**[Emergency Management Demographics]{.underline}:**

**WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM A Comparative Analysis of IAEM Respondents And
RURAL Emergency Managers?**

Carol Cwiak, Kathy Cline and Tammy Karlgaard

The present study seeks to examine the demographics and attitudes of two
groups of emergency management professionals, as well as some of the
differences amongst and between the two groups that may be helpful in
understanding the professional and educational needs of emergency
management professionals in the field. The first group represents a
sampling from attendees at the International Association of Emergency
Management's (IAEM) November 2003 conference. The second group
represents a sampling taken from North Dakota's county-level (NDC)
emergency managers in 2004. Both groups were administered the same
thirteen page survey that sought to elicit data about emergency
management professionals' demographics and attitudes.

There are a number of different ways in which one could measure
demographics, education, training, professional involvement and
attitudes in the field of emergency management. This study chose two
convenience samples that represent professionals from the same field,
but that have very different demographics in relation to agency worked
for, amount of hours worked, and pay received. For the most part, the
IAEM respondents generally held full-time positions and by definition
were involved with a professional organization at the national level
(attended IAEM's conference). In contrast, many of the NDC respondents
were not full-time and worked as county-level emergency managers in a
primarily rural state. None of the North Dakota emergency managers
sampled were represented in the IAEM sample.

It is important to note at the outset that the comparison being made
between the two groups is not meant to create a view of both ends of a
spectrum. The intent throughout is to use this comparison not to
understand two specific groups of people, but to use it instead as an
exploratory probe of the extent of which different factors may or may
not be associated with different outcomes and different demographic
profiles.

The attitude data culled by this survey is presented in a companion
report similarly titled: *Emergency Management Attitudes: What can we
learn from a comparative analysis of IAEM respondents and rural
emergency managers?*

INTRODUCTION

With the movement toward professionalization of the field of emergency
management, there has been a great deal of discussion and examination
regarding the current face of emergency management. Dr. Wayne Blanchard,
the Project Manager of FEMA's Higher Education Project, has spent years
cultivating a paradigm shift that moves the field of emergency
management from what has too frequently been a secondary career for
former military and educators to a primary career recognized as a
profession in-and-of-itself. Over the years, Dr. Blanchard has nurtured
countless higher education programs that are geared toward that goal (as
of this writing, 119 programs exist in the United States).

The events of September 11, 2001 brought a whole new level of focus on
the field of emergency management. With the creation of the Department
of Homeland Security, and the incorporation of FEMA into a
mega-organization tasked with protecting the United States, emergency
management professionals went from a level of relative anonymity to
acknowledged key players in the war against terrorism. This was a
dramatic shift for most emergency managers across the United States.
They went from being the faceless unknown (and oft unappreciated) to
being a cornerstone of the nation's security. This intensified the push
for professionalization of the field.

To fully understand the issues facing emergency management and the
professionalization of the field, one must ask both who are the
professionals of today, as well as who are the professionals of
tomorrow. Dr. Blanchard has characterized the traditional face of
emergency management (which he terms the Emergency Manager "Stereotype")
as opposed to the developing face of emergency management (which he
terms The "New Generation" Emergency Manager) as follows:

