**November 20, 2006 FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project
Activity Report**

\(1\) EMI ALL-HANDS MEETING NOTES, NOVEMBER 7, 2006:

As noted in an earlier activity report, the new EMI Superintendent, Dr.
Cortez Lawrence, held an All-Hands meeting here on November 7th in the
afternoon. Staff in one room and section supervisors (Management Team)
in another room were asked to \"flip-chart\" answer four questions \--
flip charts were collected afterwards. Received this morning the
compilation of the flip chart material \-- pasted in below:

Question 1: What are the first things I (Superintendent) should do?

Staff Responses:

Evaluate and prioritize the need for all existing and new training (9)

Determine EMI\'s mission, scope and role within the new FEMA (9)

Reorganize, consolidate like functions (5); Balance the work load (4)

Leverage more resources (4); Improve employee morale (3)

Implement objectively right hiring processes, tasking, cross training
and HR processes in general Establish training standards and procedures
(i.e. ISD and ADDIE) (2)

Maintain continuous EMI presence at FEMA HQ, with EMI staff. Know when
to promote, when to say no.

EMI needs larger voice in FEMA, NEMA, IAEM, etc. (develop partnership)

Need short training sessions periodically i.e. all hands meetings on
changes to NRP, HSPB #5, NIMS, etc. (in-house staff)

Reinstate (reporting) system so we know what is happening in the
field/state etc.

Proper management; State of art Personnel/resources; designation as
Center of Excellence

Management Team Responses:

Develop NRP/NIMS training plan by Dec 15 (include training for DHS
components, other Federal Agencies, state, local and tribal government).

Articulate to FEMA and DHS leadership the return on investment of
performance based training. Dollars spent on training enhance
performance.

Obtain funding to update facilities, curriculum, technologies to reflect
that there is indeed a new FEMA.

Market the value of EMI through Federal, State, Local and Tribal and NGO
leadership.

Develop synergy with regions to meet mutual goals.

Question 2: What are the challenges for EMI or EMI programs that you
see?

EMI Staff Responses:

Lack of training/project resources (campus space, beds, EMI staff,
admissions support) (11)

Lack of strategic plan, policies, procedures for EMI (3); Low morale
(2).

EMI has historically had responsibility for training without authority.

Our relationship to employee development\'s role.

Lack of/or changing policy.

Working with new partners (collaboration, determining duplication of
effort).

Losing institutional knowledge.

All EMI staff should be FTE.

Hold section chief accountable for higher standards of performance.

Emergency Management needs a more comprehensive definition, principals

(consistent) education/training course/curriculum for state, local,
tribal, federal emergency management staff and all associated
organizations.

Marketing EMI courses to ensure classes are maximized/full and use a
variety of marketing strategies.

Get a broader perspective of field operation - EMI focus of reality;
bringing together untrained with appropriate training (Cadre manager
ensures staff is trained before deployment Need for a more rigorous
evaluation system (is training making a difference, need empirical data

CORE course build into a CORE curriculum \-- Social Science based;
Reflective of NFPA 1600 (standard competencies 54); 1600 not followed,
no clear requirements identified.

Becoming a center for excellence as a challenge - EM education/training.

On-line course effectiveness - Interactivity is required to ensure more
effectiveness\...training transferred to job.

More comprehensive training delivery method (more comprehensive content
in the IS courses).

Annual response refresher training to keep skills alive.

Inconsistent of lack of policy/direction from program office/leadership.

Organization (support from FEMA HQ and DHS, how do we fit into mission
of new FEMA, regional support).

Competition with other organizations (higher education, DHS outsourcing,
other elements).

Dynamic flexibility (certification of resident and field courses).

Management Team Responses:

Roles of training component within DHS are not clear (EMI, NFA, OGT and
DP, National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, National Defense
University).

Insufficient resources to update facilities, curriculum and technology.

Handle student expenses uniformly among DHS components.

Program office component are not true training partners in terms of
clearly defining training requirements, articulating policy, and working
with EMI to develop, recruit students, deliver training and evaluate
training.

Question 3: What do we need to do to make our organization \"Best in
Class\"?

EMI Staff Responses:

Establish a task force to do a thorough analysis of EMI\'s mission (5).

Marketing and outreach (5).

Advanced or leading edge technology (web classroom, high tech classes,
high tech tools) (4).

More employee development training opportunities (3).

Revise training more frequently (2).

More college and academic type interaction including content and
delivery method (2).

Establish EMI as elite/premier Emergency Management Training Facility
(curriculum & facility).

