About the Survey

Why we did the survey

To Understand

Emergency management is evolving. We have an opportunity to capture key learnings and continue advancing our shared mission of cultivating disaster resilience on our campuses. 

To Build

We can build on the 2016 and 2022 National Emergency Management Needs Assessments. The 2016 and 2022 surveys done in partnership with the National Center for Campus Public Safety and our professional association partners, provide a solid longitudinal base on which to build. Now is a good time to resurvey practitioners and develop a cornerstone for future DRU activities. 

To Adapt

The DRU can evolve its core competencies to advance interdisciplinary partnership and disaster resilience in Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs). Information from surveys such as this one can inform how the DRU can better serve IHEs. 

Survey Overview

Notable Metadata

• 38 Questions
• 23 days (October 15-November 16, 2024)
• 297 respondents

About the Survey Respondents

Highest Degree Offered

Degree Type	Percentage of Respondents
Doctoral Degree	70%
Master's Degree	12%
Associate Degree	11%
Bachelor's Degree	6%
Other (e.g. professional certificate, GED, etc.)	< 1%

Total Student Enrollment

Student Enrollment	Percentage of Respondents
50,000 or more	11%
25,000-49,999	21%
15,000-24,999	18%
5,000-14,999	33%
2,000-4,999	13%
< 2,000	4%

Total Faculty and Staff

Number of Faculty and Staff	Percentage of Respondents
7,500 or more	25%
5,000-7,499	10%
4,499-3,000	10%
2,999-2,000	14%
1,999-1,000	20%
400-999	12%
100-399	9%
< 100	< 1%

Public vs Private

Type of Institution	Percentage of Respondents
Public	67%
Private	33%

Respondent Time in Current Role

Amount of Time	Percentage of Respondents
10+ Years	18%
5-9 Years	27%
3-4 Years	18%
1-2 Years	23%
< 1 Year	15%

Research Status

Institution Research Status	Percentage of Respondents
R1	65%
R2	15%
R3	19%

Geographic Distribution

State or Area	Number of Respondents
Oregon	17
California	17
Texas	13
Massachusetts	12
Illinois	10
Virginia	9
Washington	8
New York	7
Pennsylvania	6
Arizona	5
Non-US	5

State	Number of Respondents
North Carolina	5
Tennessee	5
Kansas	4
Louisiana	4
New Jersey	4
Oklahoma	4
Rhode Island	4
Wisconsin	4
Florida	3
Nebraska	3
New Hampshire	3
Utah	3
Arkansas	2
Indiana	2
Iowa	2

State	Number of Respondents
Maryland	2
Michigan	2
Missouri	2
Colorado	1
Connecticut	1
District of Columbia	1
Idaho	1
Kentucky	1
Minnesota	1
Mississippi	1
Nevada	1
New Mexico	1
North Dakota	1
Ohio	1
South Dakota	1
Vermont	1

 

Additional information about our respondents

• 32% of respondents were from IHEs with medical teaching centers
• 84% had residential campuses
• 34% average proportion of students living on campus

Back to Top

Key Findings

Where Emergency Management Programs Live

Key takeaway: Most (52%) respondents said their emergency management programs are part of public safety or campus police departments, and this trend appears to have increased since 2022. However, many respondents said their EM departments live in other parts of their IHEs. 

Within which department does the emergency management function reside at your institution?

2024 Results

Department	Percentage of Respondents
Public Safety	37%
Police	15%
Environmental Health and Safety	9%
Standalone	10%
Risk Management	10%
Facilities/Operations	6%
Other	5%
Administration	1%
Business Office	2%
Office of Student Life/Affairs	2%
Enterprise Risk Management	3%
Don't Know	0%

2022 Results

Department	Percentage of respondents
Public Safety	30%
Police	12%
Environmental Health and Safety	11%
Standalone	8%
Risk Management	8%
Facilities/Operations	7%
Other	6%
Administration	6%
Business Office	5%
Office of Student Life/Affairs	5%
Enterprise Risk Management	1%
Don't Know	1%

Where Should Emergency Management Live?

