About the Survey

Why we did the survey

The past two years have been historic for institutions of higher education (IHEs) across the country. The COVID-19 pandemic has tested IHEs in ways we are still trying to understand. We have an opportunity to capture key learnings and continue advancing our shared mission of cultivating disaster resilience on our campuses.

We can build on the 2016 National Emergency Management Needs Assessment. The 2016 survey, done in partnership with the National Center for Campus Public Safety and our professional association partners, is now six years old. Now is a good time to resurvey practitioners and develop a cornerstone for future DRU activities.

The DRU is in a unique position to highlight shared issues around IHE emergency management, risk, and resilience. The DRU can evolve its core competencies to advance interdisciplinary partnership and disaster resilience in IHEs. Information from surveys such as this one can inform when and how DRU moves to the next level.

Survey Overview

Survey metadata

388 Total Respondents

48 Total Questions

76 Days (May 9-July 23, 2022)

Our Sponsors

University of Oregon Safety and Risk Services

iAEM USA Council Universities & Colleges Caucus

University Risk Management and Insurance Association

About the Survey Respondents

Total Student Enrollment

Student enrollment	Percentage of respondents
50,000 or more	8%
25,000-49,999	15%
15,000-24,999	14%
5,000-14,999	29%
2,000-4,999	19%
<2,000	15%

Highest Degree Offered

Degree Type	Percentage of respondents
Doctoral Degree	62%
Master's Degree	16%
Bachelor's Degree	7%
Associate Degree	13%
Other (e.g. professional certificate, GED, etc.)	2%

Total Faculty and Staff

Number of Faculty and Staff	Percentage of Respondents
7,500-9,999 or more	16%
5,000-7,499	5%
3,000-4,999	13%
2,000-2,999	14%
1,000-1,999	11%
400-999	24%
100-399	16%
<100	1%

Geographic Distribution

• Oregon - 19
• California - 17
• Texas - 14
• Illinois - 13
• Kansas - 9
• Florida - 8
• New York - 8
• North Carolina - 8
• Washington - 8
• Ohio - 6

• Tennessee - 5
• Wisconsin - 5
• Indiana - 4
• Iowa - 4
• Massachusetts - 4
• Nebraska - 4
• Arizona - 3
• Georgia - 3
• Maryland - 3
• Montana - 3
• Oklahoma - 3
• Pennsylvania - 3
• Vermont - 3
• Virginia - 3

• Alabama - 2
• Arkansas - 2
• Louisiana - 2
• Minnesota - 2
• Missouri - 2
• Nevada - 2
• New Jersey - 2
• Utah - 2
• Colorado - 1
• Hawaii - 1
• Maine - 1
• Michigan - 1
• North Dakota - 1
• Rhode Island - 1
• South Carolina - 1
• South Dakota - 1

Additional information on our respondents

• 61% are public institutions
• 17% have a medical center and/or teaching hospital
• 51% are R1
• 21% are R2
• 28% are R3
• 83% are residential institutions

Back to Top

Key Takeaways

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Programs

Key Data

55% of respondents’ have ERM Programs and of those who have ERM Programs:

• 49% do not know what ERM framework they utilize
• 35% report to the VP/CFO
• 47% have more than 1.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) dedicated to ERM
• 31% of respondents’ do not have an ERM program, but many maintain key ERM program elements

Insights

Respondents mentioned the following tasks to enhance their ERM program:

• Enhance risk training and education
• Utilize Risk Appetite, Risk Tolerance, and Key Risk Indicators
• Enhance current ERM processes
• Obtain leadership buy-in and participation

Emergency Management and Continuity of Operations Plans

Key Data

• 30% of respondents’ Emergency Management functions reside in the Public Safety Department
• 82% of respondents have Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs)
• 87% of respondents said they have Incident Management Teams (IMT)

Insights

Respondents Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP), Disaster Recovery Plans, and IMT Teams all had the same top 2 needs:

1. Plan Maintenance and Support
2. Training and Exercises

Leadership Response to COVID-19

Key Data

• 53% of respondents’ COVID Response leaders reported directly to the President/Chancellor
• 20% of respondents’ Emergency Management departments managed COVID response
• 14% of respondents’ noted that they did not have a Pandemic/disease plan

Insights

Respondents mentioned the following lessons from the COVID pandemic:

• Planning and ERM are needed
• Collaboration is necessary
• Communication is critical
• Assign roles and responsibilities

Back to Top

Key Theme and Findings: Enterprise Risk Management Programs

Key Takeaway

While most institutions have ERM programs, institutions leverage a variety of ERM frameworks, governance structures, and staffing levels.

