Aligning Institutions of Higher Education emergency preparedness plans with the National Response Framework

Maureen Connolly, EdD

doi:10.5055/jem.2012.0102

Authors

Maureen Connolly, EdD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2012.0102

Keywords:

Institutions of Higher Education, college, university, NRF, emergency preparedness

Abstract

Colleges and universities must be prepared to respond to events that could compromise the safety of any person in a classroom, residence hall, office, or any other campus facility as well as for any event that could jeopardize the continuation of use of any campus facility. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) states, “Higher education institutions ... are realizing that improving their campus’ resistance to disaster will not only protect their own lives and those of their students, it will also safeguard their campus’ instruction, research, and public service.” The US Department of Homeland Security, FEMA developed the overarching strategy, the National Response Framework (NRF), for emergency preparedness for “government executives, private-sector and nongovernmental organization leaders.” FEMA and the Department of Education (DOE) developed specific guidelines for emergency preparedness for colleges and universities. This study linked these guidelines to the five principles of the NRF. Most institutions have an emergency preparedness plan, but just how effective are these plans? Do community colleges, state, independent, and proprietary institutions differ in terms of their level of emergency preparedness? The target population for this study is colleges and universities in the United States. This quantitative study measured how aligned the emergency preparedness plans of these colleges and universities are to the recommendations of FEMA and the US DOE, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. The data suggest that much more needs to be done to bring college and university emergency plans into alignment with the government recommendations. Alignment with the government documents for this sample of US colleges and universities is extremely low for each principle of the NRF.

Author Biography

Maureen Connolly, EdD

Foundations, Leadership and Policy Studies, Hofstra University, Hemstead, New York.

References

FEMA: National response framework. Washington, DC: US Department of Homeland Security, 2008. Available at http://www.fema.gov/nrf. Accessed January, 2011.

FEMA: Building a disaster-resistant university, 2003. Available at http://www.fema.gov/institution/dru.shtm. Accessed January, 2011.

US Department of Education: Action guide for emergency management at institutions of higher education, 2009. Available at http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/emergencyplan/remsactionguide.pdf. Accessed January, 2011.

Pearson CM, Mitroff II: From crisis prone to crisis prepared: A framework for crisis management. Acad Manag Exec. 1993; 7(1): 48-59.

Helsloot I, Jong W: Risk management in higher education and research in the Netherlands. J Contingencies Crisis Manage. 2006; 125-141.

Donald G: The Shanghai principles for creating safer cities and societies through sustainable urban development. FEMA Emergency Management Institute, 2002. Available at http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/highpapers.asp. Accessed January, 2011.

Mitroff II, Diamond MA, Alpaslan CM: How prepared are America’s colleges and universities for major crises? Change. 2006; 38(1): 60-67.

Zdziarski EL, Dunkel NW, Rollo JM: Campus Crisis Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Planning, Prevention, Response, and Recovery. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

Borodzicz E: The missing ingredient is the value of flexibility. Simulation Gaming. 2004; 35: 414-426.

Hough MG, Spillan JE: Crisis planning: Increasing effectiveness, decreasing discomfort. J Bus Econ Res. 2005; 3(4): 19-24.

Trump KS: Classroom Killers? Hallway Hostages? How Schools Can Prevent and Manage School Crises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2000.

Kovoor-Misra S: A multidimensional approach to crisis preparation for technical organizations: Some critical factors. Technol Forecasting Soc Change. 1995; 48(2): 143-160.

Rund JA: The changing context of campus safety. In Wilkinson CK (ed.): Addressing Contemporary Campus Safety Issues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002: 3-10.

Spillan J, Hough M: Crisis planning in small businesses: Importance, impetus and indifference. Eur Manage J. 2003; 21(3): 398-407.