County Emergency Preparedness Assessment — Washington Military Department (December 10, 2024)
Summary
Slides from the Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division on the County Emergency Preparedness Assessment (CEPA), for the House Innovation, Community & Economic Development, and Veterans Committee, December 10, 2024, listing Robert Ezelle, Director, and Kathryn Zetzer, Preparedness Grants Section Supervisor. The slides say the division manages $32 million in federal preparedness grants annually and name the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) and the Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) among application requirements. They say SPR data is collected using SurveyMonkey online surveys and that the process does not guarantee responses or quality. CEPA is described as a 3-year pilot program with a six-hour state facilitated workshop once every three years.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“County Emergency Preparedness Assessment — Washington Military Department (December 10, 2024).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2024-12-10-a32261-d274179-emd-county-emergency-preparedness-assessment-5da07fde2c/
, SHA-256 249d188b6ff7b4dd8bbcfc866cfe4418270a59cfac5e34669d584d9f02ce0290.Full text
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
County Emergency Preparedness
Assessment (CEPA)
Presentation to the House Innovation, Community & Economic
Development, and Veterans Committee
December 10, 2024
Robert Ezelle
Director, Emergency Management Division
Washington Military Department
Kathryn Zetzer
Preparedness Grants Section Supervisor
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
EMD Manages $32 Million in Federal
Preparedness Grants Annually
Grant requirements are published in annual notices of funding opportunity
(NOFO)
2
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
Preparedness Grants Application Requirements
• Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)
• Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR)
• Identify capabilities and gaps in the context of five EM mission areas
(Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery)
• 32 FEMA Core Capabilities
• Planning, Organization, Equipment, Training, and Exercise (POETE) elements
3
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
Threat & Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment (THIRA)
Comprised of three steps:
1. Identify threats and hazards
• What threats and hazards can affect our state?
2. Give threats and hazards context
• What impacts would those threats and hazards have on our state?
3. Set capability targets based on core capabilities
• Based on those impacts, what capabilities should our state have?
• Submitted to FEMA every three years; next submission is December
31, 2025
4
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR)
Composed of three steps:
1. Capability assessment
• A self-assessment of current capability levels against the targets identified in the THIRA
2. Gap identification
• Identify capability gaps related to the solution areas of planning, organization,
equipment, training, and exercise (POETE)
3. Funding impacts assessment
• Identify how FEMA preparedness grants helped to build or sustain capabilities
• Completed annually; submission is due December 31st
• The SPR (gaps) must be referenced in grant applications
5
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
SPR Challenges
• Data is collected using SurveyMonkey online surveys
• The process does not guarantee responses or quality; some counties
completed many surveys, some little to none
• Example: 2023 SPR survey responses
• Capability assessment surveys: 13 of 39 counties responded
• Capability gap identification surveys: 31 of 39 counties responded
• Funding sources surveys: 11 of 39 counties responded
• Process provides little benefit to the respondents
6
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
County Emergency Preparedness Assessment
• 3-year pilot program
• 1/3 of counties in the state completed each year
• Six-hour state facilitated workshop once every three years involving the
community’s SMEs across diverse emergency management and related fields
• Process is designed to:
• Meet federal reporting requirements
• Provide expanded and in-depth reports back to jurisdictions
• Engage with the largest audience of subject matter experts
• Produce valuable emergency preparedness data not collected by the SPR
7
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
8
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
CEPA Gap Analysis
• Gaps are captured in 2 ways:
• Numerical: scales associated with 1-5 scoring
provide gaps in each area as a percentage
• Comments: gaps highlighted during
discussions are documented and included in
reports
• Gaps (both numerical and text based)
can be analyzed by county, region, and
statewide
• Highlights trends and areas needing more
development
• Applies to capabilities as a whole and specific
POETE elements
9
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
CEPA Use Relative to THIRA
& SPR Process
• CEPA data can be used during the THIRA
process to shape state scenarios and set
capability targets
• Each CEPA session collects 256 direct SPR
related data points and free-text gap
descriptions to include:
• Grant reliance
• POETE assessment for each of the core
capabilities
• Gaps and approaches to close them
• Whether the capability was built, lost, or
sustained
• CEPA data is used to determine the current
level of capability in relation to target levels
established in the THIRA
10
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
CEPA vs. Prior SPR Data Collection Process
• CEPA provides guaranteed, standardized data collection
• CEPA process ensures high-quality data collection
• SPR surveys used technical language not easily understood by those not
directly involved in THIRA/SPR submissions often leading to inaccurate and
incomplete responses
• The CEPA’s in-person facilitator ensures participants’ questions are answered
and they understand what is being asked of them
11
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
CEPA vs. Prior SPR Data Collection cont'd
• Reduces assessment process burden
• Previous survey process occurred over a short period of time leading counties scrambling to
complete hundreds of survey questions on a yearly basis
• CEPA is one 6-hour time commitment every three years
• Database entry occurs as assessments are completed, reducing end-of-year burden for EMD
staff to compile, analyze, and complete SPR submission
• Previous survey process solely met the SPR requirement (data entry in FEMA
system)
• Reports created by the FEMA system are not user-friendly and difficult to extract meaningful
information from, let alone county specific entries
• CEPA sessions produce data for both SPR entry as well as a county-specific report
• The CEPA dashboard visualizes assessment results and allows for deeper analysis
12
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
13
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
Questions?
14
File and source
- File
- 2024-12-10_a32261_d274179_emd-county-emergency-preparedness-assessment.pdf
- Size
- 1,485,319 bytes
- SHA-256
- 249d188b6ff7b4dd8bbcfc866cfe4418270a59cfac5e34669d584d9f02ce0290
- Original
- No public link identified.