Findings of the 2016 National Higher Education Emergency Management Program Needs Assessment

Findings of the 2016 National Higher Education Emergency Management Program Needs Assessment

October 2, 2019 0 By Ronny Jaskolski


– [Steve] Hi, this is Steve Worona, and you’re listening to
Campus Public Safety Online from the National Center
for Campus Public Safety. Before I introduce today’s speaker, here’s a brief orientation to the Adobe Connect
interface we’re using. Your browser right now is
showing the title slide for today’s talk. On the left side of your screen, you’ll see box labeled
Questions and Comments where you can read and type messages. There’s a tab labeled Everyone
at the bottom of this box, and that’s the tab you’ll use for all of your general messages, including questions and
comments for our speaker. We’ll breaking for questions several times during the presentation, so please do not hold
your questions to the end. You can also send direct
messages to a specific person by hovering your cursor over
a name in the Attendee list. One of those names is Technical Help, and that’s the place to go if you run into technical problems. We’re also monitoring Twitter for your questions and comments. Use #NCCPSwebinar. If you miss part of today’s conversation or if you want to see
some or all of it again, this webinar is being
recorded and captioned. The link will be available
shortly after the webinar on the NCCPS Webinars page. And watch your email for a link
to a brief evaluation survey requesting your reactions and
comments on today’s session. Please take a minute to
respond to that survey when the link arrives. We do appreciate your feedback. And now for our presentation. Emergencies can happen anytime, anywhere. When an emergency does occur,
it can threaten public safety, the environment, property, the economy, critical infrastructure, and
the health of individuals. Today we’ll hear about the findings of the 2016 National Higher Education Emergency Management
Program’s Needs Assessment. The findings are based
on information collected from a survey of emergency
management practitioners at colleges and universities,
targeted interviews, case studies, discussions at a summit of higher education representatives, and input from a project
advisory committee. Our guest is the chair of
the advisory committee, Andre P. Le Duc. Andre is Associate Vice President of Safety and Risk Services and
the Chief Resilience Officer at the University of Oregon. In 2005 he established the Disaster Resilient
Universities Network, now with over 1,500 members representing an estimated 850 institutions
of higher education. Prior to working as a senior administrator for the University of Oregon, Andre served as the founding director of the Oregon Partnership
for Disaster Resilience, an applied research center and a coalition of public, private, and professional organizations
working collectively toward the mission of creating
a disaster resilient state. He currently serves on a number
of national boards focused on campus safety, emergency
management, and resilience. He’s a graduate of the first cohort of the National Emergency
Management Executive Academy sponsored by the Department
of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Andre has a master’s degree in community and regional planning from
the University of Oregon and received a bachelor of
science in environmental policy and planning and physical geography from the University of
Wisconsin-Green Bay. Andre Le Duc, welcome to
Campus Public Safety Online. – [Andre] Thank you, Steve. I’m excited to be here and
excited to share the findings from our study that we did in 2016. And so with that, I’m just
gonna kind of jump right in and kind of go through what we found and hopefully share insights
from both this report, but more importantly
where we’re going next. And so to kind of set the
tone, one of the things that I think we often do
in emergency management is we sometimes overcomplicate things. And so what I wanted to
start with is, again, this basic framing question and
something to keep it simple. But a question that we often
face as emergency managers or folks addressing crisis or
response is being prepared. And really if you think about it from all the different models
that we have out there, whether it’s the disaster
model or the disaster cycle, what we’re really trying
to do is ask the question of what should be done before
an event, during an event, and after for any type
of crisis or emergency. And ultimately then, who’s
responsible for elements before, during, and
after any type of event? What we wanted to do with
the National Higher Education Emergency Management Needs
Assessment is step back. There was a lot of work that
was done and still continues to be done by the Department of Education, by FEMA, the Department
of Homeland Security. Often, though, a lot of those
activities are in reaction to a tragic event, either on a campus or in a K through 12 school environment. And what we really wanted to do with this needs assessment was, one, bring all of the partners together underneath one umbrella
and, quite frankly, ask the practitioners what they need so that we would be looking
at what are the needs of the practitioners that are
currently filling those roles. And so to do that, the
first thing that we did was establish a project advisory committee to make sure that we had
a good representation of the various professional association and federal partners at the table to help guide the needs
assessment project, and that included representation from the Disaster Resilient
Universities Network, but also from the National
Center for Campus Public Safety, International Association
of Emergency Managers, International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, International Association
of Chiefs of Police. We are partners in
environmental health and safety through the Campus Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Association, and also our colleagues at
the University Risk Management and Insurance Association. And then colleagues from
various federal agencies that are shareholders or have a role in helping advance campus
safety throughout the country including Department of
Education, Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Federal Emergency Management Center. And to bring this all together, because this was a large group, both from the various
partners we had engaged in the advisory committee, but also the work that we are trying to do in the outreach work in the surveys. We contracted with the
University of Oregon Community Service Center, and
actually were quite proud that we could empower and
have graduate students be at the forefront in helping us collect and do the data collection,
kind of taking one of the assets that we’re most concerned about, protecting on a campus the students, and actually engaging
them right in the front on helping us define what
the needs are moving forward. The project had four primary goals. One was what is needed to
improve emergency management at institutions of higher education? The second was where are
the resources currently being deployed on campus? The third was where are there gaps in resources and information? And what is the best
way to fill these gaps and improve campus public safety? I think it’s really important
to state that, again, what our project was
focused on was not to say that one report or another
report was better than the other, but really to focus on asking
the practitioners on campus what their needs were, to look at how do we leverage