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Emergency Manager               | **The "New Generation" Emergency  |
| "Stereotype"**                    | Manager**                         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 1.  Not college educated (4-year  | 1.  College educated---many with  |
|     degree)                       |     EM degrees                    |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 2.  Middle to late middle-aged    | 2.  More professional and         |
|                                   |     knowledgeable                 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 3.  Emergency management is       | 3.  Knowledge base: science and   |
|     second or third career        |     research                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 4.  Job obtained other than with  | 4.  Technologically more          |
|     EM Competencies               |     proficient/adept              |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 5.  Spend EM career in one        | 5.  Younger                       |
|     jurisdiction                  |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 6.  Disaster response             | 6.  More diverse and culturally   |
|     planning-oriented             |     sensitive                     |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 7.  Works primarily with          | 7.  Emergency management is       |
|     emergency services            |     career of first choice        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 8.  Bureaucratic                  | 8.  Building disaster-resistant   |
|                                   |     communities focus             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 9.  Plans *for* jurisdiction      | 9.  Proactive                     |
|     (primarily disaster           |                                   |
|     response-oriented)            |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 10. Has not done a risk           | 10. Lifelong learner; reads       |
|     assessment                    |     disaster literature           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 11. Has not done a mitigation     | 11. Joins professional            |
|     plan                          |     associations                  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 12. Has not done a strategic plan | 12. Plans *with* jurisdiction     |
|                                   |     stakeholders                  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 13. Has not joined an EM          | 13. Better paid                   |
|     professional association      |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 14. Doesn't read disaster         | 14. Better funding for EM         |
|     research literature           |     programs                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 15. Knowledge base is             | 15. Upwardly and geographically   |
|     experiential                  |     mobile                        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 16. Frequently wears other hats   | 16. Broader range of working      |
|                                   |     contacts                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 17. Not well-paid or funded       |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 18. Many part-time and volunteer  |                                   |
|     positions                     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

This study will seek to shed some light on the current face of emergency
management professionals relating back to Dr. Blanchard's list were
applicable (the survey did not query regarding all the topic areas in
Dr. Blanchard's list), as well as attempt to answer the real question
within this study of what we can learn about the profession of emergency
management from a comparative analysis of IAEM respondents and rural
emergency managers that may be helpful in understanding the professional
and educational needs of emergency management professionals in the
field.

Methodology

This was an exploratory study self-funded by a three person graduate
student research team from the Emergency Management Program at North
Dakota State University. The research discussed in this paper was
conducted in two waves using convenience samples.

[]{.mark}

The first wave was a sampling from attendees at the International
Association of Emergency Management's (IAEM) November 2003 conference
(81 respondents). The second wave represents a sampling taken from North
Dakota's county-level (NDC) emergency managers (43 respondents) in 2004.

[]{.mark}

Of the 373 attendees at the IAEM conference, 81 returned surveys. Of the
surveys distributed to North Dakota county-level emergency managers in
the state of North Dakota (57 total), 43 were returned.

Initially a third wave of distribution, a random sample of emergency
managers in the United States, was planned. This additional level of
sampling was abandoned due to the expense involved in obtaining a
representative sample.

For purposes of comparison, two main groups and three sub-groups have
been created:

1\) **IAEM** (full-sampling, *n=81*); 2) **NDC** (full-sampling,
*n=43*); 3) **IAEM-COUNTY** (county-level IAEM respondents, *n=19*); 4)
**FULL-TIME** (those in IAEM and NDC working 32-40+ hours a week, *n=
78*); and 5) **PART-TIME** (those in IAEM and NDC working less than 32
hours a week, *n= 44*).

The subgroups will be used to understand the differences between the
main groups, as well as distinctions based on agency and number of hours
worked per week.

DISCUSSION

The following areas will be analyzed within this report: individual
demographics, education, training, experience, duties and
responsibilities and agency information. The sub-groups will be utilized
to show patterns and to help explain similarities or differences where
applicable.

*[Individual Demographics]{.underline}*

The age ranges and mean age of respondents for each group was: IAEM-
21-62 years, mean age of 46 years; NDC- 35-76 years, mean age of 51
years; IAEM-COUNTY- 28-60 years, mean age 46 years; FULL-TIME- 27-64,
mean age of 46 years; and PART-TIME- 21-76; mean age of 50 years.
Although there are no dramatic differences between the mean ages of the
groups, there is a small difference represented in the NDC and PART-TIME
age means at 51 years and 50 years respectively. The age data indicates
that while there are younger people entering the profession, the mean
age still is fairly representative of the traditional face of emergency
management.

