2010 Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium · 2013-03-07 · constitute product approval or endorsement by NTED or the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC) at Eastern Kentucky

2010 Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium

3rd Annual

National Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit

Prepare For The Worst, Train To Be The Best

This report was supported under award #2007-GD-T7-K007 from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Training and Education Division (NTED). The products, manufacturers, and organizations discussed in this publication are presented for informational purposes only and do not constitute product approval or endorsement by NTED or the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC) at Eastern Kentucky University (EKU). Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of NTED or EKU. This document is not intended to create, does not create, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in any matter civil or criminal.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction 4

1.1 RDPCBackground 4

1.2 NeedsAssessmentProcess 4

1.2.1 NationalTrainingNeedsSurvey 4

1.2.2 AnnualNationalRuralEmergencyPreparednessSummit 5

2.0 Purpose 6

3.0 SummitBackground 8

4.0 SummitProceedings 9

5.0 SummitResults 10

5.1 TrainingDeliveryandOperationsBreakoutSession 10

5.1.1 BreakoutGroup#1 10




5.1.5 BreakoutSessionSynthesis 19

5.2 MarketingandOutreachBreakoutSession 15





5.2.5 BreakoutSessionSynthesis 18

5.3 CourseConceptsBreakoutSession 19

6.0 SummitReview 20

6.1 BestPractices 20

6.2 LessonsLearned 20

6.3 SummitAttendeeSurvey 20

AppendixA:SummitAgenda 24

AppendixB:SummitAttendeeList 25

AppendixC:BreakoutGroups 29

AppendixD:SummitSurvey 31

1

2

AESA ArizonaEmergencyServicesAssociation

AGAUS AdjutantsGeneralAssociationoftheUnitedStates

ASIS AmericanSocietyforIndustrialSecurity

AWR Awarenessleveltrainingcourse

CDP CenterforDomesticPreparedness

CEU ContinuingEducationUnit

CRD CenterforRuralDevelopment

DHS U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity

EKU EasternKentuckyUniversity

EMA EmergencyManagementAgency

EMI EmergencyManagementInstitute

EMS EmergencyMedicalServices

ETSU EastTennesseeStateUniversity

FDIC FireDepartmentInstructorsConference

FEMA FederalEmergencyManagementAgency

FOP FraternalOrderofPolice

HSPD HomelandSecurityPresidentialDirective

IACET InternationalAssociationofContinuingEducationandTraining

IACP InternationalAssociationofChiefsofPolice

IADLEST InternationalAssociationofDirectorsofLawEnforcementStandardsandTraining

IAEM InternationalAssociationofEmergencyManagers

IAFC InternationalAssociationofFireChiefs

ICCC IowaCentralCommunityCollege

IS IndependentStudy

LSU LouisianaStateUniversity

MGT Managementleveltrainingcourse

NACo NationalAssociationofCounties

NAED NationalAssociationofEmergencyDispatchers

NAEMT NationalAssociationofEmergencyMedicalTechnicians

NAEMSE NationalAssociationofEmergencyMedicalServiceEducators

NAEMSO NationalAssociationofEmergencyMedicalServiceOfficials

NAEMSP NationalAssociationofEmergencyMedicalServicePhysicians

NAFTD NorthAmericanFireTrainingDirectors

NCBRT NationalCenterforBiomedicalResearchandTraining

NDPC NationalDomesticPreparednessConsortium

NEMA NationalEmergencyManagementAssociation

NERRTC NationalEmergencyResponseandRescueTrainingCenter

NFA NationalFireAcademy

NFPA NationalFireProtectionAgency

NGA NationalGovernorsAssociation

NMT NewMexicoTech

NPD NationalPreparednessDirectorate

NPG NationalPreparednessGoal

NRHA NationalRuralHealthAssociation

NSA NationalSheriffsAssociation

NTED NationalTrainingandEducationDivision

NTNS NationalTrainingNeedsSurvey

NTS/CTOS NevadaTestSite/CounterTerrorismOperationsSupportProgram

NVFC NationalVolunteerFireCouncil

NWACC NorthWestArkansasCommunityCollege

PCII ProtectedCriticalInfrastructureInformation

PER Performanceleveltrainingcourse

PKEMRA Post-KatrinaEmergencyManagementReformAct

POC PointofContact

RDPC RuralDomesticPreparednessConsortium

SAA StateAdministrativeAgency

TCL TargetCapabilitiesList

TEEX TexasEngineeringExtensionService

TTT Train-the-Trainer

TUF TheUniversityofFindlay

USDA U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture

List of Acronyms

3

4

1.0 Introduction

1.1 RDPC BackgroundSince its inception, the Rural Domestic Preparedness

Consortium (RDPC) has coordinated the development and delivery of preparedness training to thousands of emergency responders. In addition to training, the RDPC has facilitated relevant information sharing that is essential for emergency responders to deal with all-hazards events. As a federal training partner within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Training and Education Division (NTED), the RDPC has the specific, and very important, task of providing training to emergency responders in small, rural, and remote communities, and has worked diligently to accomplish this task. Consistent with the U.S. Census Bureau, these communities are typically defined as having a population of less than 50,000 or a population density of less than 1,000 persons per square mile. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines 74.5% of the land in the United States as rural. The citizens and response agencies of these communities, cities, counties, town, villages, and parishes face unique challenges when preparing for all-hazards, and in some cases the RDPC represents the only opportunity for emergency response service providers to obtain access to timely and effective training.

The RDPC all-hazards curriculum is aligned with the National Preparedness Goal (NPG) and is selected through a compre-hensive needs assessment process before undergoing a rigorous justification and certification process by DHS/FEMA. Upon certification, RDPC courses are delivered on-site and free of charge within applicable jurisdictions with the intent of raising the overall preparedness level of jurisdictions to effectively deal with various incidents (e.g. natural disasters, acts of terrorism, special events) that may occur.

1.2 Needs Assessment ProcessThe RDPC develops and delivers training courses that fulfill

identified training needs within the rural emergency responder community. In order to effectively identify training needs, the RDPC utilizes two complimentary methods (see Figure 1.1 below), which are described in the following sections.

1.2.1 National Training Needs SurveyThe first element of the RDPC needs assessment process is

the National Training Needs Survey (NTNS). Administered biennially, the NTNS facilitates the identification of training needs through the Target Capabilities List (TCL) framework, which was established by DHS under Homeland Security

Figure 1.1: RDPC Needs Assessment Process

• RDPCNationalTrainingNeedsSurvey(NTNS)

• RDPCAnnualRuralEmergencyPreparednessSummit

• NationalFocusGroups

• ReviewforExistingPartnerCoursestoFitNeed

• CourseConceptDevelopment

• Determine/FormPartnerships

• NeedsAssessmentFormDevelopment

• VettingThroughExternalPartners/Board

VALIDATION/ REFINEMENT

CONCEPT/PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

NAF DEVELOPMENT/

VETTING

TRAINING NEEDS

5

Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD 8). By utilizing the TCL framework, the RDPC can ensure that the training needs of rural emergency responders can be easily translated into the overarching National targets and standards. The NTNS also assists the RDPC in recognizing training trends that impact current and future courses.

