts for which

there is standardized language,

communities may include as many

other impacts in their THIRA as they

deem appropriate. They may choose

to include additional non-standardized impact language, if they want to describe certain effects

of a disaster that are not included in the standardized impact language. Communities may find

this helpful when considering their threats and hazards. If a community chooses to estimate an

impact using data from only one scenario, they should use data from the scenario that would

create the most challenging impact.

Identifying the Most Challenging Impact

The impact with the largest number is not necessarily

always the most challenging to address. For example,

it may be more challenging to provide medical care to

a smaller number of individuals affected by a

radiological attack (which may include additional

considerations like decontamination or personal

protective equipment) than a larger number of

hurricane survivors.

THIRA Step 3 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Step 3: Establish Capability Targets

In Step 3 of the THIRA process, communities establish capability targets—which describe the

level of capability a community plans to work toward achieving—for each of the 32 core

capabilities (see Figure 11). These capability targets are not a reflection of a community’s

current capability and may represent a

long-term desired capability level. To

develop capability targets, communities

consider what is required to address the

impacts of their threats and hazards. In

addition to the risks posed by their

threats and hazards, communities also

take into account expected resources

and other factors to determine the level

of capability their community plans to

work toward achieving.

Capability Targets

 For the purposes of the THIRA/SPR,

communities should view their capability targets

as the level of capability communities plan to

build to, instead of a target based on maximum

capability requirements.

 Communities can also include a maximum

requirement target in addition to their capability

target if they choose.

Figure 11: The outputs of Step 3 of the THIRA are capability targets that use standardized target language.

In the THIRA, communities create capability targets for each of the 32 core capabilities. To

create a capability target, communities fill in the blanks within the standardized target language

to show the level of capability they want to achieve. FEMA developed standardized target

language (see Figure 12) for each capability based on previous THIRA targets submitted by

communities, the National Planning Frameworks,

the critical tasks in the Federal Interagency

Operational Plans (FIOPs),

FEMA Core Capability Development Sheets,

and community and

interagency feedback on draft versions of the targets.

For additional information on the National Planning Frameworks, please visit: https://www.fema.gov/national-

planning-frameworks.

For additional information on the FIOPs, please visit: https://www.fema.gov/federal-interagency-operational-

plans.

For additional information on the Core Capability Development Sheets, please visit: https://www.fema.gov/core-

capability-development-sheets.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition THIRA Step 3

Figure 12: Standardized target statements allow communities to determine their specific needs.

The intent of standardized target language is to create measurable indicators of preparedness,

not a comprehensive list of everything a community must do to achieve each of the core

capabilities successfully. In addition to setting capability targets using the standardized

language, communities may also develop non-standardized capability targets if they find it

beneficial to capture other elements of their core capabilities.

Impacts, Objectives, and Timeframe Metrics

Each capability target describes a critical task that, when completed, helps communities

successfully manage a threat or hazard. These critical tasks (1) are based on the activities that

emergency managers plan for; and (2) define activities that must be performed for a wide variety

of threats and hazards, not only the

ones identified in the THIRA.

Additionally, communities

estimate which threat or hazard

most challenges their ability to

achieve the critical task described

in each capability target. This adds

more utility to the THIRA during

real-world incidents. For example,

if a hurricane is approaching

Community A, emergency

managers can look at their THIRA

data and see which critical tasks

Community A estimated would be

most challenged by a hurricane

and use that data to inform

decisions.

THIRA Step 3: Key Changes

▪

Communities insert community-specific numbers into

standardized target language to develop capability

targets, rather than provide free-text capability targets;

this establishes a common language for discussing and

establishing clear preparedness goals and better aligns

the THIRA process with planning.

▪ Communities now indicate which threat or hazard

places the greatest challenge on each critical task

described in a target, providing potentially useful

contextual information during response operations.

▪ Communities will only establish timeframe metrics

(formerly referred to as desired outcomes) within their

targets, and not also as a standalone element, reducing

duplication effort.

THIRA Step 3 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Capability targets are specific and measurable; communities build them by combining impacts,

which represent the size of the capability requirement, and timeframe metrics, which represent

the timeframe in which the action must be performed (see Figure 13).

Figure 13: Capability targets are composed of impacts and timeframe metrics.

Impacts and Objectives

For each capability target, communities identify the level of capability they want to work toward

achieving. To determine this desired level of capability, communities consider the impacts of

their threats and hazards (as estimated in Step 2.2), estimated resource requirements, expected

available resources, and other relevant factors. The impact that a community selects for their

target does not need to match the impacts identified in Step 2.2. However, communities should

ensure they understand the risk posed by their threats and hazards and use that knowledge to

inform the impacts they include in their capability targets. For example, Community B estimates

that an earthquake will result in 890 miles of road affected while a wildfire will result in 700.

Community B lists “890” as its impact in Step 2.2 but this does not mean that they must set their

capability target as “clear 890 miles of road affected.” Communities can set their capability

target to the level they deem appropriate and should use their impact data to guide decisions on

what that level of capability should be. If a community selects an impact that is different from

the one identified in Step 2.2, they describe how they chose that impact and the sources used.

THIRA capability targets should reflect communities’ unique planning and investment

strategies.

In addition to capability targets, communities may also set an additional target called a

“maximum requirement” target. The maximum requirement reflects the highest level of a

potential capability requirement. This maximum requirement reflects the impacts of the threat or

hazard that most challenges the critical task described in the capability target.