![](media/image1.wmf)

Respondent's gender for each group was: IAEM- 79% male, 21% female; NDC-
67% male, 33% female; IAEM-COUNTY-- 77% male, 23% female; FULL-TIME--
79% male, 21% female; PART-TIME-- 70% male, 30% female. Of note, both
NDC and PART-TIME data reflected similarly higher female percentages.
This could be a function of many things, but to some degree it is likely
attributed to the part-time nature of the employment as historically,
women are more likely to take a part-time position.

![](media/image2.wmf)

In all the groups, respondents' indicated their ethnicity as
overwhelming Caucasian: 87% IAEM, 95% NDC, 94% IAEM-COUNTY, 89%
FULL-TIME, and 86% PART-TIME. Interesting here is that the highest level
of diversity - in the IAEM and PART-TIME groups - is likely
representative of two different effects. IAEM's diversity might very
well be a function of the "new generation" of emergency manager.
Conversely, the diversity evidenced in PART-TIME is likely a function of
the part-time nature of the employment which infuses diversity
incidentally by virtue of job availability and lack of full-time
opportunities.

![](media/image3.wmf)

Annual pay reflected dramatic differences between the main groups with
67% of IAEM respondents reporting annual pay as between
\$50,001-\$100,000 and 58% of NDC respondents reporting annual pay as
\$10,000 or less. Within the subgroups, 100% of IAEM-COUNTY respondents
reported annual pay as fairly equally dispersed by wage category in the
\$40,001-\$100,000 range; 75% of FULL-TIME respondents reported annual
pay between the \$40,001-\$100,000 range; conversely, 76% of PART-TIME
respondents reported pay of \$20,000 or less.

Given the annual pay data reflected in the subgroups, it appears that
the differences in annual pay between the main groups, IAEM and NDC, are
related to the number of hours worked per week. The differences in these
figures make more sense after a review of the data regarding the hours
worked weekly under *Agency Information*. Many North Dakota county-level
emergency managers are half-time or less. This is supported by the
PART-TIME data wherein a majority of the respondents reported pay of
\$20,000 or less.

![](media/image4.wmf)

IAEM respondents resided in twenty-seven states. The state with the most
respondents was Florida (where the IAEM conference was held) with ten.
California and Virginia each had five respondents. North Dakota was not
represented in the IAEM respondents. NDC respondents were all residents
of North Dakota.

*[Education]{.underline}*

A disparity is clear between the two main groups in the level of
completed education and the pursuit of additional education. 74% of IAEM
respondents possessed a four year degree or higher, while 81% of NDC had
less than a four year degree. From the subgroup data it appears that the
disparity between the main groups may be partially explained by the
number of hours worked per week. Respondents from the subgroup PART-TIME
have similar education levels as NDC respondents, while respondents from
the subgroup FULL-TIME have similar education levels as IAEM
respondents.

**Highest Level of Education Completed**

+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|               | *     | *     | **2   | **4   | **S   | *     | **Ph. |
|               | *High | *Some | Y     | y     | ome** | *Mast | D.**  |
|               | Sch   | Coll  | ear** | ear** |       | ers** |       |
|               | ool** | ege** |       |       | **    |       |       |
|               |       |       |       |       | Gradu |       |       |
|               |       |       |       |       | ate** |       |       |
+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **IAEM**      | 1%    | 7%    | 4%    | 30%   | 19%   | 37%   | 2%    |
+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **NDC**       | 19%   | 33%   | 30%   | 9%    | 7%    | 2%    | \-    |
|               |       |       |       |       |       |       | \-\-- |
+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **            | \-    | 16%   | 11%   | 37%   | 21%   | 16%   | \-    |
| IAEM-COUNTY** | \-\-- |       |       |       |       |       | \-\-- |
+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **FULL-TIME** | 3%    | 10%   | 10%   | 27%   | 19%   | 30%   | 1%    |
+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **PART-TIME** | 16%   | 27%   | 18%   | 14%   | 7%    | 16%   | 2%    |
+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

7% of NDC respondents reported current college enrollment and all were
seeking to obtain an undergraduate degree (*n=3*). 22% of IAEM
respondents reported current college enrollment. Of that percentage, 26%
were seeking an undergraduate degree (*n=5*), 53% were seeking a Masters
degree (*n=10*) and 21% were seeking a Ph.D. (*n=4*).