The most recent NTNS was completed in 2009. The 2009 NTNS surveyed approximately 5,800 rural emergency responders across eight disciplines. 1 The response rate was 28% with approximately 1,600 completed surveys. Overall, the top ten identified training needs based on the TCL were as follows (along with the percentage of respondents that indicated a training need):

1. Isolation and Quarantine (39.6%)

2. Information Gathering and Recognition of Indicators and Warnings (39.0%)

3. Environmental Health (38.4%)

4. Critical Infrastructure Protection (38.1%)

5. Economic and Community Recovery (37.7%)

6. Intelligence Analysis and Production (37.3%)

7. Food and Agriculture Safety and Defense (37.0%)

8. Restoration of Lifelines (35.4%)

9. Intelligence and Information Sharing and Dissemination (35.0%)

10. CBRNE Detection (35.0%)

Research briefs detailing the results of the 2009 NTNS survey are currently available on the RDPC website.

1.2.2 Annual National Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit

The Annual National Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit is the second foundation from which specific training needs are identified that are subsequently developed into fully-certified courses. The Summit serves as a forum in which rural emergency responders can provide specific feedback to RDPC in terms of training needs and other relevant topics (i.e. outreach and marketing, training delivery, etc.). The Summit also serves as a conduit to validate the NTNS results as well as an avenue to identify training needs and trends through the facilitation of specific discussions. In addition to rural emergency responders, the Summit is also attended by RDPC Advisory Board members and government officials (i.e. State Administrative Agency [SAA] representatives). The balance of this document details the results from the most recent Summit, which was held on April 6-7, 2010 in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

1 Emergency Management, Emergency Medical Services, Fire Service, Governmental Administrative, Healthcare/Public Health, Law Enforcement, Public Safety Communicators, and Public Works/Public Utilities

6

2.0 Purpose

The document details the objectives, attendees, proceedings, and outcomes of

the 3rd Annual Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit that occurred on April 6-7,

2010 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Along with the 2010 National Rural Emergency

Preparedness Summit Facilitation Plan (produced under separate cover) and the

multimedia (i.e. photographs, interviews, etc.) obtained during the Summit, this

document serves as part of the Summit’s permanent record.

7

8

3.0 Summit Background

As previously noted, the RDPC facilitated the 3rd Annual

Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit on April 6-7, 2010 in

Albuquerque, New Mexico at the Isleta Hotel. Consistent with

previous instances, the objectives of the Summit were to:

1. Introduce the RDPC;

2. Provide an update on the 2009 RDPC programmatic accomplishments;

3. Obtain feedback on training delivery and outreach and marketing mechanisms; and

4. Define course concepts based on the identified training needs within the 2009 NTNS.

Overall, there were fifty-six individual Summit attendees who

fulfilled various roles. Seventeen of the fifty-six attendees were

rural emergency response practitioners who were invited by

RDPC Advisory Board members and were disciplinarily and

geographically diverse. As for the RDPC Advisory Board, eleven

members attended the meeting. In addition, there were eight

SAA representatives, two DHS representatives, five National

Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC) representatives,

and twelve RDPC staff members representing all six academic

institutions. Lastly, a representative from the New Mexico

Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

provided a welcome to all Summit attendees. For a full list of the

Summit attendees, please see Appendix B.

9

4.0 Summit Proceedings

As defined in the agenda (see Appendix A), the Summit began with a welcome from Dr. Pam Collins, Principal Investigator for the RDPC. Following introductions by all attendees, Dr. Bethany Cummings, RDPC Advisory Board Chairperson, provided a welcome from the board. Lastly, Andrew Phelps from the New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management welcomed everyone to the Summit and discussed rural training issues and needs within the state.

Following the welcoming and introductions, Tom Lindquist, Associate Director of the Consortium, provided an adminis-trative overview of the Summit and the Summit agenda. Once the administrative overview was complete, Carol Mintz, DHS Program Manager for the RDPC, was invited to provide the attendees an update on current activities within DHS as they relate to emergency responder training. Carol explained the DHS reorganization and the creation of the National Training and Education Division (NTED) that will manage the federal training partners. Carol also discussed the National Training Plan (part of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act [RKEMRA]) and the overall goal of a “Ready Nation,” which is a goal of the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) within FEMA.

Next, the Summit proceedings progressed to a detailed update on the RDPC since the last Summit in 2008. The update began with Ryan Baggett, Director of Homeland Security Programs, providing an overview of RDPC and the 2009 programmatic accomplishments. Next, Amy Hughes, Associate Director of Training Delivery and Operations, and Jo Brosius, Director of Communications, provided an overview and update on RDPC’s training, marketing, and outreach efforts. Next, representatives from each of the RDPC academic institutions discussed their course development efforts (Tom Lindquist [EKU], Rob Kennedy [Center for Rural Development], Dave Lawrence [East Tennessee State University], Laura Hoehne [University of Findlay], Mike Burke [Iowa Central Community College], Chris Herring [North Carolina Central University], and Ethan Beckcom [NorthWest Arkansas Community College]).

Once all updates and overviews were completed, the Summit was adjourned for lunch during which Nina Tsethlikia, Cylbert Zunie, and Joe Baca provided the keynote presentations. The keynote speakers discussed emergency response challenges and issues from their perspective of being part of and working with Tribal Nations within the state of New Mexico. After lunch, Brian Simpkins, Associate Director of Research and Evaluation, provided an overview of the objectives and procedures of the breakout sessions that were scheduled for the afternoon session. The attendees were then excused to one of four assigned breakout groups and their meeting location (see section 5.0 for detailed information on the breakout sessions).

During the afternoon session of day one, two specific breakout sessions were scheduled:

1. Training Delivery and Operations; and

2. Marketing and Outreach.

These sessions followed a structured facilitation method to ensure obtainment of needed information/feedback in an efficient manner (see 2010 National Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit Facilitation Plan for more information). Once the breakout sessions were completed, the Summit was adjourned for day one. Following the adjournment, an RDPC Advisory Board meeting was held.

Day two of the Summit began with a report-out from each breakout group on their discussions from the afternoon sessions on day one (see section 5.0 for detailed information on the results of the breakout sessions). Following the report-out, Brian Simpkins provided a research and evaluation overview, which detailed the completed and current research projects undertaken by the RDPC. Brian also provided an overview of the course concepts breakout session that occurred during the morning session of day two.

Consistent with the breakout sessions on day one, the course concepts breakout session followed a structured facilitation method to ensure the development of suggested courses fit within the mission and vision of the RDPC and are aligned with the results of the 2009 NTNS (see 2010 National Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit Facilitation Plan for more information). Once the breakout session was completed, all attendees were reassembled to allow each breakout group to report-out on their developed course concepts. Following the report-out of course concepts, Dr. Collins formally adjourned the Summit. After the conclusion of the Summit, the attendees were invited to a tour and explosives demonstration at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) in Socorro, New Mexico (a member of the NDPC).

10

5.0 Summit Results

As noted in the previous section, breakout groups were facil-itated over the course of the Summit’s two days to obtain specific information and feedback on a variety of topics. There were four individual breakout groups consisting of eight to ten Summit attendees (with the exclusion of DHS and NDPC representatives) who were grouped to be disciplinary and geographically diverse. See Appendix C for a listing of the four breakout groups. Each breakout group was facilitated by a single RDPC representative, who was assisted by additional RDPC representatives.

Overall, there were three specific breakout group sessions during the course of the Summit:

1. Training Delivery and Operations (Day One)

2. Marketing and Outreach (Day One)

3. Course Concepts Development (Day Two)

The breakout sessions followed a structured facilitation method to ensure obtainment of needed information/feedback in an efficient manner (see 2010 National Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit Facilitation Plan for more information). The following sections provide details on the discussions and feedback received during each breakout session.

