**Emergency Management Education:\
A Status Report\
\
2008 FEMA Emergency Management\
Higher Education Program Report**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="3.3756944444444446in"
height="3.3756944444444446in"}

**Carol L. Cwiak**

**North Dakota State University**

**Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Emergency Management**

[**http://www.ndsu.edu/ndsu/em**](http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/em)

**P.O. Box 5075**

**Fargo, ND 58105**

**(701) 231-5847**

[**carol.cwiak@ndsu.edu**](mailto:carol.cwiak@ndsu.edu)

**INTRODUCTION**

[]{.mark}

The number of emergency management higher education programs continue to
grow in both number and strength. The data collection herein was
undertaken to provide a status report of where emergency management
higher education currently stands. The goal of this report is to assist
the FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Program, policymakers,
educators, students, practitioners and other interested parties in
understanding where higher education is today and where it is heading in
the future. This report will examine current program status, program and
student demographics, growth expectations, trends and challenges.

**METHODOLOGY**

[]{.mark}

A nine page survey instrument was distributed via email to the
Point-of-Contact (POC) for each institution listed on The College List
on FEMA's Emergency Management Higher Education Program webpage. Only
those institutions offering a certificate or degree program in emergency
management (as of April 18, 2008) were solicited. This included
institutions on the following lists: Associate, Bachelor Level
Concentrations and Minors, Bachelor, Masters, Doctoral and Stand-Alone
Certificate Programs. Many of the institutions offering programs were
listed on more than one of the lists, but each institution was only
surveyed once. The survey allowed for institutions to respond on one
survey instrument regarding all of their programs.

This is the second consecutive year this survey has been done in this
format. A similar survey was conducted in 2005 by Dr. Henry Fischer. In
addition to questions asked in previous years (some of which were
modified to increase clarity), this year's survey was expanded and
included a number of new questions. The challenge was, as is often true
in such surveys, to collect the data sought without overwhelming the
respondents. The value of an annual data collection to the FEMA Higher
Education Program must be tempered with recognition that there are
limitations on the willingness of respondents to fill out long survey
instruments. This year's instrument was arguably as long as any future
survey instrument should be.

[]{.mark}

An initial solicitation was sent to all institutions offering programs
(120). The initial solicitation was followed by two reminder emails to
the POCs of non-responding institutions. There were 12 solicitations
returned as undeliverable; 15 POCs replied that they could not
participate this year, 11 replied that another faculty/member would
complete the survey (but the completed survey was never received); and
29 did not reply at all. Of note, a number of faculty members from
institutions that did not respond did indicate at the FEMA Emergency
Management Higher Education Conference that they would participate next
year.

In total, 53 responses were received. This represents an overall
institutional response rate of 44%. This year's response rate represents
a drop from last year's response rate which was 60% (66 responses). The
difference in the response rate may be attributable to a number of
things- the distribution date (mid-April), the extended length of the
survey, grant deadlines, etc. The prior year solicitation was
problematic in that it was sent during mid-semester which some
institutions found not to be a good time due to mid-term exams,
vacations, etc. A few institutions noted this year's later solicitation
as being problematic as well. In future years, it is suggested that the
survey solicitation occur a month or so after the spring semester has
begun (and enrollment numbers are in), but before mid-terms to garner a
larger response rate. This will require programs to estimate graduation
numbers and may limit the ability to collect data on faculty hires
completed in the spring, but these can be addressed with minor
adjustments to the survey instrument.

[]{.mark}

The response rate is represented in Table 1. Response representation by
program level (as listed on the corresponding college lists) is detailed
in Table 2. Many institutions offer multiple certificate and degree
options. A list of responding institutions and the programs reported as
offered are attached as Appendix A to this report.

**Table 1 - Response Rate**

  -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
  **Institutions solicited**                                     **120**

  Bad address/POC contact                                        \<-12\>

  Emailed re: cannot participate this year (illness, other       \<-15\>
  obligations, etc.)                                             

  Emailed that another faculty/staff member would complete (not  \<-11\>
  received)                                                      

  No reply (three contacts)                                      \<-29\>

  **Responses received** (44% response rate)                     **53**
  -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

**Table 2 - Representation Across Program Level**

+------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+
| **Program Level**      | **Ins       | **Responses | **Institutions |
|                        | titutions** | Received**  | Represented**  |
|                        |             |             |                |
|                        | **Listed**  |             |                |
+------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+
| Doctoral               | 8           | 7           | 88%            |
+------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+
| Master's               | 45          | 20          | 44%            |
+------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+
| Bachelor               | 19          | 9           | 47%            |
+------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+
| Bachelor Conc./Minor   | 23          | 10          | 43%            |
+------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+
| Associate              | 34          | 15          | 44%            |
+------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+
| Certificate            | 54          | 23          | 43%            |
+------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

The survey instrument sought data on general program information,
student demographics, enrollment and graduation trends, program faculty,
program support indicators, utilization of emergency management
materials and coursework, challenges facing emergency management
programs, anticipated changes in programs, top knowledge, skills and
abilities, and additional products, activities or services that
respondents would like the FEMA Higher Education Program to provide.
Some institutions did not respond to select survey questions either
because they did not collect the type of data requested or felt they
were not applicable to their institution; inasmuch, note should be taken
of the "*n*" for each item reported on.

[]{.mark}

Specific survey limitations will be noted as they arise in the
discussion of the data. Lack of clarity in a couple of the survey
questions resulted in their responses being discarded. Hindsight is
seemingly 20-20 after the data is collected, unfortunately that is too
late to repair survey inadequacies. Recommendations for future survey
efforts on this front are provided later in the report. The responses to
the open-ended questions in the survey have been summarized and
consolidated for inclusion in this report.

**DISCUSSION**

*[Program Demographics]{.underline}*

[]{.mark}

Respondents reported on all of their institution's emergency management
certificate and degree programs on one survey instrument. The responding
institutions (*n*= 53) reported 100 programs with the majority of
institutions listing more than one program (see Figure B below). Figure
A shows the breakdown of programs reported.

**Figure A - Types of Programs Reported**

![](media/image2.wmf)

[]{.mark}

Of the 53 respondents, 3 respondents (5%) reported four programs, 8
respondents (15%) reported three programs, 21 respondents (40%) reported
two programs, and the remaining 21 respondents (40%) reported having one
program.