ERM Program Age

Age of Program	Percentage
5+ years	46%
3-5 years	28%
1-2 years	10%
< 1 year	7%
Don't Know	9%

ERM Framework

Framework	Percentage
COSO	5%
ISO31000	7%
Other	16%
Hybrid	23%
Unsure/Don't Know	49%

Who ERM Reports to:

Who	Percentage
VP/CFO	33%
Other	21%
CRO	17%
President/Chancellor	16%
Board of Trustees	11%
Don't Know	1%
Provost	1%

FTEs per ERM Program

Amount of FTE	Number of People
0, 0.75	9
0.75, 1.5	31
1.5,2.25	20
2.25, 3	5
>3	11

67% of institutions that offer Doctoral Degrees have ERM Programs

77% of Institutions that have R1 or R2 classifications have ERM Programs

56% of public institutions have ERM programs

Key Takeaway

In institutions that do not have ERM programs, they do have some common ERM program elements.

ERM elements in institutions without ERM programs

ERM Element	Percentage
Other	.79%
Clearly defined roles and responsibilities	9.13%
Monitoring and call to action	11.11%
Enterprise response and mitigation	12.30%
Information and communication	20.24%
Risk assessments and categorization	22.22%
Identification of risks and opportunities	24.21%

Enterprise Risk Management Challenges and Projects

Key Challenges

• Difficulty obtaining buy-in or participation
• Lack of unified philosophy about risk
• Lack of funding
• Difficulty obtaining qualified staff
• Tying ERM to strategy and budget allocation

Key Projects

• Risk training and education
• Utilizing Risk Appetite, Risk Tolerance, and Key Risk Indicators
• Enhancing ERM processes
• Obtaining buy-in and participation

Back to Top

Key Theme and Findings: Campus Emergency Management

Campus Emergency Management Reporting Structure

Almost half of the IHEs respondents report that emergency management reports to campus police and public safety departments.

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

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

Common EM Program Elements

Most respondents have EOPs, crisis communication plans, hazard assessment plans, and leadership succession plans.

About half have a COOP and natural hazard mitigation plans; fewer have EM strategic plans, recovery plans, or training plans.

Institutional EM Program Plan Components

Component	Percentage
EOP	82.6%
Crisis Communication Plan	71.8%
Hazard identification/risk assessment	71.2%
Leadership succession plan	52.5%
COOP	51.5%
Natural hazard mitigation plan	50.5%
EM strategic plan	47.3%
Recovery plan	42.1%
Training and exercising plan	41.1%

COOP Plan Needs

Planning and training are top needs for IHEs' continuity of operations plans, especially for academic instruction continuity plans, business continuity plans, and IT/data continuity plans.

Areas of Improvement for Continuity of Operations Plans

	Planning	Connection to Sr. Leadership	Training and Exercises	Resource Information	Policy	Best Practices/ Samples	Financial Support
Executive Succession Plan	18%	17%	17%	9%	14%	15%	9%
Academic Instruction Continuity Plan	22%	14%	18%	9%	13%	15%	9%
Business Continuity Plan	21%	15%	18%	9%	13%	14%	11%
Research Continuity Plan	19%	15%	16%	11%	14%	16%	10%
IT/Data Continuity Plan	18%	13%	19%	10%	12%	14%	13%

Disaster Recovery Plan Needs

IHEs told us they have a variety of competing needs for making their disaster recovery plans successful.

Operational/Facilities Recovery Plan Needs

Needs	Percentage
Training and Exercises	20%
Planning	19%
Best Practices/Samples	14%
Connection to Senior Leadership	13%
Policy	13%
Financial Support	12%
Resource Information/Publications	9%

IT/Data Recovery Plans Needs

Needs	Percentage
Training and Exercises	20%
Planning	18%
Financial Support	15%
Best Practices/Samples	13%
Policy	12%
Connection to Senior Leadership	12%
Resource Information/Publications	10%

IMTs and Crisis Response Teams

About 11% of respondents said they did not have IMTs and Crisis Response Teams. The most popular need for success: Training.

Does your EM program have IMT Team?

• 87% Yes
• 11% No
• 2% Don’t Know

Top IMT Needs

• Training/Exercises
• Plan Maintenance/Support
• Staffing
• Funding

Back to Top

Key Theme and Findings: Dispersed COVID-19 Pandemic Leadership

Dispersed COVID Leadership

Leadership approaches varied during the COVID-19 pandemic, but challenges and lessons learned were more consistent.

Who did/does the institutional COVID-19 response leader primarily report to on your campus?

Who	Percentage
President/Chancellor	53%
VP/CFO	14%
VP Administration	10%
Other	10%
Board of Trustees/Regents	9%
Provost	3%
Don't Know	1%

COVID Day-to-Day Response Lead

Only about 1 in 5 respondents said their Emergency Management department handled their IHE’s COVID-19 response.