Key takeaway: Most respondents (75%) said their emergency management departments are housed in the right place. However, one in four think their emergency management programs should reside in another part of the IHE - most often as standalone entities. 

In your professional opinion, does the emergency management function at your IHE reside in the appropriate department/area?

Yes - 75%

No - 25%

If no, where should the emergency management function reside at your institution?

Where Emergency Management Departments Should Reside According to Respondents	Percentage of Respondents
Standalone Emergency Management and/or Continuity	44%
Administration (Chancellor or President's Office)	14%
Public Safety	11%
Enterprise Risk Management	9%
Police	8%
Other	6%
Environmental Health and Safety	3%
Risk Management	1%
Facilities/Operations	1%
Business Office	1%
Don't Know	2%

Workload Changes in the Last Three Years

Key takeaway: The majority of respondents said their emergency management departments have become responsible for more things in the last three years. Most also said their budgets and staff sizes have either stayed the same or decreased. 

Workload Changes in the Last Three Years

Type of WorkLoad Change	Increased	Not Changed	Decreased	Don't Know
Emergency management program's responsibilities at my IHE	74.5%	22.3%	1.6%	1.6%
Budget for emergency management at my IHE	25.9%	51.4%	16.2%	6.5%
Amount of staff responsible for the emergency management program at my IHE	37.7%	47.8%	13.8%	0.8%

Emergency Management Leadership Roles

Key takaway: Respondents said their emergency management teams most often take the lead when it comes to exercises, policy development, and trainings. However, many respondents also said their emergency management departments either do not lead or do not have a role in climate change planning, international emergency response, planning for survivor assistance, or recovery planning. 

Common Emergency Management Program Elements

Key takeaway: Most emergency management programs include an EOP, a crisis communication plan, THIRA, evacuation plan, and COOP. Since the 2016 survey, the number of IHEs with emergency management strategic plans has decreased. 

Does your institution's emergency management program have the following plans:

Type of Plan	2024 Percent of REspondents	2022 Percent of REspondents	2016 Percent of Respondents
Emergency Operations/Response Plan (EOP)	88%	83%	83%
Crisis Communications Plan	72%	72%	64%
Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment	63%	71%	65%
Evacuation/Shelter Plan	60%	n/a	n/a
Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)	52%	52%	35%
Executive Leadership Succession Plan	50%	53%	n/a
Training and Exercise Plan	49%	41%	45%
Emergency Management Strategic Plan	44%	47%	53%
Disaster Recovery Plan	36%	42%	31%
International Emergency Response Plan	32%	n/a	n/a
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan	28%	n/a	n/a
Survivor Assistance Plan	23%	n/a	n/a
Climate Change/Adaptation Planning	9%	n/a	n/a
Other Plan (Please Specify)	7%	n/a	n/a

Common Emergency Management Program Elements

• 84% have incident management teams (IMTs)
• 86% have emergency operations centers (EOCs)
• 78% have virtual EOCs (VEOCs)
• 2 -median number of full-time employees (average =6.5)

How many people can your EOC accommodate?

Number of People	Percentage of Respondents
21+	41%
11-20	35%
6-10	19%
1-5	5%

Improving IMTs and Crisis Response Teams

Key takeaway: Well over half the respondents said their IMTs need to do more training or improve the quality of their training in order to improve their incident management teams or crisis response teams. Better leadership support, funding, staffing, and technology were also top of mind for many. 

What, if anything, do you need to improve your IMT or crisis response team?

Way to Improve IMT or Crisis Response Team	Percentage of Respondents
More/improved training/exercises	57%
Other	15%
Better/more involved/more support from leadership	9%
More funding	7%
More/improved staffing	6%
Multiple Needs	4%
Better tools/technology	2%

From the Respondents

"More time dedicated to exercises - we're lucky to get four hours at a time a couple times per year." 

"The emergency operations group shows up to exercises and 90% know their roles. It's the senior management group that doesn't fully participate in the exercises, and the policy-level decision-making processes need to be explored before incidents occur. We schedule exercises with leadership to ensure availability, but things come up/the exercise isn't important enough to stay on calendars." 

