Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~'l'i. <br />-~~ <br />j~? <br />-v .....- <br /> <br />COMBINED AREAS STRATEGIC PLAN <br />FOR TERRORISM PREPAREDNESS <br /> <br />of the gap for each item on the various preventionre~pof1se elements will be assessed by the URS team and <br />will be reviewed with the WG. Continuing with the example. a 75% gap in US&R vehicles will have zero <br />impact on the preventiol1/response elements of "collecting PH intelligence" because the lack of these vehicles <br />is not expected to effect intelligence gathering. However, but this gap would have a very high impact on the <br />prevention/response elements of "rescue victims from a site". The results for each item will be weighted on a <br />scale of 0 to 100, with 100 indicating that the prevention/response element will be completely impacted and 0 <br />indicating no impact to the prel'entio/71eSpOnse element. <br /> <br />The cost of closing each gap will be estimated based on a unit cost of adding the resource and the quantity of <br />the gap to be closed. In addition, the cost and benefit of closing each gap will be evaluated. A plot of cost <br />versus benefit will be prepared for all gaps. The graphical display of the cost versus benefit matrix (see Figure <br />2.3.3) will be used to identify relative priority groups (high, medium. low etc.) of the different needs. The <br />relative plotting position of a given need in the cost versus benefit matrix provides an effective visual tool to <br />identify the relative priority of the need. If a given need plots in the portion of the matrix with relatively high <br />benefit (i.e., high gap impact score) and relatively low cost, the priority of addressing that need would be high. <br />Conversely, if a need plots in a portion of the matrix with low benefit and high cost. the priority of addressing <br />such a need would be low. Thus, the different portions of the cost versus benefit matrix will be used to define <br />different priority groups of needs. <br /> <br />The gaps will be listed in a descending order of the weighted gap impact score. The cumulative cost of closing <br />gaps in this priority order will also be shown. In addition, gaps will be sorted by priority groups and the total <br />cost of closing all gaps in each priority group will be estimated. <br /> <br />URS will utilize the results of the needs prioritization to develop a spending strategy for the OA that achieves <br />the goals and objective in the strategic plan. The updated data in the capabilities assessment will include the <br />items already purchased or slated for purchase with the current grant expenditures. The needs prioritization <br />process and the recommendations will be oriented to focus on strengthening regional preparedness and <br />capabilities in the mutual aid regions of the OA. URS will develop a draft report section for review and <br />comment and we will finalize this section incorporating comments received. <br /> <br />In our experience, many UAs desire the flexibility of a subjective approach to establishing the distribution of <br />funds among the various jurisdictions in an UA year to year. However, some jurisdictions prefer that a generally <br />unbiased quantitative method be used. As an option, URS would develop a quantitative Funds Allocation <br />model to provide a syslemalic, ralional basis for allocating available limited funds among different jurisdictions. <br />The model will be based on using multiple criteria that provide a defensible basis for allocating funds. Potential <br />criteria for funding allocation include the cost of meeting high-priority needs, the number of targets weighted <br />by their vulnerability. the number of mutual-aid obligations, and the likelihood of a wide-spread, regional <br />impact if an incident were to occur. In consultation with the steering committee, URS will develop an <br />appropriate list of criteria and assess their relative importance for funding allocation. For each jurisdiction, URS <br />will compile relevant factual data with regard to the defined criteria and calculate a numerical weighted <br />funding score. A preliminary allocation of available funds among the jurisdictions will then be derived in <br />proportion to the funding scores of the jurisdictions. This preliminary allocation will be provided to the steering <br /> <br />URS <br /> <br /> <br />13 <br />