5.1 Training Delivery and Operations Breakout Session

The Training Delivery and Operations Breakout Session had two specific objectives as detailed in the 2010 National Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit Facilitation Plan:

1. Provide the RDPC a better understanding of challenges, preferences, opportunities, technologies, etc. that influence training delivery to rural emergency responders.

2. Obtain information in relation to various topics ranging from training preferences, challenges, opportunities, trends, etc.

As noted above, a structured dialogue was utilized to keep group discussions on topic and to reduce sidebar discussions. In addition, visual reminders were placed within each breakout room to help guide the breakout session participants in their discussions. The remainder of this section will provide details on the discussion within each group followed by a synthesis of all the discussions.

5.1.1 Breakout Group #1This section provides a summary of the breakout group’s

discussion on the training delivery and operations topic.

Training Preferences• Web-based training is good for course prerequisites

• Be knowledgeable of and incorporate different learning styles/types when developing courses

• In order to make web-based training effective:

- Incorporate time restraints on course content

- Prevent online cheating

- Develop courses with a modular format

- Incorporate interactivity to overcome short attention spans and increase participation

- Incorporate simulations that challenge the student (i.e. Protected Critical Infrastructure Information [PCII] Jeopardy in West Virginia)

- Use of mentored delivery through use of state instructors

Training Providers• Internal Staff – have instant connection with audience

• State Sponsored – provide funding for training

• Federal Training Providers

• Not always customized to the local jurisdiction, but do provide training for free or at low cost

• What can we do to improve Federal trainings?

- Sometimes course minimum participant requirements are difficult to meet by rural jurisdictions

- Good idea to use local instructor to help facilitate delivery of federal courses or serve as administrator to the federal instructor

- Non-profit companies are treated differently (i.e. many ambulance providers are non-profit organizations – they have to pay their own way to training and are not informed about training opportunities)

- Federal government does not have the capacity to move quickly to deliver training

• Private Sector Training Providers

- Due to time constraints and from cost/benefit points of view it is sometimes easier to bring in a private contractor

- Private sector training providers offer dependability, specialized training/equipment, and cost sharing oppor-tunities with other agencies

11

Training Challenges• Back-fill

- Huge problem especially with the current economy and minimum staffing levels

- Need to educate local jurisdictions that they can get back-fill compensation in some instances through their state homeland security grant program

- One idea would be to cluster training deliveries

• Time Availability

- Offer night and weekend trainings, which would be especially beneficial for volunteers

- Due to limited time availability, once training requirements are met for a specific time period, no additional training is taken

• Length of Training

- Instructor-led training courses should have a two day threshold

- Distance to training site should be a maximum of one hour drive time

• Quality Training

- Instructor credibility is key

- Current real world/relevant training topics are necessary as well as incorporating new/current events

- Incorporate delivery methods that include practical exercises (i.e. items that allow students to apply what they have just learned)

- Ensure that training is relevant to the jurisdiction

• Redundancy in Training Programs

- Need course descriptions that can help SAAs and others to better understand the differences between courses

Training Opportunities• Incentives (Continuing Education Units [CEU], college

credit, etc.)

- CEUs are state dependent

- Pay close attention to the accrediting institutions

- Certificates – string together courses for a track approach

• SAA approval process

- Private training providers cause friction in some cases

- Online request process to the SAA would be helpful



Training Challenges and Preferences• Not all courses are capable of being presented in a

web-based format

• Blended delivery

- Blended delivery must be structured because self study has not been successful

- Participants are not going to complete assignments on their own time without a structure due to limited time, other duties, limited technological resources, and education

- Online learners can interpret the material different; sometimes the wrong way

- Instances of cheating for online courses

- Blended learning can only be an effective tool if structured correctly

• Training must be part of the larger preparedness model

- RDPC needs to reach out to states to ensure that the training meets the needs of the state strategic plans

- Training needs to be looked at on a local community, multi-discipline basis

• Having the minimum number of participants for the course is always a challenge

• Could the courses be handed off to the local jurisdictions for delivery?

12

Training Opportunities• Could RDPC partner with state training entity for delivery?

- This would add state validity and resources

- Examine the National Fire Academy (NFA) as a model

- Partner with International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) to accredit courses

- Work with SAAs and associations for accreditation

- Approach national associations for all disciplines



Training Delivery• The average number of students is most appropriate

variable to determine the best method of delivery, but should be kept to no more than 30

• The type of delivery depends on the type of course

• Keep in mind that there is a weakness in Internet and technology capabilities for some rural organizations

• Online courses are appropriate for lower level courses (i.e. AWR)

• “Role Call” lineup training modules would be valuable/well received

• Send instructions out for any web-based training requested

• Send multi-disciplined teams to instructor-led trainings

• Need to teach classes outside normal business hours to help extend availability, such as splitting training across two days/nights or administering the course on the weekends

• There is a need for refresher training that includes shorter versions of the original course and well as “just in time” training to immediately address current event incidents

• Emergency Management Institute (EMI) Independent Study (IS) training is used highly in rural jurisdictions

• There is a need to use team instructors for multi-disci-plinary audiences; a police officer and a firefighter works better because some students of a specific career may not respect the thoughts of one who is not in their profession

Current and Future Training Trends• “Second Life”/simulation games are a new trend, however,

some may not accept this type of technology/training

• Simulation training must be correct and have limited errors so it does not “turn off” users

• Infrastructure is important in simulation training as well

• Look into on-demand training through cable or Internet providers

• Training needs to challenge the student

• Need to identify how RDPC courses are different from others available

Training Challenges• Lack of backfill and cost of overtime is a major challenge in

addition to time availability

• Travel costs are another challenge

• The length of training should stay within the four to eight hour range

• Training Quality

- If students give positive feedback, it is safe to assume the training is good

- Issues mainly arise if you have wrong target audience or duplication of material

• Training delivery must consider the technology and Internet limitations in rural areas

Opportunities• Examine the use of blended learning approaches to reach

additional audiences

• Examine the development of similar EMI style professional development and certificate programs

• Pursue CEUs/ college credit for completion of training courses

• Pursue partnerships with other organizations to begin a certification process and offer course credits as an incentive

5.1.4 Breakout Group #4The section provides a summary of the breakout group’s


Training Preferences• AWR courses should be given in multiple formats to

accommodate all preferences; however, cost to develop both formats is a potential issue as well as the fact that some courses are not good candidates for on-line delivery

• Some rural jurisdictions/areas do not have stable and reliable internet access; therefore, may need to provide training on CDs/DVDs for a computer-based training delivery format versus web-based training

• There may be a difference between first line responders versus supervisors/coordinators. Supervisors/coordinators might be more likely to participate online whereas first line responders probably prefer classroom/hands-on

13

• Multiple formats will allow for younger professionals to be engaged since they have been brought up with technology

• Perhaps video-based/webinar/technology aided training is a format to really explore in future delivery formats (especially as younger professionals enter the workforce).

Blending Learning Approach• Some states have community college systems that can be

tapped into to aid in blended learning delivery (states are different though). There may be a pilot of the Dealing with the Media course on state systems taking advantage of the fiber optic networks allowing an instructor to be at one site yet many from other sites can interact with that instructor. (Oklahoma and Arkansas already do this).