"The team is well supported, but we would benefit from clear and visible support from the university president encouraging IMT members to continue their participation on the team and to demonstrate his value of the team." 

Common Reasons for Past EOC Activations

Key takeaway: Though many respondents said their IHEs have activated their EOCs for anything they deemed an emergency, many respondents provided more specific information about why they activate their EOCs. Weather and natural hazard events were the most common reasons, as were large or controversial events, protests, and outages. Many respondents said their IHEs activate their EOCs for athletic events and commencement. 

What emergencies/events do you activate your EOC for? (text responses manually categorized by DRU)

Type of Emergency or Event	Percentage of Respondents
Other/Nonspecific/"Any Emergency"	23%
Weather/Fire/Air Quality/Natural Hazards	19%
Any large and/or controversial planned event	15%
Civil Unrest/Protests	11%
Commencement	8%
IT/Utility/Facilities Outages	8%
Athletic Events	7%
Active Threat/Shooter/Intruder	6%
Drills	2%
Monitoring events posing potential threat	1%
Reputational Threats/Media Attention	1%
Bomb Threat/Violence Threat	1%

Pre-disaster Mitigation and Preparedness Plan Needs

Key takeaway: Plan development and help with best practices or sample plans are the largest needs in this area, according to the respondents. 

Emergency Response Program Needs

Key takeaway: Plan updates and training are some of the biggest needs in several of the core areas of response programs. 

Continuity of Operations (COOP) Needs

Key takeaways: Many respondents said plan updates and training are some of the biggest needs in several of the core areas of their COOP programs. Plan development around research enterprise and executive succession were also notable needs. 

Disaster Recovery Plan Needs

Key takeaway: Plan development, training, and plan updates are prominent needs in this area, according to the respondents. 

Emergency Management Standards

Key takeaway: Standards from the National Weather Service and FEMA top the list; EMAP, ISO, and the UCC Crosswalk were the least popular among respondents. 

Does your IHE follow any of these standards?

Standards	number of responses
NWS Storm Ready/Tsunami Ready/Weather Ready	128
FEMA Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101	109
Federal Guide for Developing High Quality EOPs	96
NFPA 1600 Standard	68
NFPA 300 Standard for Active Shooter	51
American Red Cross (ARC) Ready Program	46
NIST Cybersecurity Framework	43
Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP)	35
ISO 22301 Business Continuity	25
ISO 22320 Incident Management	19
UCC Crosswalk	19
Other	5

Awareness of other organizations

Key takeaway: Here are resources that the respondents indicated they used the most as well as some organizations respondents said they were least familiar with. 

Top Challenges

Key takeaway: Respondents said the biggest challenges for emergency management programs are lack of resources/funding or lack of staffing. Low campus awareness or perceived importance of emergency management are also significant challenges for many, as is poor involvement or support from the campus community and executive leaders. Some respondents indicated that insufficient tools and and technology are challenges. 

Top Opportunities

Key takeaway: Respondents see a variety of opportunities for creating more robust emergency management programs. Popular ideas include improving the quality of core functions, as well as finding ways to rebrand and reposition emergency management. Several respondents also see opportunity in doing more work with the external agencies, professional development, and in pursuing external funding. 

Back to Top

Key Takeaways and Recommendations

Key Takeaways

Emergency management programs lack resources. 

Many emergency management programs have taken on more in the last three years but their budgets and staff sizes have largely remained the same or decreased. It's no surprise, then, that survey respondents said their biggest challenge is resources, especially funding, staffing, and technology. Many respondents said their mitigation, continuity, and recovery plans need development or updates, and the number of respondents who said their IHEs have emergency management strategic plans has decreased since 2016. Awareness of best practices or sample plans may be a barrier for many. 

Engagement in trainings and exercises is lagging. 

Many respondents feel that emergency management programs offer inadequate training or exercises. Several mentioned a lack of leadership prioritization in supporting or participating in training designed to help the campus prepare for, mitigate, and recover from emergencies. IHEs have many critical issues that compete for limited resources and attention, but EM programs must look for innovative ways to link, leverage, and align training and exercise programs with day-to-day operations to ensure the most efficient use of limited resources. 