**Figure B - Number of Programs Reported**

![](media/image3.wmf)

Respondents were also asked if they were planning on developing any new
programs over the next year. 39% of respondents (20) indicated that they
were developing one or more new programs or would be starting a new
program in the upcoming year (*n*=51). Respondents listed the following
types of new programs as under development or beginning in the upcoming
year: Ph.D., Master's, B.A., B.S. A.A.S., A.S.; additional courses and
tracks in focus areas such as public health, information systems,
management, infrastructure, emergency management, and fire
administration; certificates and concentrations in topical areas such as
mitigation, public assistance, disaster vulnerability, human
performance, nuclear criticality, and homeland security; and, the
creation of concentrations within other degree programs on campus.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="3.9965277777777777in"
height="2.2708333333333335in"} Respondents reported the number of years
their programs have been in existence as 0-24, with 65% of all programs
reporting program years in existence as five or less (*n*=48). Of this
percentile, 19% reported being in existence for one year or less. In
comparison to last year's data, there is an indication that new program
growth may be slowing slightly, while existing programs mature (33%
indicate 6-10 years in existence compared with 21% in 2007).

**Figure C- Program Years in Existence**

![](media/image5.wmf)

*[Primary Program Focus & Purpose]{.underline}*

[]{.mark}

The majority of respondents, 62% (33), reported that they consider their
primary program focus to be *both private and public sector* (*n*=53).
The remaining respondents reported a *public sector* focus - 19% (10), a
*private sector* focus - 6% (3), or *other* focus - 13% (7). Those
selecting *other* referenced as focus areas non-profits, health,
military, leadership and research. This year's data collection is
difficult to compare to last year's as there was not an option in the
2007 survey to select a combined public/private focus (see Figure D).
Those who reported a combined focus in 2007 reported as *other*. Future
surveys should include an additional option of a non-profit focus which
was the most repeated selection given under *other*.

![](media/image6.wmf)

[]{.mark}

**Figure D - Program Focus**

![](media/image7.wmf)

In identifying the primary purpose of their program, 19% (10) of
respondents identified *pre-employment* (i.e., preparation for entry in
the field), 19% (10) identified *advancement* (i.e., preparation of
practitioners for advancement), and 4% (2) identified other. The
remaining 58% (31) of respondents indicated that their focus was *both*
*pre-employment and advancement* (*n*= 53). As is seen in Figure E, not
much changed in the general purpose selection from last year's survey
results.

Of those that responded *both* to primary purpose (*n*=31), 28
respondents provided a percentile estimate of *pre-employment* *and*
*advancement* breakdown within their programs. The breakdown average
across programs was 49% *pre-employment* and 51% *advancement*.
Comparing this to the breakdown reported in 2007 of 43% *pre-employment*
and 57% *advancement* (and the slight growth in purely pre-employment
focused programs), it appears that the pre-employment focus is gaining
ground on the advancement focus adding credibility to the long asserted
premise of Dr. B. Wayne Blanchard that as time goes on emergency
management will become more and more a degreed career of first choice.
This is one of the trends that will be of great interest to colleges and
universities, as program marketing (not to mention delivery,
expectations, etc.) to these two audiences is dramatically different.

[]{.mark}

![](media/image8.wmf)**Figure E -- Primary Purpose**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image9.wmf)

*[Program Faculty]{.underline}*

[]{.mark}

A third of respondents, 33% (17), reported that they had no full-time
faculty representation within their program (*n*=52). Another 50% of
respondents (26) reported full-time faculty representation between one
and three. The remaining respondents reported full-time faculty
representation as four to five - 11% (6) and six or more - 6% (3).

Almost one-fourth of respondents, 23% (12), reported no part-time
faculty members (*n*= 52). The remaining respondents reported between
one and five part-time faculty members - 44% (23) and six or more - 33%
(17). The part-time faculty representation does seem to indicate that
there are a number of programs primarily utilizing a part-time model as
opposed to the traditional model utilized in many college and university
programs of full-time faculty. This may be attributable in part to a few
things: 1) the large number of practitioners that have been pulled into
programs to teach (many via distance education); 2) the
interdisciplinary nature of the field which has allowed faculty to
bridge from their original discipline into emergency management; and, 3)
a function of meeting the teaching need in the face of a shortage of
qualified full-time faculty that can meet institutional tenure
requirements. As emergency management matures as a discipline it will be
interesting to see what, if any, changes develop in this area. One of
the most fascinating aspects of emergency management higher education is
watching its growth and evolution; a curiosity lies in theorizing
whether the eventual program model norm that will emerge at the
different degree levels is one that is dictated by structured academia
or the field.

The majority of respondents, 63% (33), reported no associated faculty
(faculty housed in another department that teach a course in the
program) (*n*=52). The remaining respondents reported one associated
faculty member - 10% (5), two associated faculty members - 6% (3) and
three or more associated faculty members - 21% (11). Based on the
interdisciplinary nature of emergency management one would expect that
programs might utilize associated faculty members to increase the
breadth of offerings, but this is not readily apparent in the data. It
begs the question of possible impediments within the institutional
structure that may serve as a disincentive to the cross-use of faculty.
This query harkens back to the discussion above wherein it was posited
that it would be interesting to see whether program norms would be
dictated by structured academia or the field. In the case of associated
faculty, it is theorized that structured academia will dictate the norm.

[]{.mark}

One of the more important pieces of data collected in the survey is that
of full-time faculty members principally devoted to emergency management
programs. This figure arguably serves as an illustration of program
strength. In 2007, a third of programs reported no full-time devoted
faculty members. This year's survey indicates that not much has changed
on this front with 35% (18) of respondents reporting no full-time
faculty members principally devoted to their program (*n*=52). A few
factors most be noted in the evaluation of this figure, 1) the types of
programs responding (many are delivering minors, concentrations or
certificates which may not require a full-time devoted faculty member);
2) a number of programs are primarily offered via distance education;
and, 3) many are relatively new programs (19% reported being in
existence for one year or less). The remaining respondents reported one
devoted faculty member - 33% (17), two devoted faculty members - 15%
(8), three devoted faculty members - 6% (3), and four or more - 11% (6).

[]{.mark}

Table 3 details this year's reported faculty representation side-by-side
with 2007 percentages for comparison. An overview of the two years' data
doesn't indicate any dramatic changes in program faculty representation
which on some fronts is disheartening but not surprising given the
critical shortage of available and qualified faculty being reported by
programs (this is addressed in the *Challenges Facing Emergency
Management Programs* section herein and in the 2007 FEMA Emergency
Management Higher Education Report).