• A lot depends on background of responder to determine if they would benefit or prefer blended learning approach

• There are different learning styles that will impact this approach and recent research shows that people use all learning styles in training but probably do have a learning preference

• Bottom line – the level of training will impact best delivery format (e.g., AWR, PER, versus MGT)

• Some disciplines have identified criteria that constitute “basic” level training and incorporate AWR level materials in their “basic” training as a means to depart AWR level

information without having to sit through a separate class

• The detail level of training needed will be person specific and job duty specific; therefore, will probably always have the case of “too much” info or “not enough” info

• DHS really needs to specify target audience especially in marketing materials/course. The narrower the targeted audience the more likely of getting the right mix of participants.

• Webcasts may be better option that true web-based training

• Self-paced computer-based training takes a special person to sit through.

• It was noted that each state might have different needs for what types of training is preferred; therefore, it was noted that each state SAA should determine the need for their particular state and then do what is needed to fill that need

• There are many factors that will impact whether or not a person will attend:

- Targeted audience description

- Content

- State requirements

- Previous training

- Age

- Discipline

- Volunteer versus paid

- Time away

Preferred Types of Training Providers• Many different types of providers are utilized across

disciplines such as the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP), NDPC, state, federal, some private, etc.

• States can customize training to individual needs versus federal training providers that are not as flexible

• Federal training providers, however, provide more consistency due to stringent guidelines versus state and private training providers

• National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) standards drive capable, consistent, and certified courses

Training Challenges• Backfill/overtime is still an issue for career paid positions;

however, it is the state’s decision on how they handle it. Some states do not pay it and things work out just fine.

• RDPC can help the states with this issue by offering more deliveries that cover more shifts to allow for “off-shifts” to go. Being flexible and offering more deliveries will help.

• Time/availability is a potential problem

• Although tuition is free for RDPC courses, the cost of any travel may have an impact on whether someone attends or not

• Eight hours is an acceptable amount of time especially for an AWR level course. Offering alternative formats (e.g., two four hour sessions) would be helpful.

14

• Quality of training must be high to keep people coming and instructors must acclimate to audience or will lose them. Instructors must know the materials and be able to answer questions or will lose them. Good quality materials are important, and RDPC following DHS template does encourage this.

• Targeting a specific audience will help the quality of a delivery

• Redundancy of training programs can be an issue

• CEUs are a huge incentive for people to come to the training – RDPC is currently exploring the International Association of Continuing Education and Training (IACET) accreditation – however it is a lengthy process

• Class size minimum of 20 for AWR classes can be an issue in rural jurisdictions

- Web-based training offerings may help this

- RDPC can get special approval from DHS to hold a class with less than 20 with appropriate justification

- Utilizing existing training delivery mechanisms can help with this as well (i.e. North America Fire Training Directors [NAFTD])

Training Opportunities• Explore blended learning format more aggressively

• Pursue aggressively incentives for attending training (i.e. CEUs, college credit, certification, etc.). This could be done by state or nationally.

Current and Future Training Trends• Webcasts are a great idea to pursue more aggressively

• Podcasts should also be pursued

• Be aware of other technological advances to see how they might impact training.

• Fifteen to thirty minute hard hitting sessions should be pursued (i.e. state fire academy’s EZ training concept)

- Although RDPC proposed similar efforts with the “Roll Call” Training concept, DHS – under the current RDPC mechanism – would not approve RDPC pursuing this sort of delivery format

- Perhaps a “training portal concept” where many disci-plines could have access to pertinent information such as the EZ training might be a compromise

- As noted previously, utilize existing training delivery mechanisms to force multiply delivery opportunities

Process for Requesting and Executing Training• Various methods have and should be used to request

training – email, phone to RDPC, phone to Partner, 800#, SAA referral, state training academies

• Problem is that not enough people know about the RDPC so even if there are multiple ways to request training we do not know if that is sufficient because not enough people know about the RDPC to tax the system.

• The SAA list is not up to date on the DHS website which is where RDPC gets their information; therefore, a key task is to update the RDPC SAA list and include the wealth of experience gained over the last year of conducting RDPC deliveries in many states

• Utilize the FEMA regional directors to help confirm list of key people to inform when training being delivered in their state

5.1.5 Training Delivery Breakout Session Synthesis

This section provides a synthesis of the information across all four training delivery breakout groups. The text below identifies the common threads through breakout groups.

Training PreferencesWithin the discussion on training preference, the following

comments were consistent across all four breakout groups:

1. When developing web and computer-based courses, developers need to keep in mind the technological (both infrastructure and knowledge) and Internet connectivity limitations that are common in small, rural, and remote jurisdictions.

2. While courses should be developed that lend themselves to multiple delivery formats, the course content should drive whether the course should be instructor-led or web-based.

3. Web and computer-based training needs to incorporate aspects that keep the trainee engaged (i.e. interactive elements) to ensure better attention to course content by the trainee.

15

Preferred Training ProvidersWithin the discussion on training providers, the following

comments were consistent across all four breakout groups:1. One advantage of federal training providers is the

consistency within the training due to standards and guidelines that must be achieved.

2. Non-profit companies, such as ambulance service providers, are treated differently by training providers, which results in them paying for their training.

3. Private sector training is very convenient and can provide specialized training.

4. State and local training providers can customize training to local needs.

Training ChallengesWithin the discussion on training challenges, the following


1. Backfill and cost of overtime continues to be a problem within many jurisdictions, and some did not know that state homeland security grant programs could pay for backfill.

2. Being able to offer training split across multiple days/evenings or even on the weekends would be beneficial, especially to volunteers.

3. Instructor-led training should be no longer than two days, with a preference for four to eight hours.

4. Travel costs continue to be a challenge (some suggestions for a maximum distance of one hour drive time).

Training Opportunities Within the discussion on training opportunities, the following


1. The ability to offer CEUs or college credit for course completion would be a major benefit.

2. Examine the possible development of a certificate program (an example would be the EMI program).

3. Continue to pursue opportunities to partner with state training academies and professional associations/organizations.

4. Continue to pursue courses that offer blended learning techniques, but with the knowledge of technological limitations within some justifications.

Training Trends Within the discussion on training trends, the following


1. Incorporate the use of simulations and interactive elements in web and computer-based training to help lengthen attention span.

2. Pursue the development of short training sessions (i.e. “Roll Call” training).

5.2 Marketing and Outreach Breakout Session

The Marketing and Outreach Breakout Session had two specific objectives as detailed in the 2010 National Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit Facilitation Plan:

1. Discuss the various medium through which the RDPC conducts its outreach and marketing and define suggested changes/modifications, new opportunities, and ways to overcome challenges.

2. Identification of new and innovative methods that the RDPC can use to conduct future outreach

As noted above, a structured group dialogue was utilized to keep group discussions on topic and to reduce sidebar discussions. In addition, visual reminders were placed within each breakout room to help guide the breakout session partic-ipants in their discussions. The remainder of this section will provide details on the discussion within each group followed by a synthesis of all the discussions.


discussion on the marketing and outreach topic.