In the subgroups, 15% of FULL-TIME respondents reported current college
enrollment. Of those, 8% were seeking an undergraduate degree (*n=1*)
and 77% were seeking a Masters degree (*n=10*), 15% Ph.D. (*n=2*); 16%
of PART-TIME respondents reported current college enrollment. Of that
percentage, 71% seeking an undergraduate degree (*n=5*) and 29% seeking
a Ph.D. (*n=2*). Only one of the IAEM-COUNTY respondents (5%) reported
current college enrollment and was seeking a Masters degree.

When respondents were asked whether they felt that taking additional,
college-level emergency management courses will help their advancement
in the field, a majority of respondents answered yes: 72% IAEM, 58% NDC,
58% IAEM-COUNTY, 71% FULL-TIME, and 61% PART-TIME; however, respondents
from the groups took different views of the value of earning advanced
degrees in emergency management. Note that those working at the
county-level or part-time (NDC, IAEM-COUNTY and PART-TIME) had somewhat
lower percentages.

Most notably, NDC and PART-TIME saw the value of education as decreasing
as the level of degree increased. IAEM, IAEM-COUNTY and FULL-TIME saw
the value of education as increasing as the level of degree increased
with the exception of the Ph.D., which was less valued for the purposes
of advancement than a Masters degree by all five groups.

**Advancement Value of Degree**

*[Training]{.underline}*

When asked whether emergency management personnel at their level needed
more training, all groups responded with a resounding yes: IAEM- 95%;
NDC- 93%; ; IAEM-COUNTY- 95%; FULL-TIME- 95%; and PART-TIME- 93%.
Similarly, when asked whether emergency management personnel at all
levels needed more training, all groups strongly responded yes again:
IAEM- 96%; NDC- 100%; IAEM-COUNTY- 95%; FULL-TIME- 97%; PART-TIME- 98%.

**Do emergency management personnel need more training?**

A follow up question that queried whether the respondents felt that they
get enough training reflected that the majority did not feel they did:
IAEM-65%; NDC- 76%; IAEM-COUNTY- 47%; FULL-TIME- 65%; and PART-TIME-
74%. A similarity between the NDC and PART-TIME respondents is again
reflected in the data with both groups reflecting higher percentages
than the other three groups. IAEM-COUNTY respondents were the only group
where the majority felt they did get enough training. This could be a
reflection of a number of things, but quite probably was influenced by
the number of training classes attended and training exercises
participated in.

![](media/image5.wmf)

The vast majority of respondents reported attending multiple training
classes or workshops over the past two years with more than 75% of each
group attending four or more. The percentage of those attending seven or
more trainings is: IAEM- 58%; NDC- 37%; IAEM-COUNTY- 74%; FULL-TIME-
56%; PART-TIME- 40%. The percentages between NDC and PART-TIME are
comparative, as are the IAEM and FULL-TIME. The IAEM-COUNTY data
regarding training attended lends insight to the majority of IAEM-COUNTY
respondents' belief that they get enough training.

**Training Attended in Past Two Years**

Respondents were additionally asked about who provided the trainings
they attended and whether they deemed the training helpful. The majority
of respondents reported attending three or less FEMA hosted sessions;
two or less DHS hosted sessions; three or less state government hosted
sessions; three or less local government hosted sessions; two or less
college hosted sessions; two or less private hosted sessions; two or
less professional association hosted sessions; and two or less sessions
hosted by other groups or organizations.