It is important to note that not all capability targets are impact-based. While most targets use

post-incident quantitative impacts as explained above, some capabilities focus on preventing an

occurrence of or lessening the vulnerabilities that affect the scale of a threat or hazard. Instead of

a traditional standardized impact, these targets include a measurable objective that represents a

goal the community has set for that core capability (see Table 3).

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition THIRA Step 3

Table 3: Examples of the two main types of capability targets.

Examples: Types of Capability Targets

Driven by Quantitative Impacts

Driven by Measurable Objectives

Within (#) months of an incident, reopen (#)

businesses closed due to the incident.

Coordinate across state, local, and federal

communities and integrate with partners,

community-wide, to effectively invest

(#) % of

all available mitigation funding, within

(#) years.

Within (#) hours of an incident, complete triage,

begin definitive medical treatment, and transfer to

an appropriate facility

(#) people requiring medical

care.

Every

(#) months, (#) % of critical infrastructure

facilities conduct a risk assessment and

accompanying facility security level (FSL)

determination for assessing and addressing

changes in threats and vulnerabilities.

Timeframe Metrics

Timeframe metrics describe the timeframe or level of effort needed to successfully deliver core

capabilities. When constructing targets, it is not enough to know how much of an objective you

plan to accomplish, you may also need to know how quickly you must be able to activate that

capability, and how long you need to be able to sustain it. The answers to these questions will be

unique to the capability target in question.

When considering timeframes, communities should not be constrained by their current ability to

meet timeframes or other conditions of success; rather, they should identify the timeframe that

they desire to achieve. Communities should use the type of

metric that is most appropriate for the given capability. For the

core capability Mass Search and Rescue Operations that might

be “search (#) structures within # hours,” while for Threats

and Hazards Identification, a more appropriate timeframe

might be “model (#) scenarios every # years.” Communities

should work with SMEs and stakeholders to determine time-

based metrics that are most appropriate for each capability.

Developing Capability Targets

Capability targets define success for each core capability and describe what the community

wants to achieve. In the THIRA, communities create capability targets for the core capabilities

listed in the National Preparedness Goal. Communities use standardized language and

community-specific metrics to construct these targets.

For example, under the Critical Transportation core capability, the standardized target language

for debris removal is “Within (#) (time) of an incident, clear (#) miles of road affected, to enable

access for emergency responders, including private and non-profit.” In this example, a

community would choose a time-based metric (i.e., hours), and fill in the number of hours and

miles of affected road to capture the level of capability they plan to work toward achieving.

In addition to setting capability targets using the standardized target language for each of the 32

core capabilities, communities may also want to develop additional targets. These additional

targets can capture goals to achieve additional capabilities or critical tasks that are specific to the

community’s needs.

Timeframe Metrics

Communities can use the

following timeframe metrics:

 (#) minutes

 (#) hours

 (#) days

 (#) weeks

 (#) years

The SPR Process CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

The SPR Process

The SPR is an annual three-step self-assessment of a community’s capability levels based on the

capability targets identified in the THIRA. It helps answer the questions:

 What are our current capability levels and how have our capabilities changed over the

last year?

 What gaps exist between the capabilities we want to achieve and the capabilities we

currently have?

 What do we need to do to close the capability gaps or sustain the capabilities?

 What impact did different funding sources—including grants—have on building or

sustaining the capabilities assessed by the capability targets over the last year?

Figure 14: The SPR process consists of three steps, building off the capability targets developed in the

THIRA.

The SPR supports the National Preparedness System by helping to identify current capabilities

and capability gaps in preparedness at the community level. States, territories, tribes, urban

areas, and the Federal Government use the SPR results to prioritize capabilities to build and

sustain, plan for threats and hazards, and validate capabilities.

Developing an accurate and complete SPR requires the perspectives of a broad range of

informed stakeholders and SMEs from a variety of fields. Communities are encouraged to seek

input from community stakeholders and SMEs, including local governments (such as counties

and townships), businesses, faith-based organizations, non-profit organizations, lifeline

functions (communications, energy, transportation and water), and institutions of higher

education.

This section describes a three-step process for completing an SPR (see Figure 14):

1. Assess Capabilities. Based on the language from the capability targets set in THIRA Step 3,

identify the community’s current capability and how that capability changed over the last

year, including capabilities lost, sustained, and built. Then, provide additional context to

explain the reported data and its sources.

2. Identify Capability Gaps and Intended Approaches to Address Them. Determine the

causes of the capability gap between the capability target and the current capability

identified in SPR Step 1. Then, describe the actions and investments needed to close the

capability gap or sustain the capability.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition SPR Step 1

3. Describe the Impacts of Funding Sources. Identify how relevant funding sources,

including but not limited to grant programs and the community’s own resources, helped to

build or sustain the capabilities assessed by the capability targets and describe how those

capabilities were used in a real-world incident(s) over the past year.

Step 1: Assess Capabilities

The purpose of Step 1 of the SPR is to assess and describe a community’s current capability and

how the capability has changed during the last year (see Figure 14). There are three primary

elements in Step 1 of the SPR:

 Step 1.1: Communities quantitatively

assess their current capability and how

that capability has changed over the last

year.

 Step 1.2: Communities qualitatively

describe how their capabilities have

changed over the last year.

 Step 1.3: Communities provide context

on how they calculated their capability

and how confident they are in that

assessment.

SPR: Key Changes

 Communities now assess their current

capability using the same language as

their capability target, rather than

assigning 1-5 ratings to core capabilities.

 Communities will also now provide

free-text descriptions to elaborate on

their capability estimates, and will rate

their confidence in the accuracy of the

information they report.

