1. David F. MerrickDeputy DirectorCenter for Disaster Risk Policyat Florida State Universityhttp://www.cdrp.net Concepts in Models to measure organizational readiness for disaster 2d Annual International Conference on Emergency Management and Management SciencesBeijing, China

2. The Center for Disaster Risk Policy at Florida State University Applied research center with a focus on public policy, emergency management, and information systems. Founded in 1997 Current Director is Dr. Audrey HeffronCasserleigh Administers and directs the Emergency Management Academic Program in the Askew School of Public Administration.

3. Training and Exercises Bioshield Influenza Control Exercise (ICE) CyberSunset Recovery Virtual Organizations Disaster Contractors Network Disaster Housing Network Preparedness Projects Special Populations Information Network (SPIN) Organizational Readiness Research

4. Objectives Review why we need to measure readiness Discuss existing and past efforts to measure organizational readiness Explore the differences between single and multiple organization differences Define the audience for measuring disaster readiness Review the current CDRP readiness measurement model

5. “That which is not measured cannot be improved.” In order to improve readiness, we must be able to quantify the concept of readiness. Organizations needs the ability to measure readiness longitudinally. Government needs the ability to compare readiness across organizations.

6. Defining “Readiness” Different industries and contexts define ‘readiness’ differently. Readiness resides mainly in Preparedness, but also in Mitigation.

7. Readiness is…. Preparedness Resiliency Redundancy

8. The Demand for Measuring Readiness Public Sector Increase readiness of communities Determine funding priorities Usage as performance measures Determine training and exercise priorities Set standards / certification levels Ratings and comparisons of response agencies or government entities Private Sector Increase readiness of the organization Determine funding priorities Usage as performance measures Determine training and exercise priorities

9. Single Versus Multiple Organizations Single Organization Readiness model is isolated, can vary. Usable to measure internal improvement only Cannot compare readiness to other organizations using a different model Not a standard of performance Multiple Organizations Readiness model must be the same. Usable to measure internal improvement. Compares readiness to other organizations using the same model Can become a standard of performance Requires consensus on model design and definitions.

10. Standards and Accreditation National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 1600 The current U.S. standard for emergency management and continuity of operations. Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) Voluntary accreditation process that applies NFPA 1600 and requires periodic review, documentation, and assessment.

11. Limitations of Standards Standards are Boolean in nature Limited indicators of the gap between ‘pass’ and ‘fail’ When applied to accreditation processes, standards are all or nothing. Neither standards nor accreditation processes provide continual feedback and review.

12. Excerpt of NFPA 1600

13. Simpson Preparedness Study Conducted in 2001, the study created a sample model to measure disaster preparedness measures of two U.S. cities. Measured factors such as: Fire protection funding, personnel, and vehicles Planning and zoning EOC planning and funding Training and simulation plans Existence of four specific hazards: Earthquake, rail facilities, chemical facilities, and nuclear power plant

16. Simpson Study Outcomes Model formula for Preparedness Measures (PM): PM = 3(A + B + C) + 2(D) + 3(E) + 3(F) + G - H + 3(I) + J Final ‘Preparedness Measures’ (PM) Sikeston: 145.20 Carbondale: 216.99 Shortfalls Limited to four hazards Limited weighting of factors (none within categories) Hazards are applied equally as a negative factor (H)

17. A New CONCEPT IN Measuring Readiness

18. Readiness Dimensions Readiness Dimensions are the specific factors that impact readiness for an organization. There is no set list at this time of Readiness Dimensions that fits every organization. Each organization must define and weight their Readiness Dimensions. For our purposes… Readiness Dimensions are specific and quantifiable.

19. Tangible Readiness Dimensions Supplies or inventory Up to date plans and procedures Accreditations Equipment (Vehicles, etc.) Critical repair parts for equipment Food and water Medicinal supplies

20. Sample Readiness Dimensions A power utility company may decide that they need 125 spare poles stockpiled to deal with an emergency. This readiness dimension (stockpiled telephone poles) has a baseline value of 125. The same company determines that each physical location requires 12 operational two-way radios to effectively communicate during an emergency. This readiness dimension (functional two-way radios) has a baseline value of 12.

21. Hazards Impact Readiness Different threats require different preparedness and mitigation efforts. Example: Hurricanes require storm shutters, but those shutters will be of limited use when preparing for a flood or pandemic. Therefore, any measurement of Readiness is specific by hazard. Value of stockpiled telephone poles in a pandemic?

22. Location Impacts Readiness Organizations spread over multiple locations may have different Readiness values for each location. Some Readiness Dimensions are defined for the entire organization, but some are specific to a physical location. Stockpiled telephone poles vs. two-way radios

23. Organizational Units Impact Readiness Different organizational units have different needs during a disaster, and these organizational units will have different readiness levels. Ties in with business continuity concepts. Mission critical functions should reflect higher readiness.

24. Probability Impacts Readiness Hazards may have a high severity, but lower probability of occurrence. This is often referred to as risk (severity + probability = risk) Lower probability hazards may have a lower impact on overall readiness indicators for the organization.

25. A sample Model

26. Readiness Dimensions - Comms Category Readiness Score (CR): 78.33

28. Pharmacy

29. Command

31. Total Readiness (TR) is the weighted average of the Hazard Readiness (HR) scores, based on hazard probability

33. Readiness Models as Decision Support Models allow disaster planners and managers to formulate ‘what if’ scenarios to determine acquisitions and spending priorities. Models illustrate which hazards, locations, and organizational units needs priority.

36. Future Actions and Research CDRP is building a beta test model of this concept for Florida State University. CDRP has executed a Center of Excellence agreement with Avineon, Inc. to develop process models for their Emergency Management Process Suite. Seeking governmental research partners in Florida to test the concept at the county or city level.

37. Thank you