+-----------+----+----------+----+-----------+----+----------+----+
| **FT**    | ** | **PT**   | ** | *         | [  | **D      | ** |
|           | 20 |          | 20 | *Assoc.** | ]{ | evoted** | 20 |
| **        | 07 | **F      | 07 |           | .m |          | 07 |
| Faculty** | ** | aculty** | ** | **        | ar | **F      | ** |
|           |    |          |    | Faculty** | k} | aculty** |    |
|           |    |          |    |           |    |          |    |
|           |    |          |    |           | ** |          |    |
|           |    |          |    |           | 20 |          |    |
|           |    |          |    |           | 07 |          |    |
|           |    |          |    |           | ** |          |    |
+-----------+----+----------+----+-----------+----+----------+----+
| **0** 33% | 2  | **0**    | 1  | **0** 63% | 5  | **0**    | 3  |
|           | 8% | 23%      | 2% |           | 3% | 35%      | 3% |
+-----------+----+----------+----+-----------+----+----------+----+
| **1-3**   | 6  | **1-5**  | 6  | **1** 10% | 2  | **1**    | 3  |
| 50%       | 0% | 44%      | 0% |           | 1% | 33%      | 8% |
+-----------+----+----------+----+-----------+----+----------+----+
| **4-5**   | 8% | **6+**   | 2  | **2** 6%  | 1  | **2**    | 1  |
| 11%       |    | 33%      | 8% |           | 0% | 15%      | 2% |
+-----------+----+----------+----+-----------+----+----------+----+
| **6 +**   | 4% | [        | [  | **3 +**   | 1  | **3** 6% | 1  |
| 6%        |    | ]{.mark} | ]{ | 21%       | 6% |          | 1% |
|           |    |          | .m |           |    |          |    |
|           |    |          | ar |           |    |          |    |
|           |    |          | k} |           |    |          |    |
+-----------+----+----------+----+-----------+----+----------+----+
| []{.mark} |    | [        | [  |           |    | **4+**   | 6% |
|           |    | ]{.mark} | ]{ |           |    | 11%      |    |
|           |    |          | .m |           |    |          |    |
|           |    |          | ar |           |    |          |    |
|           |    |          | k} |           |    |          |    |
+-----------+----+----------+----+-----------+----+----------+----+

**Table 3 - Faculty Representation**

[]{.mark}

The majority of respondents - 68% (36) reported that they did not
attempt to hire new faculty or program staff over the past year, while
11% (6) of respondents reported attempting to hire faculty or program
staff, but not ultimately hiring, and 21% (11) of respondents reported
hiring new faculty or program staff (*n*=53). Those respondents that
hired new faculty (*n*=11) reported the following number of new hires:
one (6), two (2), five (1) twenty (1), and thirty (1). The respondents
that reported hiring large numbers of new faculty indicated that they
were primarily adjunct faculty with varying levels of degrees. The total
number of new faculty members reported was 65.

[]{.mark}

*[Student Demographics]{.underline}*

A failing of the 2007 survey report was the way in which student numbers
were analyzed and represented. This year's survey instrument sought to
collect a few new figures in relation to emergency management students -
current graduation data, graduation data from program inception and the
number of students who took emergency management coursework within the
institution. This data in conjunction with program enrollment has
provided some interesting insights. A survey instrument failing must be
noted at the outset; the query on current graduation data was unclear to
a number of respondents who provided institution-wide graduation figures
as opposed to program graduation figures. This failing of the survey
instrument resulted in the question and the accompanying data being
discarded. Fortunately, the graduation data from program inception
captured collective graduation data and will allow for yearly tracking
of graduate numbers into the future.

At the request of the FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education
Program, data collected from this year's survey was used to extrapolate
figures for the entire emergency management higher education community.
Given the balance in response across program type, size, and years in
existence, the extrapolation provided is believed to be representative
of the larger higher education community. In providing these numbers,
data collected at the response rate of 44% was extended to the larger
community (53 responding institutions out of 120 institutions listed on
the surveyed college lists). The extrapolations are collectively
represented in Table 4.

Respondents reported 6,685 students haven taken emergency management
courses within their programs over the past year (*n*=53). This
extrapolates to 15,136 students that have taken emergency courses this
year from emergency management programs (extrapolated from response of
6,685/44%). Respondents reported 4,134 students enrolled in their
institutions' emergency management programs. This extrapolates to 9,360
students enrolled in emergency management programs (extrapolated from
response of 4,134/44%).

The most heartening number that arises from these two extrapolations is
the number of students being reached by emergency management coursework
that are not enrolled in programs, an amazing 5,776 students in
2007-2008. The reach of emergency management programs within their
institution beyond their student base represents not only additional
student recruiting opportunities, but also opportunities to educate
those who might not otherwise gain insight into the concepts and issues
involved in emergency management. While we can continue to measure this
impact in numbers, the ripple effect this contribution will have across
other disciplines, occupations, communities and households as students
incorporate this knowledge is profound and will be visible over time as
cultural change.

This potential of emergency management programs to quietly change
culture must be noted and embraced; albeit, it is understood that
institutions are more intently focused on producing program graduates
and the allure of changing culture is usually lost in the meeting rooms
of budget committees. There is a fascinating discussion to be had in
relation to the impact this type of educational reach has. It must be
acknowledged that the small monetary investment made in the FEMA
Emergency Management Higher Education Program has a return ratio that
far exceeds the number of emergency management higher education
graduates. Indeed, the impact of providing emergency management
knowledge to a diverse group of college educated individuals who will go
on to influence decisions across a broad spectrum of public and private
sector venues is nothing short of brilliant. One must wonder if those
involved in the creation and ongoing support of the FEMA Emergency
Management Higher Education Program were well-aware all along of the
potential of this secondary market to change emergency management's
status.

It is tempting to follow through with a discussion on the magnitude the
impact this secondary market will have on emergency management in the
future, but herein the importance is in capturing the number. The
importance and value of emergency management higher education's reach to
this secondary market is something that must be evaluated and factored
into national long-term strategies seeking to create cultural change.
There is a profound opportunity in this access to influence and change
the way our country does business from the inside out; if that is not
already being factored into the support of emergency management higher
education programs nationally -- it certainly should be.