The IAEM and FULL-TIME data reflected a relatively balanced distribution
among training options, while IAEM-COUNTY data reflected a greater
training emphasis on state and local government, professional
associations and other groups. NDC and PART-TIME data reflected a
significantly greater training emphasis on DHS and state government.

**Types of Training Attended**

+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|            | **FE | **D  | *    | *    | **C  | **P  | *    | *    |
|            | MA** | HS** | *STA | *LOC | OLLE | RIVA | *PRO | *OTH |
|            |      |      | TE** | AL** | GE** | TE** | F.** | ER** |
|            | **3  | **2  |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | or   | or   | **GO | **GO | **2  | **2  | **   | **2  |
|            | le   | le   | V.** | V.** | or   | or   | ASSO | or   |
|            | ss** | ss** |      |      | le   | le   | C.** | le   |
|            |      |      | **3  | **3  | ss** | ss** |      | ss** |
|            |      |      | or   | or   |      |      | **2  |      |
|            |      |      | le   | le   |      |      | or   |      |
|            |      |      | ss** | ss** |      |      | le   |      |
|            |      |      |      |      |      |      | ss** |      |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **IAEM**   | 74%  | 87%  | 72 % | 78%  | 68%  | 70%  | 65%  | 60%  |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **NDC**    | 90%  | 50%  | 54 % | 94%  | 82%  | 90%  | 88%  | 75%  |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **IAE      | 69%  | 75%  | 59 % | 55%  | 88%  | 100% | 50%  | 60%  |
| M-COUNTY** |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **F        | 77%  | 80%  | 67 % | 78%  | 77%  | 74%  | 62%  | 61%  |
| ULL-TIME** |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **P        | 85%  | 61%  | 63 % | 94%  | 73%  | 73%  | 85%  | 73%  |
| ART-TIME** |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

Respondents' ratings of the extent of training helpfulness indicated
that the majority of respondents found the training they attended
helpful to some degree. Those respondents that rated training very or
extremely helpful found different levels of satisfaction with the
different training hosts. The highest and most consistent ratings of
helpfulness across groups lie with DHS training. This may be
attributable to the fact that DHS sessions are presenting information
new to many emergency managers that helps delineate new or increased
responsibilities.

**Helpfulness of Training (Very or Extremely Helpful)**

+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|            | **FE | **D  | *    | *    | **C  | **P  | *    | *    |
|            | MA** | HS** | *STA | *LOC | OLLE | RIVA | *PRO | *OTH |
|            |      |      | TE** | AL** | GE** | TE** | F.** | ER** |
|            |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            |      |      | **GO | **GO |      |      | **   |      |
|            |      |      | V.** | V.** |      |      | ASSO |      |
|            |      |      |      |      |      |      | C.** |      |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **IAEM**   | 56%  | 65%  | 54%  | 58%  | 62%  | 44%  | 64%  | 57%  |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **NDC**    | 39%  | 60%  | 47%  | 53%  | 44%  | 45%  | 43%  | 67%  |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **IAE      | 64%  | 60%  | 54%  | 55%  | 17%  | 29%  | 71%  | 20%  |
| M-COUNTY** |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **F        | 57%  | 60%  | 53%  | 56%  | 63%  | 41%  | 66%  | 54%  |
| ULL-TIME** |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **P        | 35%  | 67%  | 42%  | 50%  | 33%  | 46%  | 46%  | 67%  |
| ART-TIME** |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

Respondents' in all five groups reported varying participation in
training exercises over the last two years. More than 75% of all
respondents from each group reported participation in at least one
orientation exercise and more than 95% reported participation in at
least one tabletop exercise. The most telling information from this data
is the number of respondents who reported no participation in functional
and full-scale exercises over the last two years.

The percentages of those reporting no functional exercises were as
follows: IAEM- 11%; NDC- 17%; IAEM-COUNTY- all respondents participated
in at least one; FULL-TIME- 9%;

and PART-TIME- 17%.

