Model
Digital Document
Publisher
Florida Atlantic University
Description
This study addressed gaps in research on understanding the preparedness status of emergency management programs within Florida College System (FCS) and State University System (SUS) institutions. The quantitative assessment involved 21 institutions (51% response rate).
A survey instrument was developed from prior studies and measured programmatic factors. These questions explored the current preparedness level regarding emergency management programs within Florida’s FCS and SUS institutions, the involvement of stakeholders in these programs, the perceived preparedness to respond to various hazards, the extent of institutional investment in emergency management efforts, and the organizational frameworks characterizing the emergency management departments or units within these institutions.
Findings revealed that FCS institutions generally have needs, particularly in exercises and financial resources, suggesting foundational elements are present but highlighting opportunities to advance their preparedness. In contrast, SUS institutions report needs in planning and financial support, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive and updated emergency strategies and plans and sufficient funding as programs advance. Both systems displayed strong leadership commitment that supported their levels of preparedness.
A survey instrument was developed from prior studies and measured programmatic factors. These questions explored the current preparedness level regarding emergency management programs within Florida’s FCS and SUS institutions, the involvement of stakeholders in these programs, the perceived preparedness to respond to various hazards, the extent of institutional investment in emergency management efforts, and the organizational frameworks characterizing the emergency management departments or units within these institutions.
Findings revealed that FCS institutions generally have needs, particularly in exercises and financial resources, suggesting foundational elements are present but highlighting opportunities to advance their preparedness. In contrast, SUS institutions report needs in planning and financial support, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive and updated emergency strategies and plans and sufficient funding as programs advance. Both systems displayed strong leadership commitment that supported their levels of preparedness.
Member of