Communicating with State Agencies

1. Communicating with State Agencies Developed with funding from the Multi-State Partnership for Security in Agriculture

2. Workshop Objectives • Overview of the Multi-State Partnership for Security in Agriculture project • Review lessons learned from the HPAI outbreak • Develop or revise the state agency’s communication plan • Plan will address when and what is communicated to non-lead state agencies supporting a response

3. 2015 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza • December 2014 - June 2015 • 21 states impacted • 211 commercial and 21 backyard premises • Depopulation of 7.5 million turkeys and 42.1 million egg-layer and pullet chickens • Cost over $950 million

4. Who Responded to HPAI? • United States Department of Agriculture • State Departments of Agriculture • Local Emergency Management • Industry • Others

5. MSPSA After Action Review Project • Lessons learned from 10 states • Interviews or reviews of written After Action Reports • Focus on state and local challenges that could be addressed through facilitated discussion

6. MSPSA After Action Review Project (cont.) • Project identified four priority topics for states • ICS structure improvements • Local communication • State communication • State contracting improvements • This workshop deals with improvements in state agency communication

7. Lessons Learned • Communicating with other (non-lead) state agencies prior to response is critical • Agencies were reluctant to provide support for a long period of time because they didn’t understand foreign animal disease response and the associated needs • Timeframe and reimbursement

8. Lessons Learned (continued) • Agencies needed detailed job descriptions to determine if they had qualified individuals • Support agencies were not engaged early in the response • Several states indicated they should have engaged other agencies earlier in the response

9. Lessons Learned (continued) • Help may not have been needed immediately; however, early engagement would have: • Provided time for support agencies to prepare to assist • Allowed support personnel to engage in JIT, or otherwise prepare • Allowed support agencies time to meet internal requirements for resource sharing

10. Lessons Learned (continued) • Briefings did not adequately address support agencies’ questions • Supporting agencies often had to request additional information following briefing

11. Lessons Learned (continued) • Some states were concerned about sharing specifics, including actual farm locations, with supporting agencies • Several states have legal requirements to keep information confidential • Lack of information sharing provided a challenge in engaging support agencies in the response

12. Best Management Practices • Develop guidelines for communicating with supporting agencies • Address legal requirements surrounding emergency response information prior to the event

13. Best Management Practices (continued) • Determine information to include in support agency briefings, prior to a response • Several states developed a list of questions that provided guidance on what information needs to be included in support agency briefings • Questions helped in developing briefings • Questions assisted in consistency between briefings

14. Sharing Information

15. Notifying Support Agencies • What is the trigger for the Lead Agency to notify support agencies? • Is it affected by activating the State Emergency Operations Center? • Does this timing meet the needs of the support agencies? • How is this impacted by the particular disease?

16. Notifying Support Agencies (continued) • What is the best method to brief the support agencies? • How is the initial notification delivery method different than delivery methodsthroughout the response? • What information should be included in the initial notifications?

17. Notifying Support Agencies (continued) • How does support agency information change during the response, once the support agencies are engaged in providing support? • What ICS position or Lead Agency personnel are responsible for making the initial notification and subsequent briefings? • To whom is the information delivered?

18. Notifying Support Agencies (continued) • Do different support agencies require different delivery methods? • How could a Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) Group support information sharing?

19. Critical Information Requirements • What are the critical information requirements for support agencies throughout the response? • What are the baseline critical information needs, applicable to all support agencies? • What are the agency-specific critical information needs, by agency? • How are these critical information needs dependent on the disease?

20. Critical Information Requirements (cont.) • What is the best way to share the information with support agencies throughout the response? How does this vary among different agencies? • How frequently should information be shared?

21. Critical Information Requirements (cont.) • Who is responsible for sharing information? • What critical information would your agency request from supporting agencies, both prior to requesting support and once support is provided?

22. Incorporating Support Agencies in the ICS Structure

23. Lead Agency ICS Structure • Insert a picture of the Lead Agency ICS Structure

24. Incorporating Support Agencies • What support can each support agency provide? • How does the Lead Agency request this support? • Does their support depend on a State Emergency Declaration?

25. Incorporating Support Agencies (continued) • Can the agencies provide support in the Lead Agency’s ICS Structure? • Which positions can be filled by the support agency?

26. Incorporating Support Agencies (continued) • For what period of time can a support agency provide assistance? • How can a MAC be used to inform support agencies and where would it link with your ICS structure?

27. Incorporating Support Agencies (continued) • Which agencies, including the Lead Agency, are able to support the response with needed Just-In-Time training?

28. Additional Discussion