1 / 11

County EM Typing Project

County EM Typing Project. July 18, 2012. Question Presented to FDEM. The Governor has asked FDEM to rank the counties in regard to County Emergency Management capabilities

tess
Download Presentation

County EM Typing Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. County EM Typing Project July 18, 2012

  2. Question Presented to FDEM • The Governor has asked FDEM to rank the counties in regard to County Emergency Management capabilities • The goal was to rank considering at least the 4 main functional areas of emergency management: response, preparedness, recovery and mitigation • Timeframe for report is August 1, 2012

  3. Concerns Raised by the Counties • Almost immediately, concerns were raised by the counties: • What will the end rankings be used for? • What is the legal authority behind this? • How can fair comparisons be made, given the differences between Florida counties? • Isn’t this simply going to pit one county against another? • Don’t we already do assessments?

  4. Issues With Existing Assessments • In Florida we do already perform a number of assessments (Capabilities Assessment Checklist, SOW, CEMP Plans), but these were all determined to fall short • Some are tied to funding • Some are worked through the year until complete • Some do not offer a true level of differentiation • All are “response heavy”

  5. FDEM’s Assumption • As a result of these shortcomings, FDEM determined that a new survey instrument was necessary • If for no other reason, this new instrument would allow the capturing of data on areas other than response

  6. Working Group • To help develop the methodology by which the project would move forward, a Working Group was formed • Consisted of one local EM member from each of the seven regions

  7. How to Rank/Type County EM • FDEM pushed the question to the Working Group of how do we comprehensively measure EM capabilities? • To “seed” thought and discussion, the list of 106 metrics was created and put forward to the County EM Directors • This list went through a comment period in which 12 Counties responded with comments (18%) • Those metrics that had a 50% non-negative comment base made it to the second list of 39

  8. The List of 39 is Narrowed Down to 25 • From this point forward the Working Group was not united in how to move forward, or even if the project should • A suggestion was made that since everyone is receiving their EMPG/EMPA funding yearly from FDEM (based on the SOW), maybe the SOW forms a minimum threshold and everyone should be graded above that… • The list of 39 was cut down to a list of 25 based on this concept, and based on the questions that could be fairly measured

  9. Concerns Continued to be Voiced • At this point, concerns continued to be voiced by Working Group members and observers, that it is impossible to measure EM comprehensively in 25 questions • A facilitation effort was made by ???, bringing together representatives from FDEM, FEPA, FAC, FL Small Counties & FL Sheriff’s Association • General consensus was that the new metrics should be a part of the solution, with existing assessments being a larger part

  10. A Short Clock to August 1 • With August 1 approaching, FDEM has put together the following strategy: • We will present a report on August 1 • 75% based on Capabilities Assessment Checklist • 25% based on the New list of 25 (now actually 23) metrics • At the same time, FDEM will ask the Governor to hold the report and let the facilitated group continue to work on the project

  11. Why Approach it this Way? • FDEM believes that this is the best approach because: • Asking for more time without producing anything will likely lead to a short extension of time, with finality then expected • Whereas the production of the first revision of the report, along with the late addition of new stakeholder groups, indicates that this is just the first step in the collaborative process

More Related