Objective In 2011, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published the Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management: Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action, outlining the need for increased individual preparedness and more widespread community engagement to enhance the overall resiliency and security of communities. However, there is limited evidence of how to build a whole community approach to emergency management that provides real-world, practical examples and applications. This article reports on the strategies and best practices gleaned from seven community programs fostering a whole community approach to emergency management. Design The project team engaged in informal conversations with community stakeholders to learn about their programs during routine monitoring activities, site visits, and during an in-person, facilitated workshop. A total of 88 community members associated with the programs examples contributed. Qualitative analysis was conducted. Results The findings highlighted best practices gleaned from the seven programs that other communities can leverage to build and maintain their own whole community programs. The findings from the programs also support and validate the three principles and six strategic themes outlined by FEMA. Conclusions The findings, like the whole community document, highlight the importance of understanding the community, building relationships, empowering action, and fostering social capital to build a whole community approach.
Employing instructional strategies and behavioral theories in preparedness interventions optimizes the potential for individuals to adopt preparedness behaviors. Study findings suggest that stage movement toward household preparedness was not spurious but rather associated with the intervention. Therefore, Ready CDC was successful in moving staff along the continuous process of adopting household disaster preparedness behaviors, thus providing a model for future interventions. The TTM suggests factors such as knowledge, beliefs, and self-efficacy will differ by stage and may differentially predict progression towards behavior adoption. Thus, tailoring interventions based on an individual's stage of change optimizes the potential for individuals to adopt desired behaviors.
This article reports on the design, evaluation framework, and results from the Meta-Leadership Summit for Preparedness Initiative. The Meta-Leadership Summit for Preparedness was a 5-year initiative based on the premise that national preparedness and emergency response is not solely the responsibility of government. From 2006 to 2011, 36 Meta-Leadership Summits were delivered in communities across the country. Summits were customized, 10-hour leadership development, networking, and community action planning events. They included participation from targeted federal, state, local, nonprofit/philanthropic, and private sector leaders who are directly involved in decision making during a major community or state-wide emergency. A total of 4,971 government, nonprofit, and business leaders attended Meta-Leadership Summits; distribution of attendees by sector was balanced. Ninety-three percent of respondents reported the summit was a valuable use of time, 91% reported the overall quality as “good” or “outstanding,” and 91% would recommend the summit to their colleagues. In addition, approximately 6 months after attending a summit, 80% of respondents reported that they had used meta-leadership concepts or principles. Of these, 93% reported that using meta-leadership concepts or principles had made a positive difference for them and their organizations. The Meta-Leadership Summit for Preparedness Initiative was a value-added opportunity for communities, providing the venue for learning the concepts and practice of meta-leadership, multisector collaboration, and resource sharing with the intent of substantively improving preparedness, response, and recovery efforts.
The Centers for Public Health Preparedness (CPHP) program was a five-year cooperative agreement funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The program was initiated in 2004 to strengthen terrorism and emergency preparedness by linking academic expertise to state and local health agency needs. The purposes of the evaluation study were to identify the results achieved by the Centers and inform program planning for future programs. The evaluation was summative and retrospective in its design and focused on the aggregate outcomes of the CPHP program. The evaluation results indicated progress was achieved on program goals related to development of new training products, training members of the public health workforce, and expansion of partnerships between accredited schools of public health and state and local public health departments. Evaluation results, as well as methodological insights gleaned during the planning and conduct of the CPHP evaluation, were used to inform the design of the next iteration of the CPHP Program, the Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers (PERLC).
The “learn by doing” approach to training is common in the public health field and is a core component of service-learning programs. Trainee satisfaction, learning, and application of learning have been studied. What is less understood is the perspective the agencies that host trainees. This study aimed to identify whether and how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Public Health Associate Program (PHAP) adds value to the agencies that host trainees during two-year field assignments. A qualitative exploratory study design consisting of 9 semi-structured telephone interviews with PHAP host agency supervisors was used. Results suggested that PHAP increased host agencies’ capacity by assigning capable trainees to host agencies. Trainees made quality contributions that led to agency and/or community-wide improvements and positively affected the agencies’ culture. Further evaluation of the host perspective is necessary, as coupled with the trainee’s perspective, will provide a more holistic understanding of program value.
Objective The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created the Public Health Associate Program (PHAP) to establish a continuous source of public health professionals who can deliver frontline services at the federal, state, tribal, local, and territorial levels. The article describes preliminary evaluation findings for PHAP. Design The evaluation’s primary purposes are to assess the quality and effectiveness of PHAP, determine its value and impact, and provide information to continuously improve the program. Because the evaluation is both formative and summative and focuses on aggregate outputs and outcomes of PHAP, the methodology is complex and builds over time as different cohorts cycle into and out of the program. Results presented are outcomes of various Web-based surveys and reporting systems. Participants Four PHAP cohorts, consisting of 579 individuals, participated in 1 or more of the evaluation activities described in this article. Results The majority of participants report satisfaction with their PHAP experiences, and 74% of recent graduates indicate they are continuing their careers or education in public health immediately after program completion. Seventy-eight percent of recent PHAP graduates who accept a job in public health are employed by the federal government. One year post-PHAP, 74% of alumni report that PHAP has been influential in their careers. Conclusion CDC’s investment in PHAP has increased the capacity and capabilities of the public health workforce. Results presented are early indicators of program quality, effectiveness, and impact. Today’s public health workers are asked to do more with less, in the face of a dynamic array of complex public health challenges. PHAP offers public health agencies assistance in tackling these losses and challenges.
The importance of a competent and prepared national public health workforce, ready to respond to threats to the public's health, has been acknowledged in numerous publications since the 1980s. The Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers (PERLCs) were funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2010 to continue to build upon a decade of focused activities in public health workforce preparedness development initiated under the Centers for Public Health Preparedness program (http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/cphp/). All 14 PERLCs were located within Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) accredited schools of public health. These centers aimed to improve workforce readiness and competence through the development, delivery, and evaluation of targeted learning programs designed to meet specific requirements of state, local, and tribal partners. The PERLCs supported organizational and community readiness locally, regionally, or nationally through the provision of technical consultation and dissemination of specific, practical tools aligned with national preparedness competency frameworks and public health preparedness capabilities. Public health agencies strive to address growing public needs and a continuous stream of current and emerging public health threats. The PERLC network represented a flexible, scalable, and experienced national learning system linking academia with practice. This system improved national health security by enhancing individual, organizational, and community performance through the application of public health science and learning technologies to frontline practice.
Introduction: From 2009 to 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) activated its Incident Management System for a public health emergency 91 percent of the time. The CDC must ensure its workforce is prepared for the evolving nature of emergencies.Objectives: The purpose of this assessment was to identify perceived preparedness and response training needs for the CDC responder workforce.Methods: Between November 2012 and January 2013, focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted with CDC responders, including senior leaders. The evaluation questions were: (1) How well does the current training system prepare CDC staff to respond to emergency events? (2) What gaps exist in the current training system? and (3) What trainings are essential and should be included in the training system?Results: Eight focus groups were conducted with 51 responders and 18 interviews with response leaders. Themes were identified for each main outcome measure and translated to training improvements.Conclusions: The CDC workforce received foundational training. Recommendations are provided to better prepare responders during an emergency. Periodic assessments are necessary to expand training and remain responsive to the complexities of emerging threats.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.