Step 1.1: Quantitatively Assess Capability

The purpose of Step 1.1 of the SPR is to identify how a community’s capabilities have changed

over the last year and how those changes affect the community’s current capability (see Figure

15). This step requires determining five quantitative data-points:

 Beginning Capability: How much capability did the community have at the start of the

year being assessed?

 Capability Lost: How much capability did the community lose over the course of the

year?

 Capability Sustained: How much of the capability that the community started the year

with still remains?

 Capability Built: How much capability did the community add during the year?

 Current Capability: How much capability does the community have now?

Figure 15: The output of Step 1 of the SPR is an assessment and description of current capability.

SPR Step 1 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Accurately assessing capabilities, while important,

is challenging, and often situation-dependent. The

quantitative data entered in Step 1.1 of the SPR

process, while only an estimate, should be as

accurate as a community can reasonably achieve to

make the assessment results useful to the

community.

All capabilities are fundamentally dependent on

timeframe metrics. Asking a community “how

many people can you feed?” provides limited data unless paired with the questions “how

quickly?” and “for how long?” During Step 3 of the THIRA process, communities identify a

timeframe metric for each capability target. When communities assess their current capability in

the SPR, they base their assessment on the same timeframe metric that they identified in Step 3

of the THIRA (see Figure 16). For example, if a capability target says a community will perform

a capability in one week, the capability assessment will determine the extent to which they can

actually perform that capability in one week.

Benefits of Identifying Changes in

Capability

Capturing capabilities built, sustained,

and lost provides a more complete

preparedness picture by accounting for

the work communities are doing to

build capability, offset attrition and

maintain existing capabilities.

Figure 16: Communities use the timeframe metric(s) from their capability target in the capability assessment.

The data collected in Step 1 of the SPR forms the basis of the formulas used to calculate the

current capability. One approach is to start with the beginning capability, and subtract the

amount of capability lost over the last year to identify the capability sustained. Using that

capability sustained, communities can add in the capability built over the last year to identify

the current capability (see Figure 17).

Figure 17: Communities can use a formula to calculate their current capability.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition SPR Step 1

Beginning Capability

The beginning capability describes the level of capability the community had at the beginning of

the year they are assessing. This number will typically be the current capability from the prior

year’s SPR, if the community completes the SPR annually (see Figure 18).

Figure 18: The beginning capability is frequently, though not always, the current capability from the

previous year’s SPR.

The beginning capability may be different from the previous year’s current capability, however,

if the community receives new information about its current capability after the completion of

the last year’s SPR and prior to beginning the current year’s SPR. This could occur in several

ways, including performance in a real-world incident or exercise that provides the community

with a better understanding of their capability (see Figure 19). In such cases, communities will

use their new estimate of their beginning capability, and describe the reasons behind the change

in the SPR Step 1.3 free-text box.

Figure 19: The beginning capability can change from the previous year’s SPR current capability if a

community identifies more accurate information between SPRs.

Capability Lost

Unfortunately, capabilities that a community has built are sometimes lost, either through

attrition (retirements, expired training, etc.) or degradation (resources are used, equipment

breaks, etc.). Accurately tracking capabilities requires understanding how much capability is

lost. Tracking lost capabilities also helps to demonstrate the challenge that emergency managers

face in maintaining the existing capabilities needed to meet their capability targets.

SPR Step 1 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

In some cases, a capability may be completely lost, such as the dissolution of a public-private

partnership focused on infrastructure restoration. In many cases, however, a capability may only

partially degrade, such as a mitigation planning team losing personnel due to retirements. In the

SPR, communities will track current capabilities that can actually be used, and therefore a

capability should be considered lost if it was operational at the time of the last SPR submission

but is no longer operational at the time of the

current submission. If a community brings that

capability back on-line in the future, they should

consider it a capability built.

Capability Sustained

Capabilities that communities maintain from the

previous year are considered sustained.

Including capabilities sustained in the SPR

recognizes the necessary investments that

communities make to maintain the capabilities

they have previously built. If a capability was

operational at the time of the previous SPR submission and is still operational at the time of the

current submission, it is considered sustained, even if that capability was not operational during

portions of the preceding year.

Capability Built

Capabilities built are new capabilities that were not operational during the prior year. This can

occur for several reasons: 1) because the capability did not exist during the prior year; 2)

because the capability was under development during the prior year; and 3) because the

capability had partially degraded during the prior year and needed to be brought back on-line.

Table 4 depicts examples of Building Capability and common reasons why each might occur.

A capability is not operational until it is complete. For example, a fire company may be working

to become a Type III Search and Rescue team, and over the span of five years, they may add

personnel, equipment, and training. All of that work is important, but the capability is not

operational for the purposes of the SPR capability assessment until all required components are

complete. Communities can still capture the development of incomplete capabilities, however,

in SPR Step 1.2, in the free-text descriptions for the capability built over the past year.

Most communities will not build all capabilities every year due to funding, available time and

personnel, or other reasons. FEMA does not make any judgement on what is “normal” regarding

how often, and to what degree, capabilities should change. The methodology is designed to

accurately capture any positive, neutral, or negative changes in capability in a way that most

accurately reflects the unique experience of each community.

Reporting Changes in Capability

Reporting annual changes in capability by

those lost, sustained, and built—compared

to the previous 1-5 ratings—better

highlights small, but significant

improvements in capabilities. This allows

communities to account for the work they

are doing to offset attrition and maintain

existing capabilities, which helps prioritize

investments and inform strategic plans.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition SPR Step 1

Table 4: Examples of several ways that how communities might build capability.

