At the start of another hurricane season and with no evidence that the terrorist threat to the United States will decline, it is important that this subcommittee has an accurate picture of the level of preparedness across the country. Anecdotally, we are all aware of advancements made in preparedness. One need only look at the responses to the tornadoes in Joplin and Hurricane Irene to see evidence of enhanced preparedness and response capabilities at the State and local levels. However, there is more to the story, and it is my hope that the recently released National Preparedness Report will help us gain a better understanding of the work that remains to be done to ensure a prepared and resilient Nation.

This report marks the third National Preparedness Report (NPR). Required annually by Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness, the National Preparedness Report summarizes progress in building, sustaining, and delivering the 31 core capabilities described in the National Preparedness Goal (the Goal). Each year, the National Preparedness Report presents an opportunity to evaluate gains that whole community partners--including all levels of government, private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based organizations, communities, and individuals--have made in preparedness and to identify where challenges remain. This year's report focuses primarily on preparedness activities undertaken or reported during 2013. The intent of the National Preparedness Report is to provide the Nation--not just the Federal Government--with practical insights on core capabilities that can inform decisions about program priorities, resource allocation, and community actions. Based on stakeholder feedback, the 2014 report places a renewed emphasis on approachable language, clear visuals, and concise findings that are interesting and useful to preparedness professionals and non-experts alike. While the National Preparedness Report focuses on domestic efforts, the Federal Government also engages with international partners and organizations to understand and collaborate on issues such as cybersecurity, supply chain integrity and security, and infrastructure security and resilience.

Because governors have become increasingly concerned about the lack of a comprehensive national emergency policy, as well as the dispersion of federal responsibilities among numerous federal agencies which has hampered states' ability to manage disaster situations, they took concerted action in 1977. During the fall of that year, the National Governors' Association, which represents the mutual interests of the combined U.S. governors, took these actions: adopted a policy statement calling for a national policy, and consolidation of federal emergency preparedness and response services; set up a Subcommittee on Disaster Assistance; initiated a comprehensive one-year study to analyze the problems of all-risk management, and recommend federal-state-local assistance improvements; and began working with the Federal Emergency Preparedness and Response Study of the President's Reorganization Project (PRP/FEPR).

Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 provides guidelines on developing emergency operations plans (EOP). It promotes a common understanding of the fundamentals of risk-informed planning and decision making to help planners examine a hazard or threat and produce integrated, coordinated, and synchronized plans. The goal of CPG 101 is to make the planning process routine across all phases of emergency management and for all homeland security mission areas. This Guide helps planners at all levels of government in their efforts to develop and maintain viable all-hazards, all-threats EOPs. Accomplished properly, planning provides a methodical way to engage the whole community in thinking through the life cycle of a potential crisis, determining required capabilities, and establishing a framework for roles and responsibilities. It shapes how a community envisions and shares a desired outcome, selects effective ways to achieve it, and communicates expected results. Each jurisdiction's plans must reflect what that community will do to address its specific risks with the unique resources it has or can obtain.

When communities face complex public health emergencies, state local, tribal, and territorial public health agencies must make difficult decisions regarding how to effectively respond. The public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) system, with its multifaceted mission to prevent, protect against, quickly respond to, and recover from public health emergencies, is inherently complex and encompasses policies, organizations, and programs. Since the events of September 11, 2001, the United States has invested billions of dollars and immeasurable amounts of human capital to develop and enhance public health emergency preparedness and infrastructure to respond to a wide range of public health threats, including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear events. Despite the investments in research and the growing body of empirical literature on a range of preparedness and response capabilities and functions, there has been no national-level, comprehensive review and grading of evidence for public health emergency preparedness and response practices comparable to those utilized in medicine and other public health fields. Evidence-Based Practice for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response reviews the state of the evidence on PHEPR practices and the improvements necessary to move the field forward and to strengthen the PHEPR system. This publication evaluates PHEPR evidence to understand the balance of benefits and harms of PHEPR practices, with a focus on four main areas of PHEPR: engagement with and training of community-based partners to improve the outcomes of at-risk populations after public health emergencies; activation of a public health emergency operations center; communication of public health alerts and guidance to technical audiences during a public health emergency; and implementation of quarantine to reduce the spread of contagious illness.