the limited resources that we currently have, whether
that be at your institution, at the state, or even
at the federal level, to identify gaps in resources
to kinda connect the dots and continue to build a stronger
network of resource sharing to, again, fulfill that ultimate objective of making our campuses more safe and more resilient in the future. And so, again, the foundation
of the needs assessment was a survey that we started with. And the graphic that should
be on your screen now. kinda gives you a representation of how many respondents we had. We had over 611 respondents from higher education institutions
from 45 different states. We’re actually pleased, if you look at kind of the distribution, that we had a pretty good
distribution geographically across the country. The other element that we’re
looking at was the aspect of not just looking at
large public schools, but looking at public,
private, two-year, four-year. So, there again, we had a
fairly good distribution between public institutions,
private institutions, residential campuses, those
that convey Ph.D. programs, but also even having groups chime in that have medical centers, ’cause, again, all of those
are unique and nuanced. The way that I wanna kinda
step through the findings today is to kinda use the
standard disaster cycle, and kinda breaking the cycle down and sharing with you what
we found from the survey and kind of what were the top things that people were pulling out. The other part that you’ll notice in this cycle right off the
bat is that if you look at or are familiar with
the FEMA disaster cycle around preparedness, response,
mitigation, and recovery, we’ve enhanced that a bit. Quite frankly, one of
the things that we see as a need in emergency management
really across the board, but definitely in higher education, is making sure that we’re also accounting for vulnerability assessments,
training and exercise, and business continuity. So, again, as we step through
the findings of the survey, we’re gonna kind of
move through this cycle so that you can kind of see where we are and how things rank. So, again, if we start with kind of the vulnerability assessment. Again, a vulnerability
assessment truly serves as that baseline assessment
of risk and vulnerability. So understanding what
your campus is exposed to. Do you have a large research enterprise? Are you a residential campus? Do you have a large global footprint? Again, the more that you understand what your vulnerabilities are and how those vulnerabilities
could actually impact your ability as an institution to meet your strategic
objectives is critical. And so the vulnerability
assessment is often what we see as kind of the
foundation or the cornerstone of any plans, policies, and
procedures for the institution, that you need to understand
where you’re vulnerable before you can start
putting in practice things that could prevent, mitigate, or enhance your response capabilities. What we found in the
national survey is that 65% of those that responded to the survey said that they had some
element of risk assessment or vulnerability assessment. I think it’s really, really
critical to point out in this first slide as we go
through all this data that, again, the intent of the needs
assessment survey was not to say that 65% of institutions are doing vulnerability assessments to some standard or to some process that’s correct. What we were really doing
was kind of a scoping survey, that we were not passing
any type of judgment or assessment on what the
institutions were doing. We were just asking if they
were working in this space, if they felt that their institution, based upon kind of what I’ll be framing as kind of the area that they
feel that they have something. So, again, for the
vulnerability assessment, 65% of the institutions are stating that they do vulnerability assessments. When we move into
prevention and mitigation, again, the concept of
prevention and mitigation is establishing concrete
steps that strengthen and protect or backup resources. So this can be everything
from hardening buildings if you’re in an earthquake zone to making sure that you
have critical data backup for research functions, the
things that you do beforehand, including also progressive or
aggressive kind of approaches to getting people on campus, whether it be students, faculty, or staff, to understand what they
need to do as actions. And, again, what we found
in the survey findings is that 50%, so just half of those
that we have surveyed feel that they have mitigation plans or that they’re developing
mitigation plans to think about vulnerabilities or risks that they face beforehand. And so an area that we see that, again, is an area that we could look for needs or try to figure out
deeper as we move forward how to move that up so
that more institutions are feeling empowered and
have resources to help think about prevention and
mitigation beforehand. On the next slide we move into
kinda the incident response, and this is definitely where
we had the highest number of campuses state that
they feel that, yes, they have an incident response plan and that they’ve thought about response. And, again, response provides that overall kind of emergency management
structure authority roles, as well as the communication
protocol, assembly areas. It connects and identifies
the vulnerabilities that you have on your campus, and then how are you
gonna respond to those? And so, again, we were not really shocked that we would have such
a high rating on this, although, again, you
can look at everything from both the pro and the con in the sense that there’s
a number of institutions that stated through the survey findings that they do not yet have a response plan in place for their institution, so that’s another area that
we need to kinda look at how do we help those
institutions develop those types of plans and procedures
as we move forward? Then moving on into the
business continuity. And, again, business
continuity is this identifying of functions or tasks that make
up the day-to-day operations and catalogue the resources required to fully make that department or your campus operational again. And that a business continuity
plan supports that rapid and systematic prioritization,
both during the response, but quite frankly before the response to help you move faster
into that recovery phase. And the whole goal of
having a business continuity or continuity of operations plan is to minimize the negative effects and expedite restoration
of your functions. And this is one where,
again, in our findings, we actually saw some
really, really lower numbers in the sense that only 36% of
the campuses surveyed stated that they have a business continuity plan. And it’s also fair to say that
in the open-ended questions that we reviewed during this
that there’s a lot of question of what is a business
continuity plan in the sense that some campuses have
developed continuity plans for some of their critical functions, whether that be public
safety or their data, but they don’t have a
holistic plan in place. And, again, that’s an area that when we think of higher education, we not only have to have the
capabilities and capacity to respond to the event, but quite frankly this is an
area where we need to maintain. So if you have a large
research enterprise, this concept of we never close. Really thinking about continuity and where you need to focus
on continuity is critical for the long-term sustainability
and ultimately recovery from an event for your campus. And kind of moving into recovery phase, again, recovery combines both