Examples of How Communities Can Build Capability

Driver of Capability Building Examples

Capability did not exist in the prior

year

 First-time purchases of resources and materials

 Additional personnel hires

 New partnerships with community stakeholders that have

required capabilities

Capability was under development

during the prior year

 Training is underway, but it was incomplete at the time of

the prior SPR

 The community ordered new equipment, but had not yet

received it at the time of the prior SPR

Capability had partially degraded

during the prior year and was

brought back on-line

 Damaged equipment was repaired since the prior SPR

 A team that required a position filled has hired a new

employee for that position since the prior SPR

 Renewed expired training since the prior SPR

Current Capability

Current capability represents a community’s current operational capability. An operational

capability is one that can be used somewhere within the community. A capability does not need

to be immediately available for it to be operational (see Figure 20). A capability that is currently

deployed, for example, should be considered operational unless it will not be available for future

use until additional requirements are met. Single use and disposable capabilities that are

currently deployed should not be considered operational for the SPR.

Figure 20: An example of operational vs. non-operational capability.

SPR Step 1 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Individual resources are often not capabilities by themselves. Capabilities typically require some

combination of planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercises. As such,

communities likely have many capabilities that are partially built, but not fully operational. For

example, if a community hires

people to make up a shelter

management team but cannot provide

them the required training and has no

plans addressing shelter

management, their capability is not

fully operational. These partial

capabilities should not be included in

a community’s current capability

because they are not operationally

ready; however, the partial

capabilities often represent a cost-

effective way to build new capabilities and close capability gaps.

Using Internal Capabilities

The capabilities assessed in SPR Step 1.1 should be

those that exist within the boundaries of the

community, whether owned by sub-jurisdictions, or

private and non-profit organizations. The capabilities

should not be from the Federal Government or

achieved through interstate mutual aid. The capability

targets are goals for building internal capability,

therefore communities complete the capability

assessment considering only internal capabilities.

Step 1.2: Describe Current Capabilities and Capability Changes

The purpose of Step 1.2 of the SPR is to elaborate on the quantitative assessment of the

capability change provided in Step 1.1 (see Figure 21). Communities identify the POETE

areas—planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercises (see Table 5)—in which they

lost, sustained, and built capability, and develop free-text descriptions explaining:

 What caused the reported level of capability lost over the last year?

 What actions did the community take to sustain the reported level of capability sustained

over the last year?

 What actions did the community take to achieve the reported capability built over the last

year?

 How might existing mutual aid agreements help bridge the gap between the capability

target and current capability?

Figure 21: A visual depiction of the relationship between SPR Steps 1.1 and 1.2.

While the quantitative assessment provides a valuable breakdown of how capability has changed

over the past year, it does not explain how or why those changes occurred. As such,

communities describe, in as much detail as possible, the specific actions, investments, resources,

or external factors that led to the changes in capability. Many of the explanations may relate to

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition SPR Step 1

funding availability and will be reflected in SPR Step 3. For example, communities might

explain that they built their capability by fully training all their shelter management teams and

purchasing an additional facility that the community can use as a fully accessible shelter.

Table 5: These are the definitions of the POETE areas: planning, organization, equipment, training, and

exercises.

POETE Areas

Planning

Development of policies, plans, procedures, mutual aid agreements, strategies, and

other publications; also involves the collection and analysis of intelligence and

information

Organization

Individual teams, an overall organizational structure, and leadership at each level in

the structure

Equipment

Equipment, supplies, and systems that comply with relevant standards

Training

Content and methods of delivery that comply with relevant training standards

Exercises

Exercises and actual incidents that provide an opportunity to demonstrate, evaluate,

and improve the ability of core capabilities to perform assigned missions and tasks

to standards

When referring to equipment, teams, and personnel throughout the assessment of capabilities,

communities consider pre-existing national resource type definitions, such as those outlined in

National Incident Management System (NIMS) resource typing.

Including these resources

and terms allows communities to maintain consistent language over multiple assessment

periods. Providing as much detail as possible makes the SPR data more useful for planning,

prioritizing investments, and preparing for real-world incidents.

While the SPR does not quantitatively assess mutual aid, it is an important consideration for

planners. Mutual aid is an essential component of a successful response and recovery, as it

offsets capability gaps and is often the most efficient way to deliver certain capabilities,

resources, and services. As such, communities use a free-text box to describe how mutual aid

agreements may affect their current capability and should provide any additional context that

they deem necessary or useful. For example, they may provide additional information on the

nature and extent of their mutual aid agreements with other communities, such as what they

include, how long the agreement has been in place, or whether the mutual aid agreement has

been activated during a real-world incident. This information supplements the internal capability

assessment and planners can use it to identify sources of additional capability, or potential

overlap in mutual aid agreements among communities in the same region.

In addition to the free-text descriptions, communities identify the POETE area changes that

resulted in changes in capability over the past year. For capability lost, communities select the

POETE areas in which that capability was lost over the past year. For capability sustained and

For additional information on NIMS and resource typing please visit: https://www.fema.gov/national-incident-

management-system.

SPR Step 1 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

capability built, communities note in which POETE areas they made investments that resulted in

either capability sustainment or growth.

Step 1.3: Provide Context on Current Capability Estimations

The purpose of Step 1.3 of the SPR is to provide additional context for the responses provided in

Step 1.1 and Step 1.2. Communities do this in three ways:

 Describe their level of confidence in the accuracy of their quantitative assessment

 Identify the sources used to determine their responses

 Provide any other useful context to better understand their quantitative responses

Describe Confidence in the Accuracy of the Quantitative Assessment

Communities may find that they can measure some capabilities more easily than others.