Newsletter• Only four of the breakout group participants had

knowledge of the newsletter

• Suggestions for improvement:

- Incorporate a USA Today approach that lists activities from each state

- Be thorough with acronyms (i.e. explain/define them)

- Highlight RDPC courses and why responders should take them

16

- Ensure the newsletter appeals to the “non-knowers” and the “knowers” of RDPC

- Offer smaller e-newsletters at shorter time intervals (i.e. weekly/biweekly)

- Provide the ability to copy snippets of the RDPC newsletter for other organizational publications

- Highlight the academic partners and have them submit articles based on what they are doing

- Solicit training concepts from readers (and allow for online submission of ideas)

- Develop articles related to “how to request training” and/or “did you know”

Website• Suggestions for improvement:

- Add FAQ list

- Add a section about the course request/approval process on the request a course page

- Add drop-down list box that connects to the SAA directory

- Add information on the other federal training providers

Social Networking• Provides a great outreach opportunity

• Need to be cautious about the information that gets posted and would have to setup some type of vetting process

• Facebook option would be good for those who are not tech savvy

• Private/secure RDPC user pages and online collaboration tools would be very useful

Advertising• Suggestions on where to advertise:

- Fire Chief

- Firehouse Magazine

- Indian Country Today

- Journal of Emergency Medical Services (JEMS)

- Security Management

- Major associations and organizations

• Reach out to academic and federal partners to help advertise

• Suggest developing articles in lien of ads



Newsletter• Develop a specific list serve for all 56 states and territories

• Provide ability to subscribe and unsubscribe

• Create additional links within the newsletter

• Develop some articles in a bullet format instead of long, drawn-out articles

• Focus on articles that discuss/highlight success stories and lessons learned

Website• Suggestions for improvement

- Need to better illustrate/demonstrate the connection to DHS

- Add links to other federal training partners and other sites of interest

- Provide individual gateways for specific disciplines

- Sell the website to SAA and associations/organizations

- Provide a listing of the current Advisory Board members from each association/organization

- Ensure graphics and imagery references all disciplines

Social Media• Breakout group members questioned its credibility, but

acknowledged that it would be cost and time efficient

Advertising• Suggestions on where to advertise:

- Public Service Announcements (free way to advertise)

- Education and trainers associations/organizations

Conferences and Events• Breakout group participants suggested that more state level

conferences and events be attended by the RDPC

17

Additional Ideas and/or Suggestions• Utilize local business groups, such as the Chambers of

Commerce

• Work with the National Association of Counties (NACo)

• Redesign of brochures to highlight what RDPC is and that the training is free

• Entry into the state has to be through the SAA; they need to see that the TCL, lesson plans, and learning objectives tie-in to comprehensive state training plans

• Work directly with association and organizations



Newsletter• Only half of the breakout group was familiar with the

newsletter

• Suggestions to improve:

- Send newsletter to state and county emergency managers, SAAs, and Advisory Board members to allow them to forward out to additional individuals and agencies

- Consider developing articles on lessons learned and best practices and how RDPC courses can impact the outcome

- Give students the option of either receiving a hard copy or online version (sometimes there is an advantage to receiving the newsletter in hard copy format so it can be given to others)

Website• Suggestions to improve:

- Add links to each state emergency management website

- Follow up with each SAA to have RDPC link placed on their website

- Follow up with state police/highway patrol agencies to

have RDPC link placed on their website

- Add information on class locations with student minimum and maximum numbers

- Add links to relevant professional associations and organizations

- Add dynamic front page to that changes with each login and features different emergency responder disciplines

Social Media• Post information on JEMS Connect

• EMS 1 and EMS United have blogs as well

Advertising• Suggest redesign of the RDPC logo (“looks like a dairy farm

logo”)

• Need to improve the RDPC brand recognition, which can be done via networking and word of mouth

Conferences and Events• Suggest offering conference length version of training

courses, which will help to expose attendees to course quality

• Attend conference of state DHS Points of Contact (POC)

• Examine the ability of the RDPC sponsoring its own conference

Additional Ideas and/or Suggestions• Realty based video training should be a consideration;

this would allow the capturing of current incidents, which would demonstrate the need for and benefits of training

• Consider developing a press package for small regional conferences.

• Work with local Chambers of Commerce, especially for courses like MGT 335

• Work with civic organizations such as the Rotary Club to help host courses

• Identify and work with state associations such as the Arizona Emergency Services Association (AESA)



Newsletter• Multi-discipline focus of the newsletter is beneficial

• Breakout group members would be willing to contribute articles

Website• Ensure that RDPC link is in all Advisory Board association

websites

• Ensure that RDPC link is on all SAAs websites

Social Media• Due to the continued growth and acceptance of social

media outlets, RDPC should take part when/where appropriate

18

• If social media outlets are going to be used, RDPC must keep them up to date or they will go stale

Advertising• Putting ads in discipline specific publications is a good

idea; however, the cost/benefit analysis should dictate action

Conferences and Events• Homeland Security Advisors meet annually, but SAAs do

not, so it may be difficult to get to all SAAs at one time

• National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT) and National Association of Emergency Medical Services Educators (NAEMSE) conferences would be good to attend next year when more EMS related courses are approved

• National Association of Emergency Dispatchers (NAED) would be a good one to attend in the future when the interoperability/communications course is approved

• Suggest attending the Fire Department Instructor Conference (FDIC) as well

• Trying to schedule deliveries in conjunction with conferences is a good idea

5.2.5 Marketing and Outreach Breakout Session Synthesis

This section provides a synthesis of the information across all four marketing and outreach breakout groups. The text below identifies the common threads through breakout groups.

NewsletterWithin the discussion on the newsletter, the following


1. In two of the four breakout groups, only half had prior knowledge of the newsletter.

2. Develop articles that focus on lessons learned and best practices.

3. Better highlight RDPC courses in the articles. For example, illustrate how RDPC training could impact the result, if possible, within a lessons learned and/or best practices article.

WebsiteWithin the discussion on the website, the following comments

were consistent across all four breakout groups:

1. Incorporate a dynamic homepage that changes with each visit. Or, at least, make the graphics representative of all responder disciplines.

2. Incorporate the following links: SAA website for each state, other federal training providers, and RDPC Advisory Board member associations/organizations.

Social NetworkingWithin the discussion on social networking, the following


1. Three of the four breakout groups commented favorably on the use of social media. The fourth group questioned it credibility, but also acknowledged its efficiency.

2. All groups cautioned that if social media is utilized, it must be keep up to date.

19

AdvertisingWithin the discussion on advertising, the following comments

were consistent across all four breakout groups:

1. Place advertisements on the websites of relevant profes-sional associations and organizations.

2. Place advertisements in select publications, such as Journal of Emergency Medical Services (JEMS).

3. Ensure to review cost/benefit of placing an ad prior to action. Also, determine if an article would be more beneficial than an advertisement.

Conferences and EventsWithin the discussion on conferences and events, the following


1. Attend more state and local conferences and events where appropriate and relevant.

2. Attend meetings of State Homeland Security Advisors and SAAs.

Additional Ideas and SuggestionsWithin the discussion on marketing and outreach, the

following general comments were consistent across all four breakout groups:

1. Work with local Chambers of Commerce, especially in the delivery of MGT 335.

2. Identify and work with state level association and organizations, such as the Arizona Emergency Services Association (AESA).

5.3 Course Concepts Breakout SessionThe Course Concepts Breakout Session had three specific

objectives as detailed in the 2010 National Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit Facilitation Plan:

1. Brainstorm a list of the most critical, multi-discipline, and all-hazard training needs within the rural response community.

