1. MWPERLC Needs Assessment Findings
State and Local Respondents

2. Methodology
This survey was designed to better understand the preparedness needs among the stakeholders operating within the Mountain West Preparedness Response and Learning Center’s (MWPERLC) service area:
Arizona
New Mexico
Colorado
Utah
Nevada
Tribal communities located within the borders of these states.
Guidance included:
Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Capabilities List
Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) Capabilities List
In order to provide a framework understood by many of the respondents, the MWPERLC team utilized the Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Capabilities list developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Hospital Preparedness Capabilities list (HPP) developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). These documents provide a common language for preparedness professionals.

3. Question Development Types of Questions in the Survey
Multiple Choice Questions
Text short-answer questions
Given that the MWPERLC’s goal in this project is to develop a robust multijurisdictional network, categories for survey questions were developed to include:
Emergency Preparedness Program Funding
Emergency Preparedness Planning
Statewide Exercise
Multijurisdictional Coordination
Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Hospital Preparedness Program Priorities
Questions in each area were designed to evaluate the capacity, capability, and collaboration efforts undertaken by or with survey participants.
To get the strongest responses possible, the survey relied on both multiple choice questions as well as short-answer text questions. Each of these types of questions provides valuable data that can be measured and analyzed for trends and patterns to give a better picture of the realities of preparedness in the respondent’s agencies.

4. Survey Dissemination
The MWPERLC invited participants from various stakeholder agencies to participate in the Needs Assessment that best fit their profession. These participants included:
Tribal public health emergency preparedness officials
Tribal health departments
State tribal liaisons within the MWPERLC service area
State and local government partners
Federal agencies which work with tribal communities (e.g., Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs)
Preparedness officials at the state and county level
Regional health care coalitions
Emergency management officials within the MWPERLC service area
Public Health professionals who receive information from the MWPERLC listserv (Law Enforcement Personnel, Emergency Medical Technicians, Paramedics, Hospitals, Community Health Centers, Emergency Management)

5. Data Analysis
Data was sorted through Qualtrics, which separated the responses based on the Assessment taken:
State and Local Emergency Preparedness Survey
Tribal Emergency Preparedness Survey
University & College Partners Survey
Public Health Emergency Preparedness Partners Survey

6. Quantitative Analysis
Raw data sorted by individual assessment to find trends to determine:
Highest PHEP and HPP needs for training, planning, exercise support, and technical assistance
Gaps in readiness
Levels of collaboration among systems partners
Additionally, descriptive statistics, including sample size, mean, median, mode, averages, proportions, and total counts for each survey were used to summarize responses to the needs assessment.
Data was used to develop graphs and charts allowing for a comparative analysis among Tribal and State/Local respondents.

7. Qualitative Analysis
Each needs assessment utilized open-ended questions which were an integral part of the assessment as they allowed respondents to provide additional information, context and/or clarification in response to specific questions. These qualitative responses were separated from the multiple-choice questions for further, in-depth analysis using the following approach:
Text responses were sorted into simple categories that were representative of the central theme in each