the realistic business plans, but also your long-range
vision or your kinda wishlist of what you want the campus to look like after a crisis or emergency. And you need to be
thinking about recovery, not only from the physical aspects, but recovery plans need to be
thinking about the academics, the research, the budgetary, and be able to articulate
that in a strategic nature. So recovery plans are not something, and this is one of the things that, again, in the survey findings
we’ve noticed that only 30% of campuses state that
they have a recovery plan. And part of that can be attuned to recovery plans are generally something that go well beyond and outside of the traditional
emergency management mode that you’re truly now talking about how do you get the campus back
up on its feet post disaster? And so you need to have
a larger cast of players and you need to have
the buy-in from the top, whether that be your
president, chancellor, or lead policy group. The one thing, though,
that is really important to point out about recovery
plans or the lack thereof is that that sets a recovery trajectory. And I’ll talk later in the presentation about recovery trajectories
and this concept of resilience, that the more that you can do beforehand in kind of thinking about
your vulnerabilities, the assets, your campus’s
capability to address stress or have impact really determines
how fast you’ll recover. And do you recover stronger, or do you just kind of
get back to a steady state or something other than that? And, again, recovery is
something that has to be owned by the institution’s senior leadership. So when we see a 30% mark
there, it’s not shocking, but it definitely is an area that we see that nationally we need to
put more energy and effort at. And then kind of rounding out to the training and exercising, again, this is where
we’re generally looking at how do we train on and exercise the plans that we have developed, whether they’re incident response plans, continuity plans, and recovery plans, so that people get some muscle memory, that you’re basically running
through things with folks so they know what the roles
and responsibilities are. And, again, in the national
survey what we found was that 45% of respondents stated that they have training and
exercises on a regular basis. And, again, training and
exercising can take a lot of different forms, and often
sometimes we think about just the real large scale
type training and exercise, meaning the functional
or full scale exercise, but there’s a lot of benefit
to online, in person, or tabletops, where you’re
just going around the table and kind of laying a scenario out and talking about how
would we respond to this? And this is, again, an area that we found in the survey findings that we think that we could be working
collectively to do more to help set up and kind
of get people to realize that you don’t always need to do the full scale functional exercise to get the benefit of an exercise, that sometimes just
having a table discussion, a topic discussion at multiple levels in your institution can really
move your institution forward and quite frankly it helps to
start identifying those gaps or areas of need within your institution. And, again, that needs to go well beyond the emergency management or
the public safety portfolio. And so kind of what we found in summary on the survey findings, which
we weren’t real shocked, but there definitely are
things that we’ve identified that are areas that we need to work on. So when it comes to
planning for emergencies, institutions are very focused on response, more so than continuity and recovery. And, again, that these
findings are not unique to higher education, that if you look at the municipal model, cities, counties, state agencies, again, there is a lot more energy and effort put towards response. The past 10 years,
they’ve really been trying to move towards more energy and effort towards continuity of governance,
continuity of operations. What I would say is that in the higher education
environment, though, what we have found is that that need to move faster towards
the business continuity and recovery continuity is critical. And the reason for that for
higher education is that if we have a fire on campus,
if you have an earthquake, or you have some type of incident, unlike a municipal government,
we own that facility. We own the academic
integrity or the research. And so the response phase
is just the first step. That what is really critical for a higher education institution is what happens after the response phase. And, again, we know that
we’re gonna have people coming to our aid and response, whether it’s fire, law enforcement, EMS. The big question and the
big challenge put forth from our survey findings on
this is what do we do next? What’s the next component
that we need to think about as an institution, knowing
that once they put the fire out and the fire trucks leave, we own it. And so how do you reboot
your academic enterprise, your research enterprise, or your campus? And I think we’re gonna pause there for a few questions
based upon some of this that I’ve presented.
– Yes. – [Andre] And then we’ll go into findings. – [Steve] Thanks, Andre. You are all listening to
Campus Public Safety Online. Our speaker is Andre Le Duc, and we are hearing about the
2016 National Higher Education Emergency Management
Program Needs Assessment. If you have comments
or questions for Andre, type them into that chat box that says Questions and Comments. We have several pauses planned
during the presentation, and we will present
your questions to Andre. Andre, what differences if any
were found during the survey between rural and urban
institutions of higher education? Yeah, it’s a really good question. And what we found is that the
rural or smaller institutions had a greater stress on their
system as far as resources. Some of the findings that we’ll
talk about in a little bit that we’ll get that there’s
actually some common ground. And so if you’re a small non-urban, in some respects you
have less vulnerabilities than, say, a large urban campus. But we saw fairly consistently, whether it was rural or urban, that, again, there was
a lot of emphasis put towards the response capabilities, an emphasis in risk or threat assessment, but they had similar challenges around recovery and continuity. And I think the core message there is whether you’re rural or urban, that there are opportunities
for us to learn from each other in the sense of the process of engagement, and how do we kind of tackle the concepts around business continuity, and what does that mean
to our institution? And that’s actually a place that we saw in some of the survey data, that the smaller institutions
are a little more agile, that they’re able to
navigate with a smaller team and get connected to their
senior leadership faster than, say, a more urban or larger campus. And so both have pros and cons, but in some respects actually, the smaller institutions
are able to address some of these more complicated policy issues because of their size, that
they’re able to connect, but they have the same
challenge that all campuses have on what are those questions? How do you enter into that discussion with your senior leadership around business continuity
and recovery aspects? – [Steve] Let me squeeze
in one more question during the break. Shawn Kelley noted in the chat box, they have an information
technology continuity plan, but not one for the entire university. I wonder, Andre, if you can