Department Lead of COVID-19 Response

Department	Percentage
Emergency Management and/or Continuity	19.59%
Other	14.95%
Environmental Health and Safety	12.37%
VP/Chancellor for Admin/CFO	11.86%
VP/Chancellor for Student Life/Affairs	10.82%
Police/Public Safety	7.22%
Risk Management	5.37%
University Health Services	5.67%
Chancellor or President's Office	5.15%
Provost/Academic Affairs	5.15%
Don't Know	1.03%
Enterprise Risk Management	.52%

67% of respondents said their IHEs either hired more employees (33%) or redeployed existing employees (34%) to help with COVID-19 response.

COVID Response Gaps

Lack of a plan, lack of PPE, lack of money, and lack of clarity about who was in charge were the biggest COVID-19 pandemic challenges for the respondents.

What resources did your institution most lack regarding providing an effective emergency response to COVID-19?

Resource	Percentage
Access to COVID vaccine	3.60%
Resource information/publications	3.60%
Connection to senior leadership	4.27%
Connection to public health authorities	4.94%
Emergency Operations Plan	4.94%
Access to COVID testing	8.99%
Awareness of best practices	9.44%
Clarity on who leader is	11.01%
Financial reserves	11.24%
Access to emergency response equipment	11.24%
COOP plan	12.58%
Pandemic/disease plan	14.16%

Challenges and Lessons from COVID

Key Challenges

• Difficulty incorporating remote work/instruction
• Resource shortages/delays
• Difficulty obtaining qualified staff
• Information shortages/delays
• Uncertain/unpredictable/inconsistent mitigation measures/decisions

Key Lessons

• Importance of Planning
• Collaboration is necessary
• Communication is critical
• Leadership duties are important

Back to Top

DRU Opportunities and Recommendations

Key Issues and Opportunities

The survey data and interviews highlight six specific issues and opportunities for IHEs and for the DRU.

1. IHEs want short, accessible training and research. The survey results indicate high demand for training, but interviewees noted that much of what’s available is time-consuming, overly complex, and impractical for busy risk professionals.
2. IHEs need better help creating plans. The survey results suggest that many IHEs lack emergency or risk management plans simply because they don’t have the staff or resources to create them.
3. IHEs want more ways to compare notes. Sharing information is crucial to developing best practices. The survey results and interviews indicate that IHEs need more ways to share what they’re doing.
4. IHEs need help finding and funding qualified people who are excited about risk and emergency management. The survey results suggest IHEs want to do more to manage risk comprehensively but are struggling to fill positions.
5. IHEs want someone to consult with about specific issues. The survey results indicate that emergency management and risk staffs are often small, leaving few internal channels for guidance.
6. IHEs might benefit from more comprehensive guidance about emergency and risk management. Several organizations specialize in specific areas of emergency and risk management.

From the interviewees: “I wish that there was a centralized organization that just focused on emergency management in higher education.”

From the interviewees: “What can we do as the DRU to make sure that there are templates out there, or directions, or sharing best practices in these areas to kind of help some of these schools out…”

Recommendations

Here are six potential things the DRU can do to evolve its core competencies, as well as advance interdisciplinary partnerships and disaster resilience in IHEs.

1. Create and offer short, simple training products. University leaders don’t have the time for three- day classes; DRU could address the demand for more efficient training.
2. Conduct frequent surveys about specific topics and share the findings quickly. This could help quantify and disseminate generally accepted best practices.
3. Create and offer short, simple plan templates, how-to checklists, and easy-to- understand best practices. Offering periodic, perhaps automated nudges could remind participants to stay on track or complete key steps.
4. Provide a safe space for sharing ideas, wins, and problems. Webinars, videos, interviews, panel participation, roundtables, and the current listserv can help peers connect in a more meaningful, productive way about specific, sensitive topics.
5. Become a hub for recruiting and DEI efforts in the emergency and risk management field. Staffing is a significant issue for IHEs, and the DRU could leverage its existing infrastructure to help IHEs find qualified candidates.
6. Become a center for matching subject- matter experts with IHEs. The DRU can provide consultant-like services to IHEs that want help with a specific emergency management issue or topic.

Back to Top

About the Authors

This document was written and prepared by André Le Duc and Amanda Curler.

André is the founder and administrator of the DRU. He is also the Vice President for Safety and Risk Services and Chief Resilience Officer and at the University of Oregon and Director of the Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments.

Amanda is the Associate Director, Enterprise Risk Management at the University of Oregon.

Funding Support

This survey and report were made possible through generous support from Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Download a pdf copy of the report.