A more concrete number extrapolated from the data is the number of
students reported to have graduated since programs' inception.
Respondents reported 3,414 graduates since their programs began. This
extrapolates to 7,730 graduates of emergency management higher education
programs (extrapolated from response of 3,414/44%). With the vast
majority of programs being in existence for less than ten years, this
contribution is notable. With the continuing growth of existing programs
and the development of new programs it is predicted that future data
collections will show exponential growth in graduate numbers.

**Table 4 - Extrapolated Student Data**

+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 1\. Number of students who took an emergency management  | 15, 136   |
| course                                                   |           |
|                                                          |           |
| in 2007-2008 (*extrapolated from response of 6,685/44%*) |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 2\. Number of students enrolled in programs in 2007-2008 | 9,360     |
|                                                          |           |
| (*extrapolated from response of 4,134/44%*)              |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 3\. Number of students reached that were not officially  | \*5,776   |
| enrolled in                                              |           |
|                                                          |           |
| the program *(\*extrapolation 1 minus extrapolation 2)*  |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 4\. Number of students graduated since the inception of  | 7,730     |
| emergency                                                |           |
|                                                          |           |
| management higher education programs *(extrapolated from |           |
| response*                                                |           |
|                                                          |           |
| *of 3,414/44%)*                                          |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+

Program student population was reported by respondents as 4,134
collectively (*n*=53). Of this figure 2,938 (71%) were categorized as
full-time students and 1,196 (29%) were categorized as part-time
students. In regard to full-time or part-time student classification, no
parameters were set within the survey instrument as to what qualified a
student as a full-time or part-time student. Since different programs
and degree levels might utilize very different classifications, the
figures given above must be viewed with the proviso that student status
was assessed by program parameters that vary from program to program.
Given the reported student status percentages, on the average programs
are working with roughly twice as many full-time students as part-time
students. A couple of respondents offering primarily distance education
reported higher ratios of part-time students.

Respondents reported an average gender breakdown across programs of 59%
male to 41% female (*n*=51). In comparing the gender breakdown across
programs this year to the 2007 breakdown - 62% males and 38% females -
it appears that the gender differential may be narrowing. Future data
collections will be telling as to whether the small differential
evidenced this year is the beginning of a trend. A number of respondents
reported much larger gender differentials than evidenced in the
breakdown across programs. A few programs reported their student body as
being overwhelmingly (75% or more) male or female.

![](media/image10.wmf)

**Figure F- Student Gender Representation**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image11.wmf)

Respondents reported an average student age breakdown across programs of
48% at thirty years old or younger to 52% at older than thirty years
(*n*=47). This question is a somewhat difficult question for very large
programs wherein the POC may not personally know all of the program's
students or for programs that are primarily distance education and have
never met the student body personally. The value of this data is
questionable when collected in this format (across all program types and
levels). Arguably graduate students and many distance education students
are more likely to be older than thirty years old, while undergraduate
students are more likely to be thirty years old or younger. Of note,
even though the age breakdown ended up as relatively even as averaged
across programs, respondents more often than not provided substantially
uneven ratios for programs that resulted in twenty point or greater
differences in their specific programs. This again illustrates the
questionable value of the data when not examined based on specific
factors, and even if specific factors are utilized the question of how
valuable the data is remains unclear. Figure G illustrates not much has
changed in this area between 2007 and 2008.

![](media/image12.wmf)

**Figure G -- Student Age Representation**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image13.wmf)

The breakdown across programs of traditional versus practitioner
students bears similarities to the age and gender responses in that the
average across programs which ended up as relatively even at 51%
traditional and 49% practitioner (*n*=51), was not representative of
many of the responses that often evidenced great disparity in the ratios
toward one audience or the other. Again factors such as program type,
delivery (distance education as opposed to in-residence), degree level,
etc. would add depth to the analysis of this data, but the utility of
the data in the long run beyond anecdotal value is unclear.
Additionally, no criteria was set forth in the survey instrument setting
parameters for the classification of traditional or practitioner which
again leaves the classification to the program's purview and depending
on the size and type of program this information may not even be known.
The survey question that addresses program purpose hits on a similar
note, but from a more objective viewpoint - at the program provider
level - and is arguably an easier question for programs' to respond to.
Figure H does show an increase in the traditional student percentage
across programs from 2007, but given the failings in the question it is
difficult to analyze the increase. If this query is utilized in the
future clear parameters need to be set for a assessing the two
classifications.

![](media/image14.wmf)**Figure H - Student Representation - Traditional
vs. Practitioner**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image15.wmf)

*[Distance Education]{.underline}*

[]{.mark}

The bulk of respondents, 71% (37), reported offering distance education
opportunities (*n*=52). Of those offering distance education
opportunities (*n*=37), 34 responded with the percentage of course
offerings their programs offered via distance education. Of that 34, 85%
reported that 50% or more of their coursework was available via distance
education.

Added to the survey this year in an effort to capture data on the extent
to which emergency management programs were moving to an distance
education model, respondents offering distance education were asked how
much of their coursework was offered only via distance education. 13
respondents (25% of the overall survey response audience) reported that
95-100% of their course offerings were offered only via distance
education. Those that reported 95% figures have on-site cohort visits at
least once a semester. Distance education offerings continue to grow as
evidenced by not only the increase from 2007 to 2008 (see Figure I), but
also as indicated by programs' anticipated program changes (see
*Anticipated Program Changes* herein).

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image16.wmf)**Figure I - Programs Offering Distance
Education**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image17.wmf)

*[Enrollment and Graduation Trends]{.underline}*

[]{.mark}

![](media/image18.wmf) A number of respondents were either unable to, or
not comfortable with, responding to some of the enrollment and
graduation trend questions based on the relative newness of their
program. Regarding enrollment over the past three years, 85% (38) of
respondents reported an *increase*, 13% (6) reported *no change*, and 2%
(1) reported a *decrease* (*n*=45). Regarding predicted enrollment over
the next three years, 87% (40) of respondents predicted an *increase*,
13% (6) predicted *no change*, and none predicted a *decrease* (*n*=
46). Regarding graduation figures over the past three years, 63% (27) of
respondents reported an *increase*, 32% (14) reported *no change* and 5%
(2) reported a *decrease* (*n*= 43). Regarding predicted graduation
figures over the next three years, 80% (36) of respondents predicted an
*increase*, 18% (8) predicted *no change*, and 2% (1) predicted a
*decrease* (*n*= 45).