comment on the relationship between IT continuity plans and the more general continuity plans. – [Andre] Right, and that’s a great one. Again, that one of the
reasons that we really wanted to make sure that when we
talk about the risk assessment or kind of that vulnerability assessment, there are certain areas on your campus that you should focus more
and kind of ask the question of do we have or can we handle, and then insert a power
outage, a building failure, whether that would be a fire
or staff not showing up, and definitely our dependency on data. Data is king in all of higher education, whether you’re public,
private, two-year, four-year. And so much like days of
past when we would say that in a community we need
to get the water system up and the sanitary system up and running before the community can recover, I can tell you first and foremost, if your data isn’t running,
you can have your lights on, building’s warm, ready to go, and you still don’t have
a functional campus. And so the message there would
be that that’s a great start, meaning the complexities
that are in a data recovery and a business continuity plan for a data center are critical. What I would say is build off
of that and kinda step back and look at what are the
things that we can do to say, “Okay, we know that our data
centers have this type of plan. “What other things around
campus really would need “these types of plans?” And, again, I’m a big fan
of the rule of threes. And so business continuity plan, when you’re asking that question, who else on campus should
really have a specialized plan? Start asking yourself of what would you if you didn’t have your
place, so the building? What would you do if you
didn’t have your people? And what would you do if
you didn’t have your data? And if your answer to that
for any kind of core function, so, again, think research facility, think your payroll office, that’s a great way to start looking at who should we work with next? And so if you have one group that’s already developed
a plan, build from that. Don’t try to cover everything at once. But start looking at where
are those other critical linchpins that make your campus run, and then work with them to make
a plan that works for them. – [Steve] Thanks, Andre. Keep those questions coming in. We won’t lose any of them, but we wanna keep Andre on his
timeline, so for now, Andre, I’ll let you get back
to your presentation. – [Andre] Great. Well, thanks, so what I’d like
to do now is kind of launch into some of the generalized findings and then recommendations
that we have from the report. And so, similar to the
discussion I was just having about kind of start where you can, that if there are certain groups on campus that have done good plans,
whether they’re response plans, continuity plans,
mitigation, build from that. But when we looked at the
findings, what we were seeing, and, again, the findings
were not just the survey, one of the things that we did
is we wanted to really look across the spectrum. And so, again, our project methodology for this needs assessment
was that we had the survey. We then had stakeholder interviews. In the stakeholder interviews, we went through professional associations and identified people that we were tagged as kind of thought leaders
or innovators in this. And then we also held in
Oregon a statewide summit where we actually brought all
post-secondary institutions to the table. We had an unfortunate event in 2015 with the Umpqua Community
College shooting, and so we were able to use that and some of the other work we were doing in the state of Oregon to
bring everybody together to, again, say, “Here are our findings, “but now what does this mean?” So that isn’t just purely the survey says, and that’s what we have here in the set of findings I’m gonna give you, but more of the amalgam of
survey, stakeholder interviews, and work groups of what were we seeing that was kinda consistent
across the board. And so one of our first
findings was commitment from campus leadership drives
the overall improvement of emergency management programs. And to unpack that a little bit, one of the things we wrestled with with the advisory
committee was this aspect of institutional commitment, that if you ask any
president or chancellor, senior leadership, they’re
gonna say that the safety of the campus is the
utmost importance to them, emergency management is
the utmost importance. What we found was that it’s nuanced, in the sense that we
need to really be looking at are we educating
our campus leaderships, our senior executives, on
what emergency management is to break the paradigm of
emergency management is often seen just as that response component. So making sure that leadership understands that there are these other aspects around the risk assessment,
threat assessment, business continuity,
continuity of operations, so that they know that
we need their commitment to move the dial. So if we wanna see that
30%, 35% on continuity and recovery move, we’re
going to need leadership to better understand what that is and how we need their support
to kinda move things forward. And, again, one of the things that I do and I saw in the chat room
out of the side of my eye is keep things simple. And so when I work with
my senior leadership, with our president and
our board of trustees, if I’m talking continuity,
I’m telling them or asking them the
simple things of, again, emergency management is what do we do before, during, and after. Business continuity is, okay, what do we do if we don’t have our people? What do we do if we don’t
have our place or buildings? And what do we do if we
don’t have our data?` And so the concept of keeping it simple, especially when we’re
talking about working with senior leadership is critical, but it needs to be simplistic enough that it resonates in their mind. And this is also an area that we found that often we’re trying to
encourage our senior leadership to go to incident command trainings and to take FEMA courses. And they’re well and good,
and some leadership gets that, but sometimes that works against us, where all of a sudden they
see this specialized language and it’s hard for them to internalize that in a way that resonates with them. Where I think that the
idea of really keeping it as strategic nature so they realize that if these things happen, meaning we lose these buildings,
we lose this data center, their strategic objectives
around academic continuity, research continuity, and
aspiring to be the best of the best are gonna be hampered, and so making it real to them. Second finding was instilling
the awareness on campus among students, faculty, and staff. And, again, this is somewhat
of breaking that paradigm that emergency management and preparedness is red flashing lights
when something bad happens, and really starting to work with folks to make them understand
that safety, resilience, preparedness is a shared responsibility, and that we need the
students and faculty to know and own aspects of emergency
preparedness for themselves. And that can be as simple as making sure that they’re thinking about it in their class delivery setting, so looking at things that
they can do and be empowered. So they’re not looking to say, “Well, we have this Office
of Emergency Management, “and they’ll take care of it,” but better defining for
them what their role is. And, again, that might just be awareness, that they may not take action immediately, but making sure that they
have the understanding of the types of risks that they may face. This is critical when