2. Refine list of critical training needs (remove duplicates, combine like items, etc.).

3. Vote on refined list to identify the ten most critical training needs.

As noted above, a structured group dialogue was utilized to keep group discussions on topic and to reduce sidebar discussions. In addition, visual reminders were placed within each breakout room to help guide the breakout session partic-ipants in their discussions.

Due to time limitations, however, the structure and objectives of the Course Concepts Breakout Session were alerted by the Summit team. The breakout groups were subsequently instructed to develop five course concepts, in no particular order, that the RDPC should consider developing into full courses. Figure 5.1 below provides the specific course concepts developed by each breakout group. The results of the Course Concepts Breakout Session will be reference by the RDPC in the devel-opment of future courses.

Table 5.1 Course Concepts

20

6.0 Summit Review

Following the conclusion of the Summit, the Summit team reflected on the proceedings and outcomes of the Summit and noted best practices and area for improvement that can be incor-porated into future Summits. The sections that follow discuss these thoughts concerning the 2010 Summit.

6.1 Best PracticesFor the previous two Summits, Advisory Board members were

invited to attend the Summit as well as a rural representative they identified from their membership. The 2010 Summit, however, included the previously mentioned individuals as well as SAAs and representatives of the NDPC. Overall, it was determined that these additions to the Summit were very beneficial especially considering the topics covered during this Summit (i.e. training delivery and marketing and outreach). Further, including repre-sentatives from the NDPC and providing a tour and explosion demonstration at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC), which is a member of the NDPC, illustrated the level of partnership with other federal training partners and that RDPC does not operate in a vacuum. Lastly, having all academic partners assisting with various aspects of the Summit provided the necessary assistance in making the Summit a success.

6.2 Lessons LearnedDespite how successful a venture may be, there are always areas

for improvement. While the Summit was definitely a success, there were areas that can be improved for future Summits, both large and small. For example, the on-site registration process at the Summit was complicated by a sign-in sheet that had all attendees categorized by affiliation (i.e. practitioner, Advisory Board, NDPC, etc.). The registration process would operate more efficiently if the sign-in sheet simply listed all attendees alphabetically. Further, due to the amount of information covered during the Summit, many agenda items were pressed for time. RDPC will utilize the experiences from the past Summit to help determine what changes will be instituted for future Summits (i.e. extension to two full days, heavier reliance on read-ahead materials to reduce the time needed for overview/review of RDPC and accomplishments). Lastly, it was noted that the RDPC should keep the Advisory Board constantly informed throughout the year via multiple mechanisms instead of a reliance on in-person meetings.

6.3 Summit Attendee SurveyIn addition to the best practices and lessons learned discussed

in the previous section, the RDPC also provided the Advisory Board members, practitioners, and SAAs who attended the Summit an opportunity to provide feedback via an online survey (n=36). The survey consisted of ten questions ranging from fixed response to open-end and Likert scale questions. The link to the survey was provided to the attendees on April 27, 2010 via e-mail. Please see Appendix D for a copy of the survey instrument.

As of May 10, 2010, 13 attendees have responded to the survey, resulting in a 36.1% response rate. The following tables and figures provide the results of each question.

Figure 6.1 Question 1. The materials you received before the Summit assisted you in fully preparing for the Summit. (n=13)

STR

ON

GLY

AG

REE

AGR

EE

NEI

THER

AG

REE

OR

DIS

AGR

EE

DIS

AGR

EE

STR

ON

GLY

DIS

AGR

EE

62%

31%

0%

8%

0%

21

EXC

ELLE

NT

AB

OVE

AVE

RAG

E

AVER

AGE

BEL

OW

AVE

RAG

E

POO

R

54%

23%

0% 0%

23%

EXC

ELLE

NT

AB

OVE

AVE

RAG

E

AVER

AGE

BEL

OW

AVE

RAG

E

POO

R

23%

62%

0% 0%

15%

Figure 6.3 Question 3. How would you rate the location (city and state) of the Summit as compared to similar events you have attended? (n=13)

Figure 6.2 Question 2. How would you rate the materials, both received prior to and during the Summit, as compared to similar events you have attended? (=13)

EXC

ELLE

NT

AB

OVE

AVE

RAG

E

AVER

AGE

BEL

OW

AVE

RAG

E

POO

R

31%

54%

0% 0%

15%

Figure 6.4 Question 4. How would you rate the Summit facilities (hotel rooms, meeting rooms, food, etc.) as compared to similar events you have attended? (n=13)

MO

RE

TIM

EN

EED

ED

APP

ROPR

IATE

LEN

GTH

LESS

TIM

EN

EED

ED

46%

54%

Figure 6.5 Question 5. How would you rate the length of the Summit (1.5 days)? (n=13)

0%

22

YES

NO

38%

62%

Figure 6.6 Question 6. Do you feel there was a sufficient amount of time allocated to cover the content in the individual breakout sessions? (n=13)

YES

NO

85%

15%

Figure 6.7 Question 7. Were there any topics not discussed during the Summit that you would have liked to have seen covered? (n=13)

EXC

ELLE

NT

AB

OVE

AVE

RAG

E

AVER

AGE

BEL

OW

AVE

RAG

E

POO

R

62%

23%

0% 0%

15%

Figure 6.8 Question 8. Overall, how would you rate the Summit as compared to similar events you have attended? (=13)

• TwodayformatwouldallowforahalfdayfortheAdvisoryBoardtomeetandsavemoneybynothavingaseparateface-to-faceAdvisoryBoardmeeting.

• Moretimespentdiscussingissues.

• Contentseemedrushed.Twofulldayswouldhavebeenbettertospendmoretimeonimportantissues.Also,wouldhaveincludedapanelofstatetrainingpointsofcontacttoexplaintothelocaljurisdictionswhatthegeneralprocessisforrequestingtraining.Manyattendeeshadnoideawhatprogramswereavailabletothemthroughfederalfunding.ManyoftheconcernsbroughtupduringthebreakoutgroupscouldhavebeenaddressedbythestatePOCs.Instead,sometopicswerebeingbroughtupas“potentialsolutions”thatmaycontradictastate’sprocessforgrantfundedtraining.

• Ithinkweareinaperiodoftransitionwhereweneedtoemphasizedeliveryofcurrentcoursesandtraining.Understandingthatthevettingprocessis18months,itwouldbebeneficialtobeputtingoutmoreinformationaboutthecurrentcourses.Havedonemuchlocalmarketing,buttheRDPC“brand”isstillrelativelynewandnotwellknown.

Table 6.9 Question 9. Please share any suggested improvements for future Summits.

