Breaking Through Intelligence Silos for Domestic Emergency Management HS Today – HSToday

Breaking Through Intelligence Silos for Domestic Emergency Management

Introduction

In the United States, significant gaps exist between law enforcement and emergency management agencies regarding intelligence and information sharing. These gaps extend beyond these groups to include other members of the intelligence community (IC), such as the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) entities and non-DoD military organizations like the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). This fragmentation particularly affects the DoD’s support to civilian authorities, impacting the effectiveness of domestic emergency management.

Challenges in Intelligence Sharing

Past incidents have highlighted the negative consequences of disconnected intelligence sharing among siloed law enforcement entities and federal law enforcement agencies. According to U.S. Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-8, intelligence and investigation roles within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are primarily limited to law enforcement-driven interdiction and investigation. These roles do not comprehensively cover all five U.S. national mission areas across all threats and hazards, being mostly confined to prevention and protection mission areas.

Impact on Domestic Emergency Management

This report emphasizes the adverse effects of intelligence silos on domestic emergency management at the federal level. It examines the roles of various federalized DoD military groups, including the USCG and National Guard units, alongside other national IC members such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and DHS.

Operational Gaps and Risks

On an all-hazard and all-threat basis, tactical gaps between the collective intelligence community and local emergency management professionals can hinder successful emergency response missions and potentially result in harm or fatalities. Threats and hazards include:

1. Acts of terrorism
2. Onshore national security concerns
3. Natural disasters
4. Human-made accidents

Examples of cascading adverse impacts include the 2024 Key Bridge collapse and the 2023 massive train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.

International Perspectives and Best Practices

Intelligence sharing beyond homeland security and law enforcement silos remains a relatively new concept in the U.S. In contrast, countries like New Zealand have integrated actionable emergency management intelligence (EMINT) into their emergency management doctrines, policies, and procedures, regardless of threat or hazard type. This broader emergency management viewpoint aligns with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including:

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – by improving disaster resilience through integrated intelligence sharing.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions – by fostering collaboration across agencies to enhance security and emergency response.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – by reducing harm and fatalities during emergencies through effective intelligence use.

Conclusion

The fragmentation of intelligence curation and distribution within the U.S. federal system poses significant challenges to effective domestic emergency management. Addressing these silos by fostering integrated intelligence sharing among DoD military groupings, the USCG, National Guard units, FBI, DHS, and local emergency management professionals is crucial. Such integration supports the achievement of multiple Sustainable Development Goals by enhancing national resilience, security, and public health outcomes.

Further Reading

For a comprehensive analysis, the full article is available at the Homeland Defense & Security Information Analysis Center’s HDIAC Journal.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article discusses gaps in intelligence sharing among law enforcement, emergency management, and intelligence community members, which relates to building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.
   • It highlights the need for better coordination among federal agencies to enhance security and prevent harm, aligning with SDG 16’s focus on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies.
2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The article mentions domestic emergency management and the impact of intelligence silos on managing natural and human-made disasters (e.g., Key Bridge collapse, train derailment), which relates to making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • By addressing intelligence sharing gaps that may cause harm or death during emergencies, the article indirectly connects to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages.

2. Specific Targets Under the Identified SDGs

1. SDG 16 Targets
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere (related to preventing harm through better intelligence sharing).
2. SDG 11 Targets
   • Target 11.5: Reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and vulnerable.
   • Target 11.b: Increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation, and adaptation to disasters.
3. SDG 3 Targets
   • Target 3.d: Strengthen the capacity of all countries for early warning, risk reduction, and management of national and global health risks.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Indicators for SDG 16
   • Proportion of the population who feel safe walking alone around the area they live (implied through the need for improved security and intelligence sharing).
   • Number of verified cases of violence and related deaths (linked to preventing harm through better intelligence coordination).
   • Existence and effectiveness of institutional frameworks for intelligence sharing and emergency management coordination.
2. Indicators for SDG 11
   • Number of deaths, missing persons, and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population.
   • Proportion of local governments adopting disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national frameworks.
3. Indicators for SDG 3
   • Number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies.
   • Capacity of emergency management systems to respond to health emergencies (implied by the article’s focus on intelligence sharing to prevent harm).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: hstoday.us