Moreover, even for those capabilities, the necessary data may be difficult to access or otherwise

be unavailable. Conversely, some communities

may be extremely proficient in understanding

and measuring their capability in certain areas

due to vast experience across many disasters. To

identify their level of confidence in the accuracy

of their capability assessment, Step 1.3 asks

communities to rate their confidence on a five-

point Likert scale:

 1 – Lower confidence

 2

 3

 4

 5 – Higher confidence

Benefits of Assessing Confidence in

Capability Assessments

Rating the level of confidence in each

capability assessment allows the Federal

Government to identify areas of relative

low or high confidence throughout the

Nation, which it can use to target technical

assistance efforts.

The data confidence ratings provide additional context on the reliability of the reported

capability assessments, which can be useful in both strategic and operational contexts. Federal

planners will have a stronger sense of which information is most credible and can better

understand how the data should be interpreted as they follow-up with communities. In addition,

it allows communities to be transparent about potential variance and, therefore, more accurate in

their reporting. See Table 6 for examples of why a community might report a given confidence

level on the scale.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition SPR Step 1

Table 6: Examples of how communities can approach their selection of a confidence level for their capability

assessment.

Confidence

Level

Example Rationale for Chosen Confidence Level

Confidence

Level: 1

 Have not performed a large-scale sheltering mission in over 13 years, and have no

AARs to review

 No past exercises focusing on their sheltering capability; they have minimal subject-

matter expertise

 Capability estimate is based on that of similar surrounding states, but they have very

little confidence that it is accurate

Confidence

Level: 2

 Have not performed a large-scale sheltering mission in over 10 years, and only has

a high-level AAR to review

 No past statewide exercise of their sheltering capability; only two counties have

exercised their capability

 Data on potential locations for shelters is five years old

 They used the minimal available data to estimate a statewide capability to shelter

7,000 people, but they think it could be as high as 11,000 people or as low as 4,000

people

Confidence

Level: 3



They performed a large-scale sheltering mission seven years ago, during which they

had a peak sheltering capacity of 9,500 people

 Several counties have conducted sheltering exercises in recent years showing an

increased capability

 Recently hired several SMEs have experience leading shelter management teams

in other states

 The list of potential locations for shelters was recently updated but they are not

confident about some options in rural communities

 They estimate that they can shelter a maximum of 11,800 people, but they believe it

could be as high as 14,000 or as low as 10,500

Confidence

Level: 4

 Reviewed their AAR from an incident four years ago, where they had a peak

sheltering capacity of 13,000 people

 Starting with 13,000 people as a baseline, SMEs met to discuss the changes since

the last incident

 The list of available locations for sheltering is less than two years old and includes a

wide variety of options

 Based on documented improvements and a recent regional sheltering tabletop

exercise, they estimate that they can shelter 15,000 people and are mostly confident

that their estimate is accurate within 750 people

Confidence

Level: 5

 They performed a large-scale sheltering mission two years ago where they had a

peak sheltering capacity of 14,200 people

 The list of available locations for sheltering is less than a year old and includes

recent additions of private-sector facilities with agreements to provide sheltering

 They participated in a regional sheltering and mass care exercise last year

(including private-sector partners and several large counties)

 Based on their capability in the recent incident, the validation provided by the

regional exercise, and the formal agreements with the private-sector, they are

confident that they can now shelter a maximum of 15,500 people

Identify the Sources of Information Used to Determine the Quantitative Responses

Communities identify the sources of information considered in assessing capabilities, including

real-world incidents, SMEs, exercises, plans, policies, modeling or tools, and other sources of

SPR Step 1 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

information. Identifying sources of information is extremely important for continuity of

assessments within a community. Citing sources helps to map out where the baseline for the

assessment originated for future SPRs, increasing consistency and reducing duplication of

effort.

Provide Context to Better Understand the Quantitative Current Capability Assessment

While the quantitative assessment provides valuable estimates of a community’s capability, it

cannot capture all the information needed to contextualize the quantitative assessment or expand

on it. In Step 1.3, communities provide that extra context. Communities are encouraged to

consider the following questions:

 How would your capability change if the timeframe metrics were increased or

decreased?

 Is there a range of capability numbers that accurately capture the upper and lower bounds

of your capability? If so, what made

you select the number that you did for

your estimated current capability?

 Are there specific known factors in

your community that would

significantly alter your estimated

current capability?

 What is the rationale behind your

selected level of confidence in your

data?

Uses for Additional Context

This content helps planners and other users of

the data fully understand a community’s

capabilities, including any caveats or special

factors that might be important to consider

when developing plans or responding to a

real-world incident. It is also useful for

assessment continuity within a community, as

new staff will understand the rationale behind

previous years’ capability estimates.

For example, a community might report that

it can shelter 13,000 people within 48 hours

and maintain that capability for 14 days. Due to internal conditions, however, it is possible that

community would be able to shelter far more people if the duration of the sheltering was only

seven days. Including in the free-text description that the community can shelter 20,000 people

for seven days is important information that response planners can use to improve the accuracy

of their planning efforts. This information would otherwise not have been known through only

the quantitative assessment results.

Moreover, understanding why a community might have a relatively low confidence in their

capability assessment is also valuable information. The data necessary to validate the capability

may simply not be available or may not be possible to collect. This additional context enables

communities to more accurately interpret the reported data confidence ratings and as

appropriate, to target outreach, prioritize technical assistance efforts, and develop supporting

operational plans.