Maintaining and enhancing student support system.

Expend necessary money to make EMI the best in class/

Develop a \"theory of EM\" (Drabek).

More flexible and proactive in meeting customer needs.

Excellence based standards - NFPA 1600, Best Practices, etc.

EMI Academy - professors or FEMA staff for college credit - series of
courses/curriculum.

Encourage visibility of staff - \"marketing\" presentations, writing
papers, research, etc.

Practice what we preach.

Develop culture for success between management & staff with mutual
support and commitment.

Develop effective linkages with regions and states.

Management Team Responses:

Need to define what we do best and what we have the potential to do
well.

Update technology (classroom, web, etc) to reflect that there is indeed
a \"new FEMA\". EMI should look impressive in our classrooms, on our web
pages, in independent study course materials, etc.

Update curricula to fit the \"new FEMA.\"

Institute mature processes to measure the impact of training (outcome).

Leverage student feedback to assist with marketing EMI as a world class
EM Training Organization.

Conduct target audience assessment (front end analysis).

Question 4: How can we benchmark ourselves?

EMI Staff Responses:

Practice what we teach/preach.

Credibility - staff meets standards, i.e. NFPA 1600 or equivalency.

Build consensus activity i.e. fundamentals of our \"profession.\"

Re-establish a \"professional\" series - performance based.

Marketing for larger measurable quantifiable attendance.

Higher quality product and staff.

Market to a broader audience - coordination among agencies is more than
Emergency Management stakeholders/staff (mandate mixed audience) -
measurable

Build a stronger evaluation system measurable/quantifiable results that
show improvement, etc. (evaluate effectiveness of training pre/post
test).

More invitations to events, conferences, presentations - measurable
(more value added to audience and FEMA).

Strategic Plan - define EMI\'s mission under the new FEMA.

Internal: Equitable work assignments in sections and throughout EMI, and
Match employees strengths with work assignments.

External: Needs of client, matched with curriculum, matched with talent
of staff and number of staff; comparison with other agencies providing
comparable training.

Management Team Responses:

Identify and use appropriate external standards, international standards
organization 9001, ASTD award criteria.

Visit existing high quality corporate universities, other federal
training facilities & institutes.

\(2\) PANDEMIC:

Markel, Howard, et al. \"Nonpharmaceutical Influenza Mitigation
Strategies, US Communities, 1918-1920, Pandemic.\" Emerging Infectious
Diseases (CDC), Vol. 12, No. 12, December 2006, 5 pages. Accessed at:
[[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no12/06-0506.htm]{.underline}](http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no12/06-0506.htm)

\[\"Abstract: We studied nonpharmaceutical interventions used to
mitigate the second, and most deadly, wave of the 1918-1920 influenza
pandemic in the United States. We conclude that several small
communities implemented potentially successful attempts at preventing
the introduction of influenza\....

Conclusions: First, protective sequestration, if enacted early enough in
the pandemic, crafted so as to encourage the compliance of the
population involved, and continued for the lengthy time period in which
the area is at risk, stands the best chance of guarding against
infection. Second, available data from the second wave of the 1918-1920
influenza pandemic fail to show that any other NPI (apart from
protective sequestration) was, or was not, effective in preventing the
spread of the virus. Despite implementing several NPIs, most communities
sustained considerable illness and death. We could not assess how the
timing of NPI implementation across the nation affected disease
mitigation efforts nor whether these NPIs lessened what might have been
even higher rates had these measures not been in place in various
locations. Moreover, we could not locate any consistent, reliable data
supporting the conclusion that face masks, as available and as worn
during the 1918-1920 influenza pandemic, conferred any protection to the
populations that wore them (16). In fact, evidence suggests that in most
American communities NPIs did not prevent the spread of virus in 1918.
What remains unclear is the extent to which they may have been partially
effective in reducing spread or mitigating community impact\.... in the
event of another influenza pandemic, many specific subcommunities (e.g.,
military installations, college and university campuses, nursing homes)
may wish to consider protective sequestration measures as potential
means to prevent or delay the onset of epidemic influenza in their
populations.\"\]

Schull, Michael J., et al. \"Surge Capacity Associated with Restrictions
on Nonurgent Hospital Utilization and Expected Admissions during an
Influenza Pandemic: Lessons from the Toronto Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome Outbreak.\" Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 11, pp.
1228-1231, June 28, 2006. Accessed at:

[[http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/11/1228]{.underline}](http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/11/1228)

\[\"Conclusions: Pandemic modeling for Toronto suggests that
influenza-related admissions would exceed the reduction in
hospitalizations seen during SARS-related nonurgent hospital admission
restrictions, even in a mild pandemic. Sufficient surge capacity in a
pandemic will likely require the implementation of other measures,
including possibly stricter implementation of hospital utilization
restrictions.\"\]

\(3\) PREPAREDNESS \-- NORTHCOM BIG ON COLLABORATION/COMMUNICATIONS
VERSUS

COMMAND/CONTROL:

Miles, Donna. \"Keating: Katrina Lessons to Ensure Better U.S. Disaster
Response.\" American Forces Press Service, 17Nov2006. At:

[[http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2162]{.underline}](http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2162)

\[Excerpts: Navy Adm. Timothy J. Keating, Commander of U.S. Northern
Command \"\...pointed to a wide range of initiatives, all adopted after
Hurricane Katrina, to improve the way military troops and assets are
used during an emergency when called on by the president or secretary of
defense. These include:

\-- Thousands of active-duty troops are now on alert at any given time
to respond to an emergency. These troops are organized into \"force
packages\" sized according to \"the magnitude of the potential
catastrophe,\" Keating said.

\-- New off-the-shelf communications capabilities ensure a steady
communication flow even if local cell phone towers or the electrical
grid are disabled or destroyed. \"We literally put up a small, portable
tower, fire up the generator and start handing out cell phones,\"
Keating said. \"That lets us get a first-hand assessment of the
situation on the ground - a capability that wasn\'t in place last
summer.\" Keating noted that while DoD has three of these systems, the
Department of Homeland Security has about 12.

\-- The national response plan, revised by DHS in coordination with DoD
and other agencies, ensures a better emergency response. \"It is a more
effective more efficient, more timely way of providing our citizens the
response capability they need,\" Keating said.

\-- Full-time, active-duty military defense coordinating officers are
now positioned in each Federal Emergency Management Agency region to
coordinate with DHS and other emergency responders. By building
relationships and an understanding of capabilities and requirements
before they\'re needed, this ensures a faster, better coordinated
response, Keating said.

\-- NORTHCOM exercises its response capabilities \"frequently and
vigorously\" and continually improves on its disaster planning and
coordination. Keating noted an upcoming exercise, Vigilant Shield, which
will test the U.S. response to a simulated nuclear accident.

\.... {The} mission requires a deviation from the traditional military
emphasis on command and control, he said. Now the big watchwords, he
said, are \'communication and collaboration\'.\"\]

B.Wayne Blanchard, Ph.D., CEM

Higher Education Project Manager

Emergency Management Institute

National Emergency Training Center

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Department of Homeland Security

16825 S. Seton, K-011

Emmitsburg, MD 21727

\(301\) 447-1262, voice

\(301\) 447-1598, fax

wayne.blanchard@dhs.gov

[[http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu]{.underline}](http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu)

\* To subscribe to the Hi Ed Activity Reports go to the Higher Education
Project homepage at <http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/edu/>. Scroll to
the fourth paragraph and click on the link to send a blank e-mail to our
list server. You do not need to enter any information on the Subject
line or in the Message area. If you want to remove yourself from this
mailing list, you can send a blank email to
<leave-emi-hi-ed-reports-205686A@lyris.fema.gov> or visit:
[[http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/edu/]{.underline}](http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/edu/)

If you are unsubscribing from a different email address than the one you
originally subscribed with, send your email to <lyris@lyris.fema.gov>
and include the next line of text in the subject line of your message:

Unsubscribe emi-hi-ed-reports <Barbara.L.Johnson@dhs.gov>

.

**"Please note: Some of the Web sites linked to in this document are not
federal government Web sites, and may not necessarily operate under the
same laws, regulations, and policies as federal Web sites."**

\* NOTE:  Users can be dropped from the Hi Ed Activity Report list for a
few reasons.  Make sure your mail box will accept our email.  Sometimes
inboxes are too full to accept an attachment.  If the email "bounces"
too many times you will be dropped from the email listing.   Make sure
the activity reports are not rejected as SPAM.  This will also cause the
email to bounce and again you may be dropped from the listing.  You can
have your Help Desk check your computer settings to ensure DHS emails
are acceptable to your system. Hi Ed Activity Reports are distributed
daily Monday through Friday; if for any reason delivery of the Hi Ed
Activity Reports stops let us know immediately via email at
<Barbara.L.Johnson@dhs.gov>.  Missed Activity Reports can be accessed on
the Hi Ed website at
<http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/activityRA.asp>.