you think of students, ’cause a lot of our
students are transient. They’re coming from different areas. We’re in Oregon. We have earthquakes. So our students that come from California understand earthquakes, but our students that
come from the Midwest are coming from tornadoes. They may not have an understanding of what to do during an earthquake. And so, again, that
awareness is kinda the first. And look at an empowerment model. Another finding, emergency
management in institutions of higher ed is largely reactive. And as you saw in the survey
findings, we see that, instead of being proactive, and that’s another thing
that we’re gonna need to continue to work at, and look to see do we
have all the right players in the room to help us do that? Because, again, a lot of
the emergency management professionals are fully trained in the incident command system, understand the response capabilities, but it’s broadening out those horizons, and the way that we’re gonna do that is through collaboration and partnerships, both internally on campus, but also nationally, campus to campus. Additional findings that the
current emergency management staffing levels at institutions of higher education are inadequate. And what we mean by inadequate, what was shocking is to
find that a good majority of institutions have one person dedicated to emergency management. And so, again, if you think back to what I’ve just presented, of thinking of this full
cycle of risk assessment, preparedness, mitigation,
response capabilities, recovery, continuity. And you think an institution
of 24,000 students or 50,000 students, again, what we saw is that the majority of
institutions only have one to maybe two or three people dedicated. Now, that doesn’t mean that we need to be developing departments, emergency management
departments on campuses that have 10 to 20, but it’s really looking
to leverage resources. And so one of the things that
came out of that finding was it’s really not shocking to see that most institutions are
really focused on response, ’cause part of that is that’s all that they have staffing to do. And so if we want to see
institutions broaden out beyond just the response capabilities to get into continuity, we’re really gonna need to look at how we staff those positions, whether it is dividing resources
throughout the institution, through a team structure, or actually investing in more staff. And, again, the emergency
management planning efforts in higher ed are very focused on response rather than continuity. And that’s what we really
have saw in the findings, is when you look at the staffing levels, they kinda speak to that rationale in the sense that most
of the institutions need to focus on response
or are charged to focus on response first and then
think about continuity and recovery as an afterthought, and that’s something
that we need to change. Training opportunities for
emergency management personnel are valuable and should be encouraged. And, again, this is another challenge of running small shops. It’s very difficult to
release people for training or get them into whether it be
national academies or others. So, again, looking at opportunities that we can develop for folks, whether it be regional or in
state, partner to partner, or through kinda mentorship programs. Then training opportunities
to help acquaint the multiple areas of
campus, the community, with emergency management are valuable and should be encouraged. And, again, if you think about what we’re challenged
with on our campuses, if you’re an office of one
and you’re trying to deal with a very decentralized
large campus, this can be hard. So thinking about how
do we make partnerships? Another finding that we found was that full scale exercises are beneficial, but, again, based on that
staffing requirement, it requires a lot of resources and staffing time and funding. And so that idea of looking at that, that might be something that
you move towards as a goal if you’re a smaller institution, or only a part-time emergency manager or professional dealing with this. But really start with those things. Start with exercises around tabletops, functional things where
it’s more feasible, so, again, that you can draw more people into engaging discussions
and conversations to help build your resource. And this gets to the
third finding on this page of partnering with local resources such as government agencies, other institutions of higher education, that creating valuable networks that can augment incident
response capabilities. And I’ll talk at the end of this about the Intercollegiate
Mutual Aid Agreement. Again, that you don’t always
have to have something formal. It can be as simple as
starting to offer to meet with your colleagues up
the road or down the road from other higher ed institutions and look at what they have. What are the strengths that they have, that they bring to the table, and can you start sharing with each other? And even if you’re not sharing
at an institutional level, it’s critical to build those networks at a professional and personal level. And then the last in kind of the findings before we move on to kind
of our recommendations is, again, collaboration,
collaboration, collaboration. The collaboration among regional partners can help address several issues,
including plans, response, and the disparity of resources
among different types institutions in the state and region. And, again, I can speak
to some of the things that we’re doing here in
Oregon, specific to Oregon, as a result of, again, the
tragedy that we had at Umpqua. We are currently working
with the governor’s office to look at how do we
address emergency management holistically from a public,
private, two-year, four-year. And I know there’s a question
about community colleges, that idea that smaller campuses
and colleges should not suffer because they don’t
have the staff capacity, that we should really look at this from a regional standpoint. And how do we build state partnerships, whether formal or informal? And that idea that if a bad
day happens on your campus, you know that you have a network and you have a set of partners
that are gonna come to you, but then also leveraging that partnership on things around mitigation,
training, exercising so that you get to know
each other’s capabilities and capacities well before
you would ever need them. And so the group really wanted to kind of boil down our findings. And, again, thinking about this work, what we were trying to do was articulate to our federal partners,
to our state partners, based upon practitioners,
what we would love to see as kind of things moving forward. And so we came up with a set of five national recommendations, and then we did also come up with a set of recommendations at the local level. And so on the national,
some of you on the phone may have participated in what
was called the EMHE grant, or the Emergency Management
for Higher Education by the US Department of Education. This is our first recommendation, is to put funding back into that program. So that grant program still
exists, it’s just not funded. One of the reasons that
we really put emphasis on this program is it’s
a cohort-based program. So all the institutions that
go through this are charged with working with other institutions to share their knowledge,
to build capacity. The other aspect that was
unique about this grant program as compared to other federal programs, either through FEMA or
DHS, is it was all hazard. So it was the only grant program that an institution was