Communities may also be interested in assessing their level of capability for timeframe metrics

that they did not include in the capability target. This can also be useful for planning purposes,

to identify a community’s capability for various situations with differing requirements. For

example, a community may wish to know the number of customers they can return power to

within 24 hours, in addition to the capability target timeframe metric of three days.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition SPR Step 1

Step 2: Identify and Address Capability Gaps

In Step 2 of the SPR, communities describe the capability gap between the capability target they

set in THIRA Step 3 and the current capability determined in Step 1 of the SPR, and describe

how they plan to address those capability gaps (see Figure 22). There are two primary elements

in Step 2:

 Step 2.1: Communities identify and provide free-text descriptions of the capability gaps

in relevant POETE areas.

 Step 2.2: Communities describe how they plan to address their capability gaps and

sustainment needs in relevant POETE areas.

Figure 22: The output of Step 2 of the SPR is a description of capability gaps and approaches to address

capability gaps.

Step 2.1: Identify and Describe

Capability Gaps

The purpose of Step 2.1 of the SPR is to

identify and contextualize the capability

gap between a community’s capability

target and their estimated current

capability (see Figure 23). The

remaining questions in this step allow

communities to add context to that

capability gap and explain why the

capability gap exists. By understanding

capability gaps, communities can begin

to prioritize their building and

sustainment activities.

SPR Key Changes

▪

The new SPR methodology collects more

information on capability gaps than the previous

methodology, which only required communities

to select standard functional area gaps.

▪ Communities now report a numerical capability

gap (based on their capability target), identify

specific POETE areas that contain gaps, provide

free-text descriptions for each POETE area, and

describe their intended approaches to address

those capability gaps.

SPR Step 2 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Figure 23: The calculation for identifying an example capability gap.

Priority for Achieving Capability Target

A community has a capability gap if the current capability is less than the capability target. After

identifying that capability gap, communities assign a priority rating (High Priority, Medium

Priority, and Low Priority) to identify how important it is to achieve that capability target.

Communities should attempt to assign priority ratings relative to their other targets and avoid

providing the same priority rating for all or most capability targets. This will result in more

useful data, as it will clearly demonstrate which capability gaps are more important to address.

Figure 24: Explanation for how to assign a priority rating for capabilities

with and without a capability gap.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition SPR Step 2

In rare cases, a community might not have a capability gap, or may even end up with greater

capability than the capability target they set in the THIRA. If their current capability matches or

exceeds their capability target, the community still reports a priority rating (see Figure 24) for the

capability. This will reflect the level of importance the community places on sustaining their

capability, relative to their other targets. For example, a community might have no capability gap

in their Mass Search and Rescue Operations capability target, but due to frequent severe

flooding, they prioritize the sustainment of that capability more than they prioritize building

capacity in other core capabilities that have capability gaps.

POETE Capability Gap Selection and Description

Once communities have prioritized their ability to achieve their capability targets, they provide

more context as to the shortfall(s) causing their capability gaps. For each capability target’s

capability gap, communities identify the POETE areas in which they have a shortfall. The

POETE model divides capabilities into meaningful, broad categories of activity and can help

communities think through their specific capability gaps. Communities that report a capability

gap—meaning their capability target is greater than current capability—report a shortfall in at

least one of the POETE areas for the core capability.

In the POETE areas with identified capability gaps, communities then provide a free-text

description of how shortfalls or other limitations in that POETE area contributed to their

capability gap (see Figure 25). In some cases, the shortfall might be a long-term issue, such as

the need to develop and implement training for 100 percent of the required workforce, while

other shortfalls may be more temporary occurrences, such as a facility undergoing renovations.

This process enables communities to provide actionable data about their capability gaps, and can

help communities plan to address key capability gaps.

Figure 25: Communities select POETE capability gaps and provide free-text descriptions.

SPR Step 2 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Recognizing that community-specific factors will affect the level of detail available to report, the

amount of information and detail that communities provide in free-text descriptions will vary. It

is highly recommended, however, that communities provide all the key information that they

believe is necessary to fully understand the shortfalls leading to the capability gap. See Table 7

below for an example of how to identify capability gaps for an example Mass Care Services

capability target.

Table 7: An example capability gap identification for an example Mass Care Services capability target.

Example Capability Gap Identification

Capability Target

Within 48 hours of an incident, provide emergency sheltering for 20,000

residents, including 4,000 with access and functional needs. Maintain sheltering

operations for 14 days.

Current Capability

Within 48 hours of an incident, provide emergency sheltering for 17,000

residents including 3,000 with access and functional needs. Maintain sheltering

operations for 14 days.

Capability Gap

Within 48 hours of an incident, provide emergency sheltering for 3,000

residents including 1,000 with access and functional needs. Maintain sheltering

operations for 14 days.

POETE Area Free-Text Capability Gap Description

Planning

Our community has not identified buildings that could be used together to house

20,000 residents. Our housing annex has not been updated in many years and

does not include all communities within 1 hour of the affected area. Mutual aid

agreements that previously existed with private sector facility owners have

lapsed.

Organization

Our community does not have sufficient personnel to maintain six Type I Shelter

Management Teams. In addition, the recent restructuring of our Emergency

Management and Homeland Security divisions into one agency is very new and

has not yet operated during a major disaster.

Equipment

While many rural faith-based institutions are willing to open their doors to be

shelters, they lack sufficient bathing facilities. Most are also inaccessible to

shelter seekers with access and functional needs.

Training

18 new shelter management team members will need role appropriate training

(Type I and II Shelter Managers, Type I Shelter Registration Team Leaders, and

Type I Shelter Dormitory Team Leaders). Our community currently lacks the

funding and resources to provide this training.

Exercises

Our community has never conducted an exercise that would provide functional

experience operating a shelter; the only exercise involving sheltering was a brief

tabletop exercise in 2015 which only covered sheltering roles and

responsibilities. Further, the private sector and faith-based institutions that are

committed to supporting sheltering operations in our community have never

been involved in any exercises involving sheltering.