**Figure J - Enrollment and Graduation Trends**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image19.wmf)

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

*[Program Support Indicators]{.underline}*

[]{.mark}

![](media/image20.wmf) In regard to external funding opportunities for
program support (e.g., grants, contracts, etc.), 18% (9) of respondents
reported it to be *very good*, in comparison to 37% (19) that reported
it to be *adequate*, and 45% (23) that that reported it to be *poor*
(*n*= 51). In comparison to 2007 data (see Figure K), it appears
respondents are overall more satisfied with the level of external
funding opportunities available for program support.

**Figure K -- External Funding Opportunities**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image21.wmf)

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

In regard to institutional support (e.g., stipends to develop
courses/materials) the bulk of the respondents found it to be *very
good*, 30% (16), or *adequate*, 43% (23). Only 27% (14) of respondents
characterized it as poor (*n*=53). In comparison to 2007 data (see
Figure L), it appears respondents are overall more satisfied with the
level of institutional support they are receiving.

![](media/image22.wmf)**Figure L -- Institutional Support**

![](media/image23.wmf)

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image24.wmf) In regard to library support (e.g., ability to
obtain new holdings) the bulk of the respondents found it to be *very
good*, 40% (21), or *adequate*, 43% (23). Only 17% (9) of respondents
characterized it as *poor* (*n*=53). In comparison to 2007 data (see
Figure M), it appears the overall satisfaction level with the library
support has remained about the same.

**Figure M - Library Support**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image25.wmf)

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

Administrative support (e.g., support attempts to develop and implement
new program ideas) was reported be *very good* by the majority of
respondents, 51% (27), *adequate* by 26% (14) of respondents, and by the
remaining respondents, 23% (12), to be *poor* (*n*= 53). In comparison
to 2007 data (see Figure N), it appears there is an increase in those
that believe support to be very good as opposed to merely adequate.

![](media/image26.wmf)

**Figure N - Administrative Support**

![](media/image27.wmf)

*[GIS/Hazus]{.underline}*

Three questions were added to the survey this year regarding GIS and
Hazus. The questions queried if programs taught GIS, Hazus, and whether
a GIS course would be offered in the next two years. The final question
should have been responded to only in the event that GIS was not
presently being taught in the program, but the question was not clear.
Lack of clarity in the question resulted in confusion in the responses
and the data was discarded. In the future this question should be asked
again more clearly.

![](media/image28.wmf) The majority of respondents, 64% (34), reported
that GIS was not taught in their programs (*n*=53). Of the 36% (19) of
respondents that answered they did offer GIS, only 42% (8) reported that
they taught Hazus as well (*n*=19). Given the increasing use of GIS in
emergency management, it will be interesting to see the pace at which
higher education programs establish coursework to meet the need.

**Figure O - Teach GIS/Hazus**

*[Principles of Emergency Management]{.underline}*

When asked if they were aware of the Principles of Emergency Management
(and provided the link -
<http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/emprinciples.asp>), the
majority of respondents, 87% (45), reported they were (*n*= 52). A
follow-up question asked about utilization of the principles in
emergency management classes. The majority of respondents, 66% (35),
reported they utilized the principles in their classes. Based on a
couple of the respondents' comments, there was a question in the
researcher's mind as to whether all the respondents were referencing the
Principles of Emergency Management that they were given the link to.
Respondents elaborated that they utilized the principles across a wide
variety of classes, with a number of respondents noting they were used
with every class.

**Figure P - Principles Awareness and Utilization**

![](media/image30.wmf)

*[Utilization of Course Materials]{.underline}*

[]{.mark}

When asked about the utilization of the Emergency Management Institute's
(EMI) Independepent Study coursework, 44% of respondents (23) reported
that they utilized EMI Independent Study Courses as a part of their
program (*n*=52). A small percentage, 14%, of overall respondents
acknowledged utilizing the Prototype Curriculum for Associate Degrees in
Emergency Management as part of their program (*n*=52), however given
the number of respondents reporting associate level degrees was 15, the
usage of the Prototype Curriculum when viewed solely from that degree
level was a more robust 47%. 50% of respondents reported that they
utilized FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Courses as a part of
their program (*n*=52). A number of respondents acknowledged that while
they may not utilize the courses in teaching, they do utilize them in to
review possible approaches to material and key literature. Figure Q
illustrates utilization of course materials from the current data and
2007 data. Of note is the relationship between the EMI coursework and
the Higher Education coursework; while the EMI coursework was reported
as more heavily utilized than the Higher Education coursework in 2007,
the opposite was reported in 2008.

![](media/image32.wmf)![](media/image33.wmf)

Respondents reported utilizing from one to thirteen (1-13) of the 23
available Higher Education courses with the average course utilization
rate being eight courses (the 2007 average was 6 courses). The number of
programs utilizing the courses is detailed in Table 5. Utilization as
indicated by 2007 survey respondents is in parenthesis at the end of
each course title. A review of the utilization figures from the current
year and 2007 indicate a significant increase in the utilization of
three courses: Building Disaster Resilient Communities; Homeland
Security and Emergency Management; and, Political and Policy Basis of
Emergency Management. It will be interesting to follow course
utilization over the years and to theorize whether factors such as new
textbooks, status of the course creators, or recent events enhance or
detract from the utilization of FEMA Emergency Management Higher
Education Courses.

Praise for the Higher Education courses focused on availability and ease
of access; quality of writing; value of format to adult learners;
quality of the material and literature; relevance of the material;
utility as a reference resource; cost effectiveness; the amount and
quality of selections; and, the excellent source of comparative material
to maintain focus.

Respondents' suggestions for improvement of Higher Education courses
focused on including active learning tools (hands-on and interactive
tasks); including more information on non-profit agencies and their
place in disaster management; increasing course focus on developing
student ability to make planning and operational decisions; keeping
materials updated; and, greater thoroughness in the coverage of
material. []{.mark}