expected to address all aspects of the emergency management cycle, not just the response
or threat assessment, but to actually look at the whole element. The next recommendation,
and this, again, ties back to what we had in the findings, of establishing an emergency
management curriculum and training program targeted
at executive leadership. Again, leveraging our limited resources, that having a group really
look at training material that is designed for
chancellors, provosts, board of trustees, so that they
have a better understanding, since they are the fiduciaries
and the ones in charge of the institution, on what
emergency management means to higher education to,
again, hopefully empower the emergency manager in
the field or on the campus to be able to have and turn to curriculum that they can then share
with their leadership on what this looks like. And, again, the concept
here is curriculum focused at that senior leadership
overseeing an emergency management or public safety campus, not the training for
the emergency manager. We do talk about training
for emergency managers and the recommendations,
but this is really targeted at the senior representatives
of the campus. The other third recommendation, establish an ad hoc working group to focus on communication and resource coordination between campus emergency management and officers at the federal agency. Again, this is to really try
to get the federal groups to, before they launch a program, whether it be a White House initiative, a Department of Education initiative, that they’re looking at the
practitioners and looking at resources that practitioners
are saying they need before they develop a program. And so that we make sure
any of the resources put forth are there thinking of things that have already been
identified as needs, as opposed to developing needs that may or may not be representative of the practitioners’ needs. And then we’re encouraging
higher education emergency management coordination at
the state and local level. And the last one is establishing
an ad hoc work group to develop a program maturity model for higher education emergency management. And I wanna unpack that one a little bit, ’cause I know that in some of
the comments they’re asking about training for frontline staff. What we’re really looking
at with this maturity model is dependent upon where your program is. And, again, there are programs
that already exist out there to assess your emergency
management program, whether it be EMAP, the Emergency Management
Accreditation Program. What we’re looking at here is let’s say that you are the one person
shop or a two person shop, that idea of where is your program? So thinking back to that,
the survey findings, in the sense that maybe
you’re really strong on the response, you’re doing a really great
job on the threat assessment. Where you could use some work would be on how to develop continuity plans, long-term recovery plans,
training and exercising. That we actually develop a model that you can kind of do
your own self-assessment and then actually have
trainings that align to that. So, again, that if you have
the response part well in hand, that then you can focus on training for your staff or your institution
in that next core area. And that’s part of the reason that we’re calling it a maturity model, is that we expect that
most campuses are starting with the response phase, but how do we over time
move them from response into things like continuity
and ultimately recovery? So before I pause, a few other
little points that we wanted to share with kind of the
campus level recommendations, things that we found in
kind of the survey were that we wanted to make
sure that we’re sharing both in the report but
also on this webinar, was that really capitalizing on After-Action Reports was one key thing. So make sure that when you have an event, look at what you learned from it and figure out what you
can do moving forward. Leverage resources throughout
campus, through partnerships. And I’ll show a slide in a little bit of some of the work we’ve
done here at the U of O to kind of show you a
way that you can do that. And a lot of that is think teams. Higher education is very collegial. People, and sometimes to a deficit, that we really, really
like to think about things before we act on things. But think about where
that can be a positive in the sense of bringing teams
together to focus on a topic. Think about assigning emergency
management point person. And what I mean by this is
really kind of the aspect of assigning them in different
groups, whether that be in your provost or the
academic side, research side. So, again, that you’re starting
to build out that network. Really start thinking about participation in large-scale exercises. So before you host one, look
to see are there exercises that you can jump onto. And this is really critical
when we’re thinking at the city level, the county
level, or even state level, ’cause often they’re thinking
about higher education in a completely different realm, and it’s usually in a K through 12 realm. They may not understand our complexity, and so it’s a great
opportunity for campuses to just be a participant
and share the nuance and the changes that
you have on your campus, whether it’s you’re in
session, out of session, so that those exercises
that are at the city or county or state level are more true to including higher education and what your challenges would be. Engage in local partnerships. Invite your local emergency
manager to campus. If you don’t have a connection with your local emergency
manager, make one. Develop institutional policy that requires continuity
and recovery plans. And, again, as I was saying
earlier in the session, that that requirement might be on some of those critical
resource need areas, whether it be your data centers,
if you have a power plant, if you have research enterprise, that it doesn’t have to be
everybody has a recovery plan, but you start to put into
policy that those things that could hurt you most if
they’re not up and running in the near term after an
event, have the plans in place. Truly start fostering a
culture of preparedness. And, again, this is where
don’t reinvent the wheel. Look to see what people
are doing nationally or even locally, and I call it R and D: rip off and duplicate. Of course, give credit for it. Adopt and comply with national
standards where you can. And, again, that’s where
understanding NFPA 1600, understanding EMAP. And, again, there are trainings
and things that you can do to get a better understanding. Don’t think that you have
to get there tomorrow, but look at where are you today
and how do you move forward. And, again, learn from peer institutions and explore shared services models. So talk with your partners up the road. Talk with the local community college or the other university
or the private to say, “Can we have a mutual aid? “Can we work together on
some of these issues?” So that you take your
office or party of one and start to multiply it. And, again, participate
in mutual aid agreements. So a few things that I
just wanted to end on that give you a little
bit of a visual of this, is consider the power of teams. The University of Oregon, we’ve been running an
incident management team since about 2009, and it
really came to be after H1N1 and this quick realization
that we needed a lot of players to cover a very complex campus, and our emergency management program at the time had two FTE in it. And so we were able to develop