In most cases, the standardized target language will not address the full scope of each core

capability. Communities therefore also identify any POETE are gaps related to each capability

that the standardized target language does not address. For these gaps, communities do not

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition SPR Step 2

include free-text descriptions elaborating on the cause of the capability gaps. Identifying

capability gaps across all aspects of the core capabilities can help communities to develop

strategic plans and prioritize investments for building and sustaining capabilities.

Step 2.2: Describe Approaches to Address Gaps and Sustainment Needs

Once communities have identified their capability gaps, they identify their intended approaches

for addressing the capability gaps or sustainment needs. This information will help communities

use SPR results to drive their strategic planning and investment strategies. Communities identify

approaches for sustainment or filling the capability gap(s) in the relevant POETE area and then

add specific information, including:

 Over what timeframe does this intended approach cover?

 What activities or investments will need to occur to address the existing capability gap or

support sustainment?

 What partners may support the efforts?

Due to a variety of factors, including funding, available resources, and personnel, communities

cannot always plan to address all capability gaps in any given year. Therefore, communities may

not always have an intended approach for addressing every single POETE area gap they

identified and described in Step 2.1. Additionally, communities can report plans to address

sustainment needs, even if they did not select the POETE area in Step 2.1. See Table 8 below for

example plans to address capability gaps and sustain the existing capability for the example

Mass Care Services capability target shown above in Table 7.

Table 8: Example approaches to addressing capability gaps and sustainment needs for an example Mass Care

Services capability target.

Example Approaches for Addressing Capability Gaps and Sustainment Needs

POETE Area Free-Text Approaches to Address Capability Gaps and Sustainment Needs

Planning

Engage stakeholders and internal partners to conduct a full review and update of

the housing annex to our State Response Plan. Also, assess the current list of

facilities available to use as shelters to identify requirements for additional

facilities.

Organization

Identify 18 employees willing to serve on a shelter management team as part of

our surge capacity force.

Equipment

Our community does not currently intend to address the equipment gap in the

next year, due to competing priorities.

Training

Provide appropriate training for four Type I and three Type II Shelter Managers,

six Type I Shelter Registration Team Leaders, and five Type I Shelter Dormitory

Team Leaders.

Exercises

Include a housing component in our full-scale hurricane response exercise in

March.

SPR Step 3 CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Once a community has described their intended approaches to building or sustaining their

capability, they indicate the general timeframe during which they plan to do so. For example,

some communities might want to plan for a single grant cycle, while others might have more

general, long-term plans to address their capability gaps and sustainment needs. It is important

to note that describing an approach in this section does not create an obligation to complete the

activity within the identified timeframe. Communities should view it as a resource they can use

internally to drive their strategic planning and investment strategies.

Step 3: Describe Impacts of Funding Sources

The purpose of Step 3 of the SPR is to indicate the extent to which relevant funding sources—

including but not limited to a community’s own resources and Federal and state grants—played

a role in building and sustaining the capabilities assessed by the capability targets (see Figure

26). There are two primary elements in Step 3 of the SPR:

 Step 3.1: Assess the degree to which specific funding sources had a role in building and

sustaining the capability assessed by the target.

 Step 3.2: Qualitatively assess how your community used capabilities built and sustained

with funding in a real-world incident over the past year.

Figure 26: The output of Step 3 of the SPR is an assessment and description of the impact of funding sources

on capabilities.

This information can help communities better understand the impact that their funding has on

building and sustaining capabilities and to relay that information to key stakeholders and

decision-makers.

Step 3.1: Assess the Role of Funding for Building and Sustaining Capabilities

The purpose of Step 3.1 is to estimate the degree to which various funding sources, including

but not limited to communities’ own resources and Federal and state grants, impacted the

building and sustainment of the capabilities assessed by the capability targets.

When answering these questions, communities consider the relevant POETE area activities or

resources (including assets with national resource-typed definitions as outlined in NIMS) that

they supported with each funding source. Communities should try to estimate, with reasonable

accuracy, which efforts and investments relevant to each capability target they funded with each

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition SPR Step 3

source. Then, among those efforts and investments, communities identify whether they were

used primarily to sustain an existing capability, to build new capability, or both.

A coordinated approach to track investments using different funding sources can help drive

investments to be increasingly effective. This enhances communities’ ability to understand the

return on investment of their funding sources.

Identifying the sources of funding for

specific, quantitative changes in capability

can guide communities’ strategic planning

considerations and help them make resource

allocation decisions to build and sustain

capabilities as effectively as possible.

Revealing the Entire Picture of Funding

Contribution

Identifying the degree to which different

funding sources supported sustainment

activities enables communities to identify the

impact of their funding, even in those instances

where there is no change in capability.

This reveals the entire picture by reflecting the

reality that emergency managers are constantly

working and making investments to maintain

what they have achieved, and are not just

building new capabilities.

Step 3.2: Assess the Role of Funding

in Real-World Incidents

Finally, communities describe the impact that

capabilities built or sustained with different

funding sources had in real-world incidents

over the past year. This is intended to capture

how they used previous years’ investments since the last assessment. While this question is

concerned with capabilities used over the past year, the funding can be from any year in the past.

Communities attempt to answer the following questions:

 Was the capability used to address a real-world incident? If so, how?

 What would have been the impact on the community’s ability to deliver the capability

had it not received funding?

 What impact would that change in capability have had on survivors, infrastructure, or the

response and recovery mission overall?