23

24

Appendix A: Summit Agenda

A. LOGISTICSDate: April6&7,2010

Time: Tuesday-April6,8:00am-5:00pm

Wednesday-April7,8:00am-11:30am

Locations: On-Site:ISLETAHotel,Albuquerque,NM

B. AGENDA - TUESDAY, APRIL 68:00am-8:30am ContinentalBreakfast-SunriseRoom

8:30am-8:40am WelcomeandIntroductions-Dr.PamCollins

8:40am-8:50am RDPCAdvisoryBoardWelcome-Dr.BethanyCummings

8:50am-9:00am WelcomefromNewMexicoSAA/EMA-AndrewPhelps

9:00am-9:10am SummitAdministrativeOverview-TomLindquist

9:10am-9:25amUpdatefromDHS/FEMA-CarolMintz

9:25am-9:45am RDPCOverviewand09Accomplishments-RyanBaggett

9:45am-10:05am TrainingDeliveryUpdates-AmyHughes

10:05am-10:20am Break

10:20am-11:15am PartnersUpdates

EKU-TomLindquist

CRD-RobKennedy

ETSU-DaveLawrence

TUF-LauraHoehne

ICCC-MikeBurke

NCCU-ChrisHerring

NWACC-EthanBeckham

11:15am-11:35 MarketingandOutreach-JoBrosius

11:35am-Noon ResearchandEvaluation-BrianSimpkins

Noon-12:15pm Break

12:15pm-1:15pm Lunch-KeynoteSpeakers-NinaTsethlikia,ClybertZunie,JoeBaca(RioGrandeRoom)

1:15pm-1:30pm Break

1:30pm-1:45pm BreakoutGroupOrientation

1:45pm-4:15pm BreakoutGroups

4:15pm-5:00pm DayOneReportOut-SunriseRoom

5:00pm Adjournforday

5:00pm-6:00pm RDPCAdvisoryBroadMeeting-ClosedMeetingforAdvisoryBoardMembersand AcademicPartnersOnly

C. AGENDA - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 78am-8:30am ContinentalBreakfast-SunriseRoom

8:30am-9:00am DayOneRecapandDayTwoPlan

9:00am-11:00am BreakoutGroups

11:00am-11:30am Wrap-up-SunriseRoom

11:30am Adjourn

12:00pm OptionaltriptoNewMexicoTech

25

Last Name First Name Organization / Agency Title City State

Aplan Art LawEnforcementTraining,DivisionofCriminalInvestigation AdvancedTrainingCoordinator Pierre SD

Baca Joe NewMexicoDepartmentofHealth NativeAmericanPlanner SantaFe NM

Bell Leon WishardHospital/IndianaUniversity ProgramDirector/SectionChief Indianapolis IN

Binning Aimee NationalAssociationofEmergencyMedicalTechnicians Director Pinedale WY

Chavarria Regis NewMexicoDepartmentofPublicSafety StaffInstructor SantaFe NM

Eaton Gary KitteryPoliceDepartment Sergeant Kittery ME

Fleener Luke WebsterCountySheriffs’Office ChiefDeputy FortDodge IA

Gleason Jeff LSUFireandEmergencyTrainingInstitute Director BatonRouge LA

Jones KC MuskingumCountySheriff’sOffice Detective Zanesville OH

Kanewischer Trevor WasecaCountySheriff’sOffice Investigator Waseca MN

Lashbrook Mike MasonCityPoliceDepartment Chief MasonCity IA

Loftus Jason AccomackCountyDepartmentofPublicSafety Director Tasley VA

Reinert Aaron LakesRegionEMS ExecutiveDirector NorthBranch MN

Seedorf Ron ColoradoRuralHealthCenter EmergencyPreparednessManager Aurora CO

Tsethlikia Nina MedicalReserveCorp. RegisteredNurse

Zumwalt Kevin UniversityofMissouriFire&RescueInstitute AssistantDirector Columbia MO

Zunia Clybert TribalNations EmergencyManager Gallup NM

PRACTITIONERS

Appendix B: Summit Attendee List

26


Cummings Bethany Junction VA

Elson Wes FraternalOrderofPolice Zanesville OH

Jones KCNationalAssociationofEmergencyMedicalTechnicians

Harrison AR

L'Heureux Pamela WaterboroOfficeofEmergencyManagement Director EastWaterboro ME

Loftus Bob NationalAssociationofEMSEducators Director Marion IL

McGee Kevin PrinceWilliamCountyFireDepartment Chief PrinceWilliam VA

Miles-Harrell Norajean NationalAssociationofStateEMSOfficials LicensureAdministrator LittleRock AR

McGovern Kenneth DouglasCountySheriffs'Office Sheriff Lawrence KS

Minear BillWestVirginiaNationalGuard,JointInteragencyTrainingandEducationCenter

DeputyDirector,CriticalInfrastructureProtectionPrograms

Charleston WV

Novak Randy IowaFireServiceTrainingBureau BureauChief Ames IA

Romero Dr.Van NewMexicoTechUniversity VicePresidentforResearch Socorro NM

Wingrove Gary MayoMedicalTransportGovernmentRelationsandStrategicAffairs

Buffalo MN

RDPC ADVISORY BOARD

27

Appendix B: Summit Attendee List


Anderson XavierNewMexicoDepartmentofHomelandSecurityandEmergencyManagement

CitizenCorpsCoordinator SantaFe NM

Ball Tom MississippiStateExtensionService GovernmentalTrainingOfficer Biloxi MS

Dirickson John ArizonaDivisionofEmergencyManagement Director Phoenix AZ

Kopcik Ron ArizonaDivisionofEmergencyManagement TrainingCoordinator Phoenix AZ

Parker Cliff NewYorkOfficeofHomelandSecurity TrainingCoordinator Albany NY

Pettingill Kerry OklahomaOfficeofHomelandSecurity Director OklahomaCity OK

Puerner SarahAlaskaDivisionofHomelandSecurityandEmergencyManagement

TrainingSpecialist FortRichardson AK

Reuter Cregg WisconsinEmergencyManagementDivision ExerciseTrainingOfficer Madison WI

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES


Cannon Chad FederalEmergencyManagementAgency TrainingManager,RegionVI Denton TX

Mintz Carol U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity ProgramManager Washington DC

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

28


Chisholm Bruce CounterTerrorismOperationsSupport CurriculumDeliveryManager NorthLasVegas NV

Fernandez Jim LouisianaStateUniversityExecutiveDirector,NationalCenterforSecurityResearchandTraining

BatonRouge LA

Jones Chris CenterforDomesticPreparedness Superintendent Anniston AL

May Bill TexasEngineeringExtensionService CollegeStation TX

NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM (NDPC)


Baggett Ryan EasternKentuckyUniversity Director,HLSPrograms Richmond KY

Beckcom Ethan NorthwestArkansasCommunityCollege CourseDeveloper Bentonville AR

Brosius Jo EasternKentuckyUniversity DirectorofCommunications Richmond KY

Burke Michael IowaCentralCommunityCollege Director,HomelandSecurityTrainingCenter FortDodge IA

Collins Pamela EasternKentuckyUniversity PrincipalInvestigator Richmond KY

Herring Chris NorthCarolinaCentralUniversityDirector,InstituteforHomelandSecurityandWorkforceDevelopment

Durham NC

Hoehne Laura TheUniversityofFindlay ProjectManager Findlay OH

Hughes Amy EasternKentuckyUniversity AssociateDirector,TrainingDeliveryandOperations Richmond KY

Kennedy Rob TheCenterforRuralDevelopment DirectorofHomelandSecurityTraining Somerset KY

Lawrence Dave EastTennesseeStateUniversity ProjectDirector JohnsonCity TN

Lindquist Tom EasternKentuckyUniversity AssociateDirector,Consortium Richmond KY

Simpkins Brian EasternKentuckyUniversity AssociateDirector,ResearchandEvaluation Richmond KY

RURAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM (RDPC)

29

Appendix C: Breakout Groups

Group 1 Sunshine Room

Facilitator:Ryan Baggett

Note Taker:Rob Kennedy

Group 2 Bosque Room

Facilitator:Dr. Pam Collins (Day 1), Brian Simpkins (Day 2)