an incident management team following the FEMA type three position specific training certification, and we now have a team of well
over 35 trained individuals that are approaching risk and emergencies from an all hazard standpoint. The other key is we’ve taken
that team now and expanded it, that that team is not just doing response. That team is engaged in
our continuity activities and engaged in our recovery activities. Because, again, if you look at the slide, you’re not seeing the typical ICS slide of an incident commander,
which we have that. What you’re seeing is the
components of the institution and who needs to be at the table and who needs to be represented. And so that, again, when we think of our incident management team, it isn’t just handling the incident. It actually is first on
scene for the incident, but then it carries us all the way through to the closure of claims and insurance. And, again, building
that team environment. And if you have not heard about the National Intercollegiate
Mutual Aid Agreement, I’d strongly encourage
you to look into that. That’s another tool that is
no cost to your institution to sign on, and, again, it’s based upon how can campuses partner with each other? And, again, this need is something that came out of many, many incidents, and everything from earthquakes
to hurricanes to shootings. But this idea of how do
we leverage our resources and kind of help each other? And this is not moving outside of mutual aid compacts at city and county. Actually, the work that we’ve done through the International Association of Emergency Managers University
and College Caucus was to actually work with everybody
to develop a simple tool that can be recognized by
the federal government, by Homeland Security, but really helps us leverage our resources as an institution. U of O is a signet around this,
and one of the main reasons every time my leadership asks why, I quickly explain that we
live in an earthquake zone, that I wanna have
partners on the other side of the continent that are
not in the same seismic zone, that if we would have an earthquake, that I could draw upon their resources and bring them in to
help at our time of need. And, again, that this is
something that can be expanded all the way up to the national level, meaning that’s what we
developed the mutual aid to be. But you can also tailor it. And so we’re currently
in the state of Oregon using the same document to
build out our mutual aid within the state so that
we have that ability to expand or contract on it. You can find more information
about the mutual aid at the IAEM website,
which is on the slide. But, again, the types of resources that the mutual aid agreement
really helps you secure would be personnel, teams,
equipment, supplies, basically whatever the
participating institution is willing to share. In the case of the Umpqua
Community College shooting, we deployed our incident management team, so with were able to
provide initially personnel to help them manage the incident, and then we were over the next
few days actually providing some facilities, staff, and equipment. But, again, it is an agreement
between the two institutions, that if the institution asks, the institutions on the
other side will say, “Hey, I have that resource
and I can provide it “for you at no cost.” So I wanna stop there
and take a few questions before I kind of wrap up
with a few final thoughts. – [Steve] Great, tremendous,
Andre, thanks a lot. Yeah, let’s see how many
of these we can get to. Ramon asked awhile ago, “What was found “to be the challenges for HBCUs?” – [Andre] So I think that,
again, across the board, we didn’t see any one unique kind of, whether it be community college or historically black
college having a challenge, that uniquely across the board what we found was
institutional commitment. And, again, rolling that back a little bit of what we mean by institutional
commitment is the knowledge of the senior leadership,
the president, the provost, the chancellors at the top understanding what emergency management
is, and, equally, is not. And so those were pretty consistent. The other thing that was
consistent across the board, depending on scale,
size, and complexity was that emergency management
is generally underfunded and understaffed. And so I think that, not
to say that one segment of higher education was at
greater need than the other, it really was that critical component, and that’s why we made it
the second recommendation, of what are we doing to educate
the leaders of the campus on what emergency management
is in higher education, ’cause often what they
understand it to be is from a city or municipal side, and they’re not getting the full picture of where they may have vulnerabilities on rebooting the campus after a crisis, whether that’s, again,
from crisis communication, the continuity, to recovery. – [Steve] And, again, awhile ago, Andre, someone asked you to repeat
your rule of three again. Let me note for everyone’s interest that this webinar is being recorded, and the archive will be available on the NCCPS website within a few days. So if you missed anything else, feel free to go back
and replay the archive. But in the meantime, the rule of three. – [Andre] Yeah, so the rule of three when it comes to continuity
and recovery planning is, again, trying to keep things
at a very simple level, that if you’re talking to a researcher or you’re talking to senior leadership, and the sense of getting
people to start thinking about what would you do if you
didn’t have your place? So that’s the space, that’s the building, that’s the power, the electricity. What would you do if you
didn’t have your people? So your staff, and so
think about if we have H1N1 or we have a pandemic, so all of a sudden you only
have 50% of your staff. And what would you do if
you didn’t have your data? So if you think about those three, and I know that my
colleague Krista Dillon, I believe in February, will be doing a session
on business continuity. We’ve found that that is a great way to start a conversation with folks. So instead of throwing a bunch
of different terms at them, of like MAD, maximum allowable downtime, and all of the things that, again, if you go through the continuity training, you’ll get more acronyms than
you know what to do with. Of making it a conversation, and starting that conversation at a point that the person that you’re talking to, whether it’s a research
group, academic group, senior leadership, that
they can understand. And that where’s we say with
the simple rule of three, of people, place, data. And, again, as I said
earlier, data has become king. There’s a lot of things we can do if they shut the water down, meaning we can truck water in. If we don’t have the data flowing and we don’t have the
data centers working, a lot of things just come
to an immediate standstill. – [Steve] And thanks for the plug on the business continuity webinar. That’s coming up in March, not February. We’ve got a different one in February, but everybody out there
will watch for both of them, actually, the February and March webinars. I’ll tell you more
about one of them later. Andre, what did you
find were the challenges of community colleges,
specifically as opposed to four-year institutions? – [Andre] Yeah, I think the
community college is similar to private, or size. Size and then location. And so some of the things
that we are talking about of establishing partnerships and working with your local government. Oftentimes a lot of our
community colleges are already in very resource deprived