The percentages of those reporting no full-scale exercises were as
follows: IAEM- 17%; NDC- 30%; IAEM-COUNTY- 12%; FULL-TIME-14%; and
PART-TIME- 37%.

**Training Exercise Participation**

+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                | **ORI      | **         | **FU       | **FU       |
|                | ENTATION** | TABLETOP** | NCTIONAL** | LL-SCALE** |
|                |            |            |            |            |
|                | **1-2**    | **1-3**    | **1-3**    | **1-2**    |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **IAEM**       | 46%        | 59%        | 69%        | 64%        |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **NDC**        | 73%        | 81%        | 83%^1^     | 66%        |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| *              | 60%        | 48%        | 73%        | 59%        |
| *IAEM-COUNTY** |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **FULL-TIME**  | 70%        | 64%        | 73%        | 69%        |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **PART-TIME**  | 70%        | 71%        | 80%        | 52%^2^     |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

1.  1-2 only, no respondents reported participation in more than two.

2.  No respondents reported participation in three, but reported
    participation in four and six.

Respondents were additionally asked how frequently they participated in
exercises that simulated terrorist occurrences. Again the most
interesting data here lies in the number of respondents who reported no
participation in terrorism exercises: IAEM- 22%; NDC- 19%; IAEM-COUNTY-
10%; FULL-TIME-22%; and PART-TIME- 14%. IAEM and FULL-TIME had slightly
higher percentages in non-participation, but those who reported
participation from IAEM and FULL-TIME reported more frequent
participation (every 6 months and annually). In comparison, NDC or
PART-TIME reported lower non-participation percentages, but those who
reported participation reported higher annual or once every two year
participation. IAEM-COUNTY reported the lowest non-participation
percentage as well as the highest level of more frequent participation
(every 6 months and annually). This may also be a contributing factor in
the IAEM-COUNTY respondents' feeling that they get enough training.

**Participation in Terrorism Exercises**

The overwhelming majority of respondents report completing after-action
reports after terrorism exercises: IAEM- 88%; NDC- 83%; IAEM-COUNTY-
100%; FULL-TIME- 89%; PART-TIME- 82%.

A majority of respondents in all groups also reported having a community
disaster committee or intra-agency group that met regularly to discuss
terrorism issues: IAEM- 77%; NDC- 51%; IAEM-COUNTY- 95%; FULL-TIME- 73%;
PART-TIME- 60%.

*[Experience]{.underline}*

Respondents' years of experience in emergency management reflected
similar percentages across the groups: IAEM ranged from 0-44 years with
54% of respondents having fourteen years or less of experience; NDC
ranged from 1-30 years with 58% of respondents having ten years or less
of experience; IAEM-COUNTY ranged from 3-31 years with 58% of
respondents having fourteen years or less of experience; FULL-TIME
ranged from 0-44 with 56% having thirteen years or less of experience;
and PART-TIME ranged from 0-30 years with 58% having twelve years or
less of experience. IAEM and FULL-TIME respondents reported broader
ranges of experience.

56% of IAEM respondents have been in their current position for three
years or less, in contrast with 54% of NDC respondents- seven years or
less; 58% of IAEM-COUNTY- five years or less; 56% of FULL-TIME- four
years or less; and 55% of PART-TIME- five years or less.

34% of the IAEM respondents cited their current position in emergency
management as their first in the field, in comparison to 88% of the NDC
respondents; 42% of the IAEM-COUNTY respondents; 40% of FULL-TIME
respondents; and 81% of PART-TIME respondents. NDC and PART-TIME again
reflected similar distributions, as did IAEM, IAEM-COUNTY and FULL-TIME
distributions.

![](media/image6.wmf)

Respondents' prior experience in the areas of education (e.g. teacher,
college professor, school administrator, etc.), military, private
industry, emergency response (e.g. EMS, sheriff, fire, etc.) and
government (positions other than emergency response field) vary between
the groups. The responses are indicative of the traditional face of
emergency management (the emergency manager "stereotype") wherein
emergency management serves as a second or third career.