Note Takers: Ethan Beckcom, Mike Burke

Group 3 Boardroom

Facilitator:Tom Lindquist

Note Takers:Dave Lawrence,Chris Herring

Group 4 Manzano Room

Facilitator: Amy Hughes

Note Takers: Laura Hoehne, Brian Simpkins (Day 1)

PamelaL’Heureux,Director

WaterboroOfficeofEmergencyManagement

EastWaterboro,ME

Sgt.GaryEaton

KitteryPoliceDepartment

Kittery,ME

ClybertZunie

EmergencyManager

Gallup,NM

LeonBellProgramDirector/SectionChief

WishardHospital/IndianaUniversity

Indianapolis,IN

Dr.BethanyCummings,Director

WinchesterFire&Rescue

POBox340

Junction,VA22625

KCJones

NationalAssociationofEmergencyMedicalTechnicians

429SkylineDrive

Harrison,AR72601

RobertLoftus,Director

NationalAssociationofEMSEducators

Marion,IL

GaryWingrove

MayoMedicalTransport

Buffalo,MN

AarronReinert,ExecutiveDirector

LakesRegionEMS

NorthBranch,MN

NinaTsethlikia,ServiceCoordinator

AmeriGroup

NorajeanMiles-Harrell

ArkansasDepartmentofHealthSectionofEMSandTraumaSystems

LittleRock,AR

AimeeBinning,Director

NationalAssociationofEmergencyMedicalTechnicians

Pinedale,WY

ChiefKevinMcGee

PrinceWilliamCountyFireDepartment

PrinceWilliam,VA

JeffGleason,Director

LSUFireandEmergencyTrainingInstitute

BatonRouge,LA

JasonLoftus,Director

AccomackCountyDepartmentofPublicSafety

Tasley,VA

RandalE.Novak,BureauChief

IowaFireServiceTrainingBureau

Ames,IA

KevinZumwalt,AssistantDirector

UniversityofMissouriFire&RescueInstitute

Columbia,MO

Emergency Management

Emergency Medical Services

Fire Services

30

Group 1 Sunshine Room

Facilitator:Ryan Baggett

Note Taker:Rob Kennedy

Group 2 Bosque Room

Facilitator:Dr. Pam Collins (Day 1), Brian Simpkins (Day 2)

Note Takers: Ethan Beckcom, Mike Burke

Group 3 Boardroom

Facilitator:Tom Lindquist

Note Takers:Dave Lawrence,Chris Herring

Group 4 Manzano Room

Facilitator: Amy Hughes

Note Takers: Laura Hoehne, Brian Simpkins (Day 1)

William(Bill)MinearDeputyDirector,CIPPrograms

WVNGMilitaryAuthority,JITEC

Charleston,WV

TomBall

CenterforGovernmentTrainingandTechnology

MSUExtensionService

Starkville,MS

JohnDirickson

ArizonaDivisionofEmergencyManagement

Phoenix,AZ

SarahPuerner,TrainingSpecialist

StateDivisionofHomelandSecurityandEmergencyManagement

FortRichardson,AK

RonKopcik

ArizonaDivisionofEmergencyManagement

Phoenix,AZ

XavierAndersonCitizenCorpsCoordinator

StateDepartmentofHomelandSecurityandEmergencyManagement

SantaFe,NM

CliffParker

StateOfficeofHomelandSecurity

StateOfficeCampusBuilding

Albany,NY

LTCKerryPettingill,Director

StateOfficeofHomelandSecurity

OklahomaCity,OK

CreggReuter

StateEmergencyManagementDivison

Madison,WI

JoeBaca,NativeAmericanPlanner

NewMexicoDepartmentofHealth

SantaFe,NM

RonSeedorf

ColoradoRuralHealthCenter

Aurora,CO

WesElson

FraternalOrderofPolice

Zanesville,OH

KCJones

MuskingumCountySheriff’sOffice

Zanesville,OH

ChiefDeputyLukeFleener

WebsterCountySheriffs’Office

WebsterCounty,IA

SheriffKennethMcGovern

DouglasCountySheriff’sOffice

Lawrence,KS

RegisChavarria,StaffInstructor

NewMexicoDepartmentofPublicSafety

CriticalIncidentResponseTrainingBureau

SantaFe,NM

ChiefMikeLashbrook

MasonCityPoliceDepartment

MasonCity,IA

TrevorKanewisher,Investigator

WasecaCountySheriff’sOffice

Waseca,MN

ArtAplan,AdvancedTrainingCoordinator

LawEnforcementTraining,DivisionofCriminalInvestigation

Pierre,SD

Government

Healthcare / Public Health

Law Enforcement

31

Appendix D: Summit Survey

Dear Summit Attendee,

Thank you for taking time to complete this survey regarding the 2010 RDPC Summit. The feedback you provide will allow RDPC to ensure the value of future Summits.

Please note that your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. There will not be any consequences for refusal to participate, nor will we identify those who refuse to participate. Your willingness to participate, however, will result in highly beneficial information for the RDPC.

If you have any questions regarding the survey, please feel free to contact Erin Kelley at [email protected] or 859-622-6763.

Again, thank you for your time.

32

1. ThematerialsyoureceivedbeforetheSummitassistedyouinfullypreparingfortheSummit.

qStronglyAgree

qAgree

qNeitherAgreeorDisagree

qDisagree

qStronglyDisagree

1a. Ifyouanswered“Disagree”or“StronglyDisagree,”pleaseexplain:

2. Howwouldyouratethematerials,bothreceivedpriortoandduringtheSummit,ascomparedtosimilareventsyouhaveattended?

qExcellent

qAboveAverage

qAverage

qBelowAverage

qPoor

2a. Ifyouanswered“BelowAverage”or“Poor,”pleaseexplain:

3. Howwouldyouratethelocation(cityandstate)oftheSummitascomparedtosimilareventsyouhaveattended?

qExcellent

qAboveAverage

qAverage

qBelowAverage

qPoor


4. HowwouldyouratetheSummitfacilities(hotelrooms,meetingrooms,food,etc.)ascomparedtosimilareventsyouhaveattended?

qExcellent

qAboveAverage

qAverage

qBelowAverage

qPoor


5. HowwouldyouratethelengthoftheSummit(1.5days)?

qMoretimeneeded(i.e.twodays)

qAppropriatelength

qLesstimeneeded(i.e.oneday)

6. Doyoufeeltherewasasufficientamountoftimeallocatedtocoverthecontentintheindividualbreakoutsessions?

qNo

qYes

7. WerethereanytopicsnotdiscussedduringtheSummitthatyouwouldhavelikedtohaveseencovered?

qNo

qYes;pleaselist:

8. Overall,howwouldyouratetheSummitascomparedtosimilareventsyouhaveattended?

qExcellent

qAboveAverage

qAverage

qBelowAverage

qPoor


9. PleaseshareanysuggestedimprovementsforfutureSummits.

10. PleaseshareanyadditionalsuggestionsorcommentsyoumayhaveregardingtheSummit.

Prepare For The Worst, Train To Be The Best

Justice and Safety Center • Eastern Kentucky University • 521 Lancaster Avenue • 50 Stratton Building • Richmond, KY 40475

Phone 859.622.8106 • www.ruraltraining.org

Documents

2010 Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium · 2013-03-07 · constitute product approval or endorsement by NTED or the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC) at Eastern Kentucky