[]{.mark}

+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| **P     | **FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Course        |
| rograms | Title**                                                    |
| Util    |                                                            |
| izing** |                                                            |
|         |                                                            |
| ***n* = |                                                            |
| 26**    |                                                            |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 19      | Building Disaster Resilient Communities (2007:10)          |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 17      | Homeland Security and Emergency Management (2007:11)       |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 16      | Disaster Response Operations and Management (2007:18)      |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 16      | Terrorism and Emergency Management (2007:16)               |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 15      | Political and Policy Basis of Emergency Management         |
|         | (2007:9)                                                   |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 13      | Social Dimensions of Disaster (2007:10)                    |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 11      | Principles and Practice of Hazard Mitigation (2007:11)     |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 11      | Public Administration and Emergency Management (2007:7)    |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 10      | Technology and Emergency Management (2007:13)              |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 9       | Hazards Risk Management Course (2007:7)                    |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 8       | Business and Industry Crisis Management (2007:14)          |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 8       | Hazards, Disasters and U.S. Emergency Management - An      |
|         | Introduction *(draft)* (2007:6)                            |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 8       | Sociology of Disaster (2007:8)                             |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7       | Earthquake Hazard and Emergency Management (2007:3)        |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6       | Holistic Disaster Recovery: Creating a More Sustainable    |
|         | Future (2007:6)                                            |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6       | Individual and Community Disaster Education (2007:6)       |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6       | Research and Analysis Methods in Emergency Management      |
|         | (2007:4)                                                   |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6       | Social Vulnerability Approach to Disasters (2007:7)        |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5       | Breaking the Disaster Cycle: Future Directions in Natural  |
|         | Hazard Mitigation (2007:8)                                 |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5       | Hazard Mapping and Modeling (2007:8)                       |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4       | Coastal Hazards Management (2007:6)                        |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3       | EM Principles & App. for Tourism, Hospitality & Travel     |
|         | Mgmt (2007:4)                                              |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3       | Flood Plain Management (2007:2)                            |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+

**Table 5 - Higher Education Course Utilization**

[]{.mark}

*[Additional Products, Activities and Services]{.underline}*

Respondents were queried regarding other products, activities and
services that they would like to see the FEMA Emergency Management
Higher Education Program provide. As was true with last year's survey,
respondents took the opportunity to first praise the FEMA Emergency
Management Higher Education Program, this year the focus was on the
value of the FEMA Higher Education daily updates; the professionalism of
Dr. Blanchard; the Higher Education Programs' role as an access point to
new thoughts and ideas; and, the exemplary level of assistance and
resources supplied by Dr. Blanchard and Barbara Johnson.

Respondents' had less suggestions this year than in 2007 for additional
products, activities and services, yet the suggestions remained quite
diverse. Respondents' suggestions are summarized below:

-   Podcasts on EM topics;

-   More research documents;

-   EM library;

-   Support for comparative EM research;

-   Interaction between academics & practitioners;

-   Government organizational overview and interplay;

-   Technology-focused materials;

-   Video, DVD and training CDs;

-   Tabletop exercises;

-   Simulations;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Additional courses on technology, NIMS, ICS, legal issues,
    comparative government;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Scenarios for small communities;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Materials that address critical thinking and decision-making
    abilities;

-   Regionally sponsored symposia with greater interface to other
    "stovepipe" disciplines;

-   More future-oriented materials that prepare students for what they
    are likely to face; and,

-   Add another day to the Higher Education Conference and cover more on
    pedagogy, tabletop exercises, resources available, reports, etc.

*[Knowledge, Skills and Abilities]{.underline}*

Respondents were asked this year to list what they felt were the top
five knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) emergency management higher
education programs should focus on. This was the first time this
question was asked on the program survey and the responses were
extremely diverse. The KSAs that were cited the most made the list of
the top fifteen. As is evident as the end of the list nears, consensus
was difficult to come by despite the fact that over two hundred KSA
entries were offered by respondents. Although one might expect that the
diversity in the KSAs was a function of the multidisciplinary nature of
emergency management, it was not evident in the responses; more likely
the diversity of responses can be partially attributed to different
program educational levels.

The top KSAs cited were:

1)  Comprehensive EM, overall knowledge of field, 4 phases, all-hazards
    (19- 36%);

2)  Communication - verbal & written (16- 30%);

3)  Relationships, partnering, team-building (15- 28%);

4)  Critical thinking, analytical skills, problem-solving (14- 26%);

5)  Management skills (10- 19%);

6)  Leadership (8- 15%);

7)  Risk assessment, analysis, management (8- 15%);

8)  Technology Skills (7- 13%);

9)  Planning Skills (7- 13%);

10) Knowledge of the social science research and ability to apply it in
    practice (7- 13%);

11) Mitigation (6- 11%);

12) Coordination (4- 9%);

13) Professionalism, ethics, evolution as discipline and career (4- 9%);

14) Public policy (4- 9%); and,

15) Political context (4- 9%).

*[Challenges Facing Emergency Management Programs]{.underline}*

Respondents were asked to list what they considered to be the top five
challenges facing emergency management programs. While the responses
varied significantly, six clear themes emerged. These challenges are not
new to emergency management; indeed, most have been captured in past
program surveys. What was new and different was the specificity with
which the challenges were addressed. What once was a call generically
for more faculty has become more detailed and discerning. The same is
true for the issue of funding and student recruitment -- as programs
grow and evolve their focus on the challenges that face them seems to
sharpen.

Challenges facing programs:

1)  [Faculty]{.underline} (24- 44%)

> The call for faculty has gotten louder and decisively more demanding -
> 44% (24) of respondents reported finding qualified faculty was the
> biggest challenge they faced.
>
> Additionally the definition of qualified has gone beyond the search
> for simple degree qualifications (most are seeking Ph.D. holders) and
> now includes a call for experience,
>
> researching skills, and teaching ability as well.

2)  [Funding]{.underline} (15- 28%)

> The call for more funding is hardly a plight limited to emergency
> management higher
>
> education, but the urgency and specificity of need seems to be
> heightened comparatively.
>
> 28% (15) of respondents reported that lack of funding for programs,
> faculty, research,
>
> students, and resources was a challenge they were dealing with.

3)  [Student recruitment]{.underline} (14- 26%)

> As is true with faculty recruitment, the expectation for student
> quality is also changing.
>
> Aside from increasing competition for students, 26% (14) of
> respondents cited the
>
> recruitment of high quality students as a program challenge.

4)  [Constantly changing material]{.underline} (10- 19%)

> The ever-changing nature of policy, the lack of agreement over topical
> coverage in
>
> emergency management and homeland security, and the barrage of reports
> from
>
> government offices stating a seemingly new take on the field weekly
> creates a challenge
>
> to programs just trying to keep up. 19% (10) of respondents cited the
> constant change
>
> in the field as a challenge.