It is important to note in relation to response experience that the
majority of fire and EMS services provided in the state of North Dakota
are provided by trained volunteers; inasmuch, it is highly probable that
the response experience represented from the NDC group was garnered in
an unpaid capacity. The respondents' prior experience responses indicate
that a majority of respondents have prior experience in more than one of
the queried areas.

IAEM-COUNTY which reflects the lowest government and military experience
percentages coupled with the highest private sector experience
percentage would appear to be most representative of the "new
generation" of emergency management.

**Prior Experience**

  ---------------- ------------ ----------- ----------------- --------------- ---------------
                   **IAEM**     **NDC**     **IAEM-COUNTY**   **FULL-TIME**   **PART-TIME**

  **Education**    36%          9%          20%               31%             14%

  **Military**     49%          33%         33%               41%             50%

  **Private**      50%          54%         65%               50%             54%

  **Response**     49%          62%         56%               54%             54%

  **Government**   38%          41%         13%               36%             42%
  ---------------- ------------ ----------- ----------------- --------------- ---------------

In relation to disaster response, respondents were asked how many major
disasters (disasters that have required a multi-agency and multi-level
response) they have assisted in. More than 50% of IAEM, FULL-TIME and
IAEM-COUNTY respondents reported assisting in five or more major
disasters, while the same percentage of NDC respondents reported
assisting in three or more and PART-TIME respondents reported assisting
in two or more.

*[Duties and Responsibilities]{.underline}*

All respondents reported spending more time on preparedness efforts than
on the other three phases (the survey was created pre-prevention phase),
with mitigation, response and recovery consuming considerably less of
respondents' time.

**Time Spent on Preparedness, Mitigation, Response and Recovery**

Respondents were supplied a list of preparedness and mitigation
activities and asked which they had participated in. The activities that
saw the highest level of participation across groups were community
education, multi-hazard mitigation planning, mutual-aid agreements and
hazmat assessment. Respondents' preparedness and mitigation activities
can be classified as efforts toward building disaster-resistant
communities by planning with jurisdiction stakeholders and taking an
overall proactive approach that is attributed to the "new generation"
skill set. Coupled with the large percentages that have conducted
multi-hazard mitigation planning and recognition that the majority of
respondents have extended their contact and work base beyond emergency
services, and it appears that irrespective of whether the profession is
still filled with the same people as it was ten years ago, the mindset
is indeed changing.

**Preparedness and Mitigation Activities**

  ---------------------------- ---------- --------- ----------------- --------------- ---------------
                               **IAEM**   **NDC**   **IAEM-COUNTY**   **FULL-TIME**   **PART-TIME**

  **Education programs for     58%        61%       88%               61%             48%
  schools**                                                                           

  **Community education**      78%        84%       94%               85%             68%

  **Property buy-outs**        18%        14%       41%               24%             5%

  **Influencing change in      37%        16%       71%               41%             11%
  local laws**                                                                        

  **Public service messages**  54%        70%       83%               68%             48%

  **Business continuity        65%        33%       59%               66%             32%
  planning**                                                                          

  **Creating protective        21%        19%       41%               28%             7%
  physical structures**                                                               

  **Multi-hazard mitigation    76%        86%       94%               80%             80%
  planning**                                                                          

  **School hazard disaster     46%        72%       82%               61%             46%
  planning**                                                                          

  **Mutual-aid agreements**    78%        84%       88%               81%             77%

  **Encouraging residents to   24%        21%       47%               30%             11%
  buy insurance**                                                                     

  **Hazmat assessment**        57%        79%       65%               62%             68%

  **Other**                    16%        2%        18%               14%             7%
  ---------------------------- ---------- --------- ----------------- --------------- ---------------

*[Agency Information]{.underline}*

84% of respondents' in the IAEM group reported working thirty-two or
more hours per week. Conversely, 63% of NDC respondents' reported
working twenty hours or less a week. All IAEM-COUNTY respondents
reported working thirty-two or more hours per week. By definition, all
FULL-TIME respondents reported working thirty-two or more hours per week
and all PART-TIME respondents reported working less than thirty-two
hours per week.