Emergency management is struggling to define itself. 

Many respondents said emergency management programs are searching for ways to raise awareness about their work and the value it adds to campus communities. Many are also seeking ways to define, support, and grow the IHE emergency management profession. Poor involvement or support from the campus community and executive leadership are significant challenges for many in this area. 

Recommendations

Improve understanding of emergency management. 

Campus leaders need to understand better the role of emergency management (EM) functions within institutions of higher education (IHEs), and it is essential to recognize that EM programs vary by IHE size and complexity. IHE leadership must clearly define the purpose and role of their EM programs to ensure alignment with institutional values, priorities, strategies, and mission. There is no one-size-fits-all approach; EM programs can range from focusing solely on emergency preparedness and response to more comprehensive programs that include continuity planning, mitigation, and recovery. It is crucial to understand what IHEs expect from EM programs now and in the future. 

Create and share more plan guidance among IHEs. 

Awareness of best practices or sample plans is a barrier to many IHEs. Creating a centralized, easy-to-access resource of national best practices, plan templates, and plan development tools could help IHEs create and/or update campus plans to prepare for, mitigate, operate during, and recover from emergencies. Templates and examples should be based on the differing sizes and complexity of IHEs rather than a one-size-fits-all solution. There is a need for a diversity of templates and examples. 

Cultivate the emergency management profession. 

Creating more professional development opportunities could grow and strengthen the pipeline of qualified people in the IHE emergency management field, bringing more innovation and resources to IHE emergency management programs. The DRU, IHEs, and other organizations could develop professional certification programs, institution accreditation programs, internship guides, and professional development books or courses. 

Back to Top

About Us

Disaster Resilient Universities^® Overview

Since 2005 the Disaster Resilient Universities^® has served as a simple yet effective peer-to-peer network for university/college practitioners charged with overseeing campus emergency management, environmental health and safety, public safety, organizational resilience, and risk management. 

In 2000, six post-secondary schools participated in the Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Resistant Universities pilot initiative. When funding was cut, several institutions of higher education kept the core concept of the DRU alive. They saw the need for a practical, common-sense approach to disaster prevention on their campuses. In 2005, the University of Oregon started the Disaster Resilient Universities^® (DRU) Network listserv. The listserv quickly became the cornerstone of the DRU Network by providing multidisciplinary, practitioner-based resource and connections. 

The goal of the DRU listserv is simple: facilitate open communication, discussion, and resource-sharing among university and college practitioners responsible for making campuses more disaster resilient. 

The DRU Network does not have an operational budget. Collectively network members partner with each other and with professional associations to develop tools and resources for campuses. The DRU Network continues to seek partnerships with professional associations, campuses, and federal agencies to further the critical work of promoting campus disaster resilience. 

In 2022 the DRU aligned with the Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments (IROCE) at the University of Oregon. IROCE is an applied research institute advancing interdisciplinary research, innovation, and partnerships toward action, making a practical difference in the resilience of organizations, communities, and the environment. 

DRU Advisory Committee Members

• Amina Assefa, Director Emergency Management and Business Continuity, University of California
• Kristina Anderson Froling, Founder, Koshka Foundation for Safe Schools
• Bruce Brown, Associate Vice President, Safety and Business Continuity, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
• Krista Dillon, Chief of Staff and Senior Director of Operations, Safety and Risk Services, University of Oregon
• Leo Howell, Vice President and Chief Information Security Officer, Georgia Tech
• Andre Le Duc, Founder and Administrator of DRU and Vice President and Chief Resilience Officer, University of Oregon
• Anne-Marie McLaughlin, Director of Emergency Management and Continuity, New York University
• Leigh Ann Moffett, Associate Vice President and Chief Risk Officer, Southern Methodist University
• Keith Perry, Associate Director EHS and Emergency Manager, Stanford University
• Bronwyn Roberts, Strategic Director of the U.S. Department of Education's Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center
• Pascal Schuback, Executive Director, Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (CREW)
• Brian Smith, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, University of California San Francisco