Answering these questions enables communities to report positive examples of how they used

specific funding sources to increase or sustain preparedness capabilities and make a difference

during response to real-world incidents. Communities will also be able to describe how

sustainment of their capabilities would be negatively impacted by reduced funding—whether it

is the community’s own capital, state or Federal grants, or another source—despite reporting no

capability built by that funding. This can help communities think strategically about how to

spend their money and consider whether they are doing so efficiently.

Conclusion CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Conclusion

Understanding the risks faced by communities, and the Nation as a whole, is essential to

sustaining and building national preparedness. This document provides a common and

consistent approach for communities to support the first two components of the National

Preparedness System: 1) Identifying and Assessing Risk; and 2) Estimating Capability

Requirements, as implemented through the THIRA/SPR. It provides a foundation for all levels

of government to complete the National Preparedness System by generating actionable data to

drive investment strategies through identified planning efforts, organizational and equipment

investments, and training and exercise initiatives.

The THIRA/SPR provides a national risk and capability picture from the perspective of the

states, territories, urban areas, and tribes. This contributes to achieving the National

Preparedness Goal of “a secure and resilient Nation with the capabilities required to prevent,

protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the

greatest risk.” Achieving the Goal requires participation at all levels of the community. Through

the THIRA/SPR process, communities are better able to educate individuals, families,

businesses, organizations, community leaders, and senior officials about the risks they face and

their roles in and contributions to prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery

efforts.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition Glossary

Glossary of Terms

Beginning Capability: The level of capability the community had at the beginning of the year

they are assessing.

Capability Assessment: The process of identifying how a community’s capabilities have

changed over the last year and how those changes affect the community’s current capability.

Capability Built: New capabilities that were not operational during the prior year.

Capability Gap: The difference between the capability target a community sets in THIRA Step

3 and the current capability they determine in SPR Step 1.

Capability Lost: Capabilities that a community had as of the previous year’s SPR that they no

longer have during as of the current year’s SPR, due to attrition or degradation.

Capability Sustained: Capabilities that communities have maintained from the previous year.

Capability Target: The level of capability that a community plans to achieve over time in order

to manage the threats and hazards it faces.

Context Description: The details about a threat or hazard scenario needed to identify the

impacts it will have on a community that includes critical details such as the location, magnitude,

and time of an incident.

Core Capabilities: The distinct critical elements necessary to achieve the National Preparedness

Goal.

Critical Task: Defined actions that are executed by organizations to deliver the core

capabilities.

Cross-Cutting Core Capabilities: The three core capabilities—Planning, Public Information

and Warning, and Operational Coordination—that span all five mission areas. They serve to

unify the mission areas and, in many ways, are necessary for the success of the remaining core

capabilities.

Current Capability: Represents a community’s current operational capability that can be used

somewhere within the community.

Functional Areas: The broad categories of activity included under a core capability.

Human-Caused Hazard: A potential incident resulting from the intentional actions of an

adversary.

Impact: The community-specific effects a threat or hazard scenario would have on a community

if the threat or hazard occurred, written in the language of common emergency management

metrics.

Glossary CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition

Internal Capabilities: Capabilities that exist within the boundaries of a community, whether

owned by sub-jurisdictions, or private and non-profit organizations. The capabilities should not

be from the Federal Government or achieved through interstate mutual aid.

Likelihood: The chance of something happening, whether defined, measured, or estimated

objectively or subjectively, or in terms of general descriptors (e.g., rare, unlikely, likely, almost

certain), frequencies, or probabilities.

Maximum Requirement: The highest level of potential capability requirement reflecting the

impacts of the threat or hazard that most challenges the critical task described in the capability

target.

Mission Areas: Categories used to organize the core capabilities and national preparedness

activities: Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery.

Mitigation Core Capabilities: Reduce the loss of life and property by lessening the impact of

future disasters.

Mutual Aid: Agreements that establish the terms under which one party provides resources—

personnel, teams, facilities, equipment, and supplies—to another party.

National Preparedness Goal: Defines what it means for the whole community to be prepared

for all types of disasters and emergencies. The goal itself is: ‘A secure and resilient Nation with

the capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate,

respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk.’

National Preparedness System: Outlines an organized process for everyone in the whole

community to move forward with their preparedness activities and achieve the National

Preparedness Goal.

Natural Hazard: A potential incident resulting from acts of nature.

POETE Areas: A model that divides capabilities into meaningful, broad categories of

activity—planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercises.

Prevention Core Capabilities: Prevent, avoid, or stop an imminent, threatened, or actual act of

terrorism.

Protection Core Capabilities: Protect our citizens, residents, visitors, and assets against the

greatest threats and hazards in a manner that allows our interests, aspirations, and way of life to

thrive.

Recovery Core Capabilities: Recover through a focus on the timely restoration, strengthening,

and revitalization of infrastructure, housing, and a sustainable economy, as well as the health,

social, cultural, historic, and environmental fabric of communities affected by an incident.

CPG 201: THIRA/SPR Guide—3rd Edition Glossary

Response Core Capabilities: Respond quickly to save lives; protect property and the

environment; and meet basic human needs in the aftermath of an incident.

Risk: The potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from an incident or occurrence, as

determined by its likelihood and the associated consequences.

Standardized Target Language: Common, uniform emergency management metrics with

blanks for community-specific numbers that are required for all communities to complete; for

example: (#) people requiring sheltering.

Technological Hazard: A potential incident resulting from accidents or failures of systems or

structures.

Timeframe Metrics: The amount of time or level of effort needed to successfully deliver core

capabilities and/or sustain the delivery of the core capabilities.