The majority of respondents reported employment with county government.
The NDC and IAEM-COUNTY group respondents are all at the county level.

**Agency Employed With**

  ----------------- ---------- ------------ ----------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- -----------
                    **City**   **County**   **State**   **Federal**   **Private**   **Non-profit**   **Other**

  **IAEM**          13%        24%          5%          14%           13%           10%              21%

  **NDC**           \-\-\--    100%         \-\-\--     \-\-\--       \-\-\--       \-\-\--          \-\-\--

  **IAEM-COUNTY**   \-\-\--    100%         \-\-\--     \-\-\--       \-\-\--       \-\-\--          \-\-\--

  **FULL-TIME**     10%        41%          5%          12%           12%           8%               12 %

  **PART-TIME**     2%         70%          2%          5%            2%            5%               14%
  ----------------- ---------- ------------ ----------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- -----------

A majority of IAEM, IAEM-COUNTY and FULL-TIME respondents report serving
communities with a population of 300,000 or under (59%, 53% and 65%
respectively). In stark contrast, a majority of NDC and PART-TIME
respondents report serving communities of 25,000 or under (93% and 79%
respectively).

Annual budgets varied dramatically between NDC and PART-TIME respondents
and IAEM, IAEM-COUNTY and FULL-TIME. 82% of NDC and 72% of PART-TIME
respondents reported annual budgets of \$50,000 or less. IAEM,
IAEM-COUNTY and FULL-TIME respondents reported similar budget
distributions from under \$50,000 to \$1,000,000. The differences in the
annual budget figures are not surprising given the different populations
served by these groups.

![](media/image7.wmf)

CONCLUSION

The demographic data reflects that there are clear delineations between
the two main groups - IAEM and NDC. The subgroups offer some explanation
of these differences. The primary differences between the groups appear
to be based on the number of hours worked. This is supported by the
consistency in the similarities in the data for the NDC and PART-TIME
groups.

The data suggests, not surprisingly, that interest in and pursuit of
higher education and interest in professionalization are linked to the
number of hours worked. Those serving in an emergency management
capacity part-time are not likely to evidence the same interest in
advancement and commitment to the profession as are those who are
serving in full-time positions.

The data further suggests that there was a belief amongst the
respondents that higher education would help one advance in the
profession, but there was less interest overall in obtaining a Ph.D.
than a Masters degree. There was also an overwhelming belief amongst the
respondents that practitioners are not receiving enough training.
Training was delineated in the survey from "formal education", but is a
need that could likewise be served by higher education institutions
equipped to speak to seasoned practitioners specific needs. Future
research with practitioners should examine their level of comfort with
core competencies and required skill sets for their positions.

In reflecting upon Dr. Blanchard's comparison of the emergency manager
"stereotype" and the "new generation" emergency manager in relation to
the demographics herein it appears that a transformation of sorts is
indeed underway. New ideas and approaches are being used by
practitioners who heretofore defined the stereotype, younger people are
entering the profession as a field of choice, and existing practitioners
are examining educational options that allow them advancement
opportunities. The road from the stereotype to the new generation may
stretch out for many miles ahead, but it appears that the journey is
well underway.

*The research team would like to extend its thanks to the following
people: Dr. George Youngs, who offered many hours of assistance,
guidance, and insight, tempered with enormous amounts of patience; Dr.
Daniel Klenow, who likewise offered assistance and guidance throughout
the process of development, data collection and analysis; Dr. Wayne
Blanchard for creating the framework by which we could be emergency
management graduate students and for facilitating the discussion that is
the importance of higher education in the professionalization of the
field; and, to all the kind souls who took the time to fill out and
respond meaningfully to the thirteen pages of survey questions.*