# Presentation: 053791

## Assessment Of Collaboration for Incident Response Preparedness 

- Assessment Of Collaboration for Incident Response Preparedness

## Project Background

- Problems with firewood movement (EAB)
- Indicative of larger problems with collaborative systems, protocols and processes
- Charge from APHIS OA
- Collaborative approach (AWG)
- September to January timeframe

## Introduction

- APHIS and States:
- Strategic alliance and collaboration needed for response preparedness
- Successful but recently stretched (END/Hurricanes)
- Numbers increasing/complexity increasing
- Concerns raised
- This assessment examined expectations vs reality

## Methodology

- Surveys
- Interviews
- Listening Sessions
- Focus Group Interviews
- Collaboration Continuum (Scale 1-7)

## Communities

- Animal Health
- VS, State Animal Health, WS, State F&W
- Plant Health
- PPQ, BRS, State Plant Health
- All Hazards
- AC, VS, SART
- General Support
- APHIS OA, LPA, Offices of Secretaries (includes Communication)

## Findings

- Focus on State and APHIS counterparts yet others mentioned:
- LPA
- DHS
- Foresters
- SEMA
- Public health
- Industries
- Collaboration is complex

## Findings

- _Example_: Collaboration on Animal Health Emergency Preparedness

## Findings

- People have different ideas and language about collaboration which affect the effectiveness of communication, activities and the results of the collaboration
- State and APHIS collaboration is an imperative for incident response preparedness but neither APHIS nor State expectations about the needed levels are being fully met

## Findings

- Strong APHIS and State internal collaboration is needed to guide and support successful strategic alliances
- States and APHIS collaborate effectively, particularly where there are strong communication and relationship building skills; when these are lacking productivity and progress suffers

## Findings:  Ideas and Language

*Figure 1: Comparison of APHIS and State Views*

_**Expectations**_

_**Current Perception of Reality**_

## Findings:  Ideas and Language

- Example:  Views of good collaboration on plans
- We provided comments
- They gave us comments
- We reviewed their plan
- We each have our own plan
- We sat at the table together to work on the plan
- Even counterparts express inconsistent views

## Findings:  Ideas and Language

- Most agree collaboration is important but to collaborate well, need to understand each others’:
- Expectations
- Frame of reference
- Need to take time to talk to each other about how you are going to collaborate

## Findings:  Ideas and Language

- Literature:
- Focus less on defining the business plans and more on how you’ll work together
- 			-- Harvard Business Review November 07

## Findings: Imperative Not Met

*Figure 1: Comparison of APHIS and State Views*

_**Expectations**_

_**Current Perception of Reality**_

## Findings:  Imperative Not Met

- Need simultaneous communication
- Lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities:
- Writing, AEC, all hazards, evacuation and sheltering
- Need for communication protocols that are followed consistently:
- Exist at all? Need to be in writing

## Findings:  Imperative Not Met

- Inconsistent plans
- No templates, no approval process
- Cumbersome cooperative agreement process
- Test exercise programs
- Not enough, focus is on disasters not pests, not joint effort, not on other FADs; only AI, too many

## Findings:  Internal Needed Too

- Collaboration with State Ag Secretaries
- State communication with APHIS Regions and HQ:
- Effective:  State level manager left out
- Ineffective:  Joint call for autonomy and empowerment
- Perception of LPA not up to expectations:
- COSDA agreement (1 hour)
- Support for communication infrastructure

## Findings:  Internal Needed Too

- APHIS Guidance:  State view
- Best: Accuracy
- Worst: Timeliness
- Better during an incident than in preparation
- APHIS Guidance:  APHIS view
- Best:  Accuracy (lower ratings than States)
- Worst:  Timeliness
- Better from Regions than HQ

## Finding:  Internal Needed Too

- Need APHIS help with national consistency
- General frustration about timeliness of & clarity of roles and responsibilities
- General finding (everyday work and preparedness related—both need clarity)
- Especially true of animal evacuation and sheltering especially regarding AC & VS roles
- General clarity in all hazards
- Parameters, mechanism for response
- AEC vs ESF 11 coordinators

## Findings:  Internal Needed Too

- Literature:
- Spend as much time on managing internal stakeholders as on managing the relationship with your partner
- 	-Harvard Business Review November 2007

## Findings:  Communication & 		   Relationships

- High levels of collaboration due to communication and relationships
- Expectations not met because of communication and relationships

**Notes:**
See keys to communication and relationships

## Findings:  Communication & 		   Relationships

- Important for good organizational practices to support communication and relationships
- Written down, for example:
- Plans for responding to all hazards emergencies (includes R&R for animal evacuation and sheltering)
- Clarify R&R for ICS in plant health incidents
- Simultaneous communication protocols
- Regional, HQ communication protocols
- Co-location options
- Collaboration success breeds success

## Findings:  Communication & 		   Relationships

- Literature:
- The personal is as important as the procedural
- 	-American Journal of Evaluation (Utilizing Collaboration Theory to Evaluate Strategic Alliances)

## Recommendations:  Goals

- Resolve firewood issue
- Clarify & document roles (everyday work, incident response, all hazards response)
- Institute good organizational practices

## Recommendations:  Goals

- Develop mechanism for issues to be raised, addressed and tracked
- Develop, document and monitor communication principles
- Create a culture of collaboration

## Recommendations:  Getting Started

- Resolve firewood issues:
- Address questions
- Provide regular updates
- Adopt practices to ensure does not occur again
- Clarify and write down R&R:
- Everyday work
- Incident response
- All hazards response (evacuation and sheltering)

## Recommendations:  Getting Started

- Institute simultaneous sharing of information:
- Among APHIS HQ, Regions, State-level Managers, State Secretaries and Agency Managers
- Protocols developed and shared
- Reaffirm protocol for public release of information:
- Document and share uniformly
- Include info on exceptions and how to handle

## Recommendations:  Getting Started

- Develop guidelines for Incident Response Preparedness:
- APHIS and States should discuss what guidelines are needed
- Develop with input from States
- Share formally and uniformly
- AMT create liaison for States; liaison should:
- Catalog past issues
- Bring them to closure
- Document lessons learned
- Have direct access to program staffs and AMT