5)  [Institutional support]{.underline} (10- 19%)

> Issues of acceptance, credibility and respect within their home
> institution were cited by
>
> 19% (10) as a program challenge. The identity issue is one that was
> noted in last year's
>
> report and seems to continue to be a problem for a number of programs.
> The past year has been one wherein emergency management's identity has
> been strengthened, and it
>
> must be noted that this challenge was a concern for approximately half
> the respondents in
>
> the 2007 survey. The greatly reduced focus on this challenge in this
> year's data may
>
> signal improvement on this front.

6)  [Internships]{.underline} (6 -- 11%)

Building the relationships and seeking out the opportunities necessary
to get students

experience was reported by 11% (6) of respondents as a challenge. Even
as there is a

recognition within the practitioner and academic communities about the
value of

internships, the mechanics (or perhaps *art*) of creating said
internships is something that

continues to be a challenge.

[]{.mark}

*[Anticipated Changes in Programs]{.underline}*

Respondents were asked what changes they anticipated in the next three
(3) years in their programs and responded with a myriad of changes that
involved everything from program growth to possible program closure. For
the most part the theme that ran through the bulk of the anticipated
changes was continued program refinement and growth. A discerning eye
will note that many of the anticipated changes are tied to the KSAs and
program challenges that received mention above. A number of the
anticipated changes listed were mentioned by multiple respondents, but
are only listed herein once.

Changes anticipated:

-   New faculty positions;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Revising, refining and adding to course offerings -- strengthening
    content;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Program growth;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Practicum opportunities;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Greater incorporation of management curriculum;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Increased business continuity and crisis management focus;

-   EOC addition;

-   Curriculum revision;

-   Greater incorporation of management curriculum;

-   Business continuity & crisis management focus;

-   Transition to new faculty members;

-   Adjusting coursework to be in-line with NIMS and current FEMA
    curriculum;

-   Increasing linkage and collaboration with other programs (e.g.,
    public health, geography, sociology, criminal justice, psychology,
    economics, political science);

-   Increased involvement in exercise design and execution on campus and
    in community;

-   Expand study abroad options;

-   Increased emphasis on basic managerial skills;

-   Greater focus on enrollment;

-   Increased emphasis on EM skills such as GIS, logistics, project
    management;

-   Development and fine tuning of distance education capabilities and
    offerings;

-   Greater outreach;

-   New courses and program updates as policy changes and as body of
    knowledge and core competencies continue to mature; and,

-   Will probably drop program due to low enrollment and offer
    coursework to supplement other degrees.

**RECOMMENDATIONS**

The recommendations below deal with both the program survey and other
suggested studies. These recommendations are addressed in the following
order: methodological issues, topical issues, and general suggestions
for additional data collection. These are, as stated, merely
"recommendations".

As addressed in the methodology, it is recommended that the survey be
slightly modified so that it can be distributed in mid-February as
opposed to March or April. The March distribution hit too close to
mid-terms and the April distribution hit too close to the end of the
semester. The earlier distribution date may require some institutions to
be a bit more predictive in their graduation estimates and will likely
limit the amount of faculty new hire data (as many searches and hires
for the following academic year are not completed by February). Fairly
accurate student numbers can be typically culled about three weeks into
the semester which is the rationale for a mid-February distribution date
as opposed to an earlier date.

The survey audience although invested has a patience limit with survey
length. This year's survey at nine pages was admittedly about as long as
the program survey should be. It is recommended that some questions be
eliminated and others be tightened up to ensure that over the years new
questions can make their way into the survey without it becoming a
novelette of sorts.

It is recommended that the program support indicators (external funding,
institutional support, library support, and administrative support) be
either removed from the survey or be refined to offer greater insight.
Presently they are limited to three choices of very good, adequate and
poor. These categories are limiting, plus no parameters are given for
what the categories mean and hence it is very subjective not only based
on the individual and program, but also based on the institution and
discipline. Different institutions and disciplines can have completely
different concepts of what adequate support and resources are. Seeing as
emergency management programs are housed in so many base disciplines,
greater effort must be made to clarify the questions or they should be
dropped from the survey.

It is recommended that the question regarding new faculty hires
credentials be eliminated as the information is rarely fully provided by
respondents and the value of the data (other than to show the diversity
of new hire degrees) has limited utility. It is recommended instead that
a greater focus be on whether new hires are adjunct or full-time and
whether they are teaching in-residence or via distance education.

In regard to student data, it is recommended that the following
questions be dropped from the program survey: age (30 or less, older
than 30), traditional vs. practitioner, and full-time vs. part-time. All
three of these questions are problematic for a variety of reasons: 1)
age data may not be readily available (if at all -- distance education
programs often cannot provide this data) which calls for the a great
deal of guessing on the part of respondents; 2) the parameters for the
categories are not standardized within the instrument or across
programs; and, 3) the value of the data unless specifically analyzed
based on program or degree type and focus is limited. This type of data
is better collected from the students themselves in the annual student
survey (typically conducted by the IAEM Student Region President). The
student survey can likewise access the POCs from the college list who
can forward on the survey link to their students via their internal list
serv. Indeed, the student link could be forwarded on to programs as part
of the program survey distribution which is all done via email.

It is not suggested that gender or general student numbers be removed
from the program survey as this is easily collected data that has little
room for misinterpretation. Additional student data could be collected
in the survey, but it should be such that the selection categories are
uniform and easy for the majority of programs to work with. It is
understood that distance education programs, certificate programs and
other programs that have either a different type or level of contact
with students will struggle with some questions.

It is recommended that program graduation numbers be tracked by program
level from here forward. It would be valuable to know the density of
graduates at the different program levels both for institutions seeking
to create new programs and for the FEMA Emergency Management Higher
Education Program. We know from a brief glimpse of the landscape that
the number of students being produced at the doctoral level is small and
that the number of students being produced at the bachelor level is much
larger, but we should be able to say more on this topic.

Along the same vein, it is recommended that a dedicated survey effort,
independent of the program survey, be conducted annually with graduates
and alumni by the FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Program.
Graduate and alumni survey data has been hit on by a few survey efforts
that hit select pockets of this audience. It is suggested that a survey
effort be conducted that involves the ultimate creation of a database
(to allow for periodic surveying of this audience as they move through
their careers) and that allows for better information from those who
have higher education and are either moving into or are already in the
field. This undertaking is viewed as a large project that will require
participation from all the institutions in the emergency management
higher education community, as well as the graduates and alumni
individually. As cumbersome a project as it is, it is one whose value
cannot be diminished; access to this specific community is quite
literally worth its weight in gold.

To ensure the integrity of the data collection, database and the overall
vision of the project it is strongly urged that FEMA undertake this
project under the auspices of the FEMA Emergency Management Higher
Education Program. This project alone requires a full-time position, but
the return on the investment to FEMA, emergency management higher
education and the emergency management community en masse will be
hundred-fold. While this task is daunting, it is presently quite
do-able. This will not be the case in five or ten years as the base
continues to multiply. When one considers the amount of money invested
in so many other FEMA initiatives, this project with its relatively low
price tag (one FTE) seems like a no-brainer.

It is recommended that a series of surveys be done in the practitioner
and academic community addressing the top knowledge, skills and
abilities (KSA) deemed to be important in emergency management. This
question was asked in the program survey and responses within the
academic community were all over the map; it is theorized that a like
result would be produced in the practitioner community. A survey that
collected initial lists, utilized the Delphi method and redistributed
those lists for review, and finally collected a second list of the top
ten KSAs from respondents might help bring some clarity to what the top
KSAs are. This survey should be done under the auspices of FEMA's
Emergency Management Higher Education Program and results should be
provided to the higher education programs to assist them in course
development, curriculum decisions, etc.

A final recommendation is focused on the secondary market being hit by
emergency management higher education programs. This secondary market is
comprised of students who are not enrolled in emergency management
programs but who take a class or two. While many programs may be focused
on finding ways to bring these occasional students into the program, a
more fascinating aspect to focus on is the potential impact the
information learned in these classes will have on the individual's
personal and professional behavior into the future. If one operates
under the assumptions that those who have higher education are more
prone to advance in the workforce and community and therefore are more
likely to shape policy and culture, then one can fully appreciate the
intrinsic value of getting these occasional students into emergency
management classes. We know that emergency management operates within a
political, social and economic context and in this secondary market we
have the opportunity to influence the future political, social and
economic context in which we operate. As was stated earlier in the
report, there are likely folks in FEMA who have long been aware of the
value of this secondary market.

It is recommended that a longitudinal study effort targeted at this
secondary market be undertaken with an initial data collection that
extends over multiple semesters and is then followed up on every two
years for a period of ten years. Understanding where these occasional
students ultimately end up in the workforce and community will help give
insight into the evolving context emergency management operates within.
While requiring a long-term time and monetary commitment, this type of
study would offer insight into the impact a secondary market can have on
a promoting a primary market's agenda. Additionally it can be speculated
that the secondary market may be decisive in changing trends in
household preparedness behavior. Toward that end even a million dollar
price tag for such a study would be money well-spent.

**CONCLUSION**

[]{.mark}

There is a book by Malcolm Gladwell titled *The Tipping Point* that
discusses how seemingly little things can result in big changes. After
years of quietly toiling away, emergency management higher education
appears to be at its tipping point. The community has the right people,
at the right time, doing the right things and the community is poised to
create dynamic change that will push emergency management to a whole new
level. It is now more important than ever that the magnitude of the
reach emergency management higher education has is recognized.

By virtue of educating students, the emergency management higher
education community sends seeds out across the nation (indeed, in some
cases across the globe) to grow stronger and more resilient communities.
Those seeds (the primary market) have begun to take root and are
supported by others (the secondary market) who recognize their value and
are in a position to foster favorable growing conditions. The old adage
"you reap what you sow" is applicable here, but the benefits reaped will
not be received as the linear change the adage suggests. Now, more than
ever, the entire emergency management community must recognize and
embrace the change in status and power that is evolving out of the
higher education community's steady efforts.

The challenge for all of us in emergency management higher education is
to recognize the potency of our role as those that scatter the seeds.
This role comes with tremendous responsibility. We must, as a community,
be judicious stewards of the change we are creating. This requires us to
work together with an understanding of the connectivity our work has
beyond our initial efforts. Institutions and programs must collaborate
in the same way that students must (and will in the field); there must
be somber recognition of the critical mission we have in educating those
who will make decisions that impact entire communities; and, there must
be a bridge between academia and the field that is built on equal ground
and recognizes the differences and intrinsic value in each. None of this
is necessarily easy, but we must remember -we are the right people, at
the right time, doing the right things that are creating the dynamic
change that is needed.

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

[]{.mark}

*Many thanks to those program representatives who took the time to fill
out the survey instrument despite hectic schedules and many other
obligations. As always, my deepest appreciation and admiration to Dr.
Wayne Blanchard for all he does for emergency management higher
education along with his ever-patient assistant Barbara Johnson. It is a
pleasure and honor to work with all of you -- together we are changing
the world, one student at a time.*

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

Adelphi University (CG, A, B)

Andrews University (BC, MC)

Anna Maria College (CG, M)

American Military University (CG, B, M)

Arkansas Tech University (B, M)

Auburn University (O)

Baton Rouge Community College (CU)

Broward Community College (CU, A)

Caldwell Community College (A)

California University of Pennsylvania (BC, MI)

Capella University (B, M, D)

Capital Community College (CU, MI)

Casper Community College (A)

Central Georgia Technical College (CU, A, O)

Clackamas Community College (A)

Clover Park Technical College (CU, A)

College of Lake County (CU)

College of Southern Nevada (CU, A)

George Washington University (CG, MC, DC)

Georgia State University (CG, MC, DC)

Hesston College (CU)

John Jay College, CUNY (M, MC)

Lakeshore Technical College (A)

Louisiana State University (BC, MI, MC, DC)

Metropolitan College of New York (M)

Montgomery County Community College (CU, A)

North Dakota State University (MI, B, M, D)

Okaloosa-Walton College (C, A)

Oklahoma State University (MI, M)

Pikes Peak Community College (CU, A)

Purdue University Calumet (CU, MC)

Red Rocks Community College (CU, A)

Saint Louis University (CG, M, MC)

Saint Xavier University (CG)

Savannah State University (B)

Shaw University (B)

Texas A & M University (CG)

Thomas Edison State College (CG, A, B)

University of Akron (CU, MI, B)

University of Central Florida (CG, MI)

University of Chicago (M)

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

University of Hawaii- West Oahu (CU)

University of Idaho (CG)

University of Illinois at Chicago (CG)

University of Maryland, Baltimore County (CG, M)

University of Maryland University College (B)

University of Nevada Las Vegas (CG, M)

University of North Texas (B, M, D)

University of South Florida (CG)

University of WI-Green Bay (CU, CG, BC, MC)

West Texas A & M University (B)

Western Washington University (BC)

York University (CU, M)