areas within the state, and so those challenges of partnership, the resources that the
community college has a need for actually extend into the city or county that they’re serving. And that’s where one of the things that we talked about around
kind of state partnerships. And, again, I can only speak to this work has actually gotten Oregon
thinking about that, that we’re looking at how do we develop regional partnerships? So, again, instead of just looking at we’ve got Rogue Community College, which is a small community college, well, what are the other community
colleges that are nearby? But then also what are the
other larger institutions that might have greater capacity? So thinking that you know
that those smaller schools are going to have a
challenge with the resources. And even if they reach out
and ask to the city or county that the resource is gonna be a challenge, so looking at how do you
build that network bigger? And so I think there’s
a lot of opportunities in the community college environment to build regional type networks so that if one community college has staff that’s really good on the response side and another has staff that’s really good on the continuity side, how do you leverage
those limited resources so that they can share that resource? Excuse me for a second. (coughing) So, again, I think it’s about partnership and making connections
where it makes sense. – [Steve] Thanks, Andre,
so we’ve got these two final concepts, resilience
and recovery trajectory. Why don’t you get to them? – [Andre] Yeah, thanks,
so there’s two things that I wanted to leave you with to kind of have you think
in the broad context of where is all of this going? And one is this concept of resilience, that what we know from research around whether it’s a
community, an organization, that when there’s an extreme event, you are going to have an impact. And what you did before the
impact will greatly determine how you recover and
what your resilience is on the other end of that impact. And so what this graph is
really representing is this idea that if a community or an
organization is plugging along and actually seeing a
decline in enrollment or seeing a decline in assets, that that shock is likely
going to just exacerbate that so that they’ll see even more
kind of reduction in those. Whereas those institutions
or organizations that have thought about
response, response capabilities, are likely to, one, they’ll have the shock and they’ll have a dip, but they’re going to come out faster, so their recovery time’s gonna be shorter. And they’re gonna come out more resilient, in the sense that in the longer term, they actually will have a greater capacity because they’ve thought about these things in the short-term and the long-term. As far as the recovery trajectory concept, and this is a new concept
that we’ve been working on since the Umpqua tragedy, starting to think about
things in consecutive waves. That first wave is gonna
be your first responders. The second wave is really
that continuity wave, where you’re moving from response, which might be 24 to 48 hours, to now you have to maintain campus, which that could be from the
first few hours of the incident all the way up to two weeks. And then you’re gonna move
into your recovery wave. And the reason that we are
articulating these in waves, and, again, kind of similar
to that recovery trajectory, is that you’re able to start looking at how and where are we as a institution in the sense of if we’re
good on our response side, that’s great, but how
do we reduce that spike in a lot of activity for continuity to make sure that we can
go from the response phase, into the continuity phase, into long-term recovery
as seamless as possible. And often in these leadership waves, you have different leaders that have to play different roles. But part of the reason
for kind of presenting it in this way is to really articulate that there are people that
will be your critical people in the response phase. That leadership changes in your continuity as far as who it might be on your campus. And then that changes again when you think long-term recovery. – [Steve] Okay, great, Andre. One more question to
squeeze in before we end. “We require our security staff “to complete the FEMA ICS-100 HE. “Should our executive leadership “complete the course as well?” – [Andre] That’s a great question. And this is one of those things that I would say be careful. That, yes, I’m not gonna
say that you shouldn’t, but there is actually a higher
education series of the 100, and then there’s an
executive training of ICS for kind of executives in
the incident command system. The reason that I put out
a caution of warning is that one of the things that we
found in the survey was that a lot of institutions were
having their higher leadership do the 100 and 200 for
institutional awareness, and they discounted it to say, “Well, that’s what law
enforcement and police do.” So when I say the caution
or the warning would be that you can do the ICS-100 online. I would strongly encourage you to actually do that training in person. You can use the material, but
that way you can make it real. You can actually put in real examples, bring home the concepts that
are germane to your campus. ‘Cause the last thing you wanna do is push your senior
leadership to something online that they feel is stale
and they discount and say, “Well, that doesn’t really pertain to me.” and so that’s the cautionary tale. I think it’s good for them
to have that knowledge base, but that’s one where I’d say, if you can, do it in person with them. One, they get to know you, but, two, you’re also then able to speak to where the challenges
are on your institution, the gaps, the areas
that you need to invest, that kind of stuff. – [Steve] Tremendous insight. Thanks very much, Andre, and
thanks to all of our viewers and questioners from around the Internet. Check the NCCPS Webinars page for a link to the captioned recording
of today’s presentation, as well as a link to our speaker’s slides. The brief evaluation
survey I mentioned earlier should already be in your mailbox. It will take you no more
than two minutes to complete. Please do. We read and act on your comments. Mark your calendars for the next Campus Public
Safety Online webinar, two to three p.m. on
Tuesday, February 21st. Our speaker will be Dr. Gary J. Margolis, Co-Founder of Margolis Healy and President and CEO of Social Sentinel, speaking on Social Media
Monitoring for Safety: What’s Happening in
Education, Why, and What Now? The registration URL is on
your screen and clickable, or surf on over to the
National Center webpage at nccpsafety.org. That’s nccpsafety.org. The National Center for
Campus Public Safety has been offering its extremely popular Trauma-Informed Sexual
Assault Investigation and Adjudication Institute
at a number of locations from coast to coast. The curriculum includes
modules on 15 topics, from the effects of trauma, to a multidisciplinary
approach to investigations, developed by subject matter experts in the areas of psychology and culture, sexual assault investigations,
Title IX, and Clery. The schedule for upcoming
dates is on your screen. For more details and to
register, click the blue link or visit our webpage. Campus Public Safety
Online is brought to you by the The National Center
for Campus Public Safety, with support from the
University of Vermont Continuing and Distance Education, and the US Department of Justice. Special thanks today to Alix
McAtee and Megan O’Neil. This is Steve Worona. See you next time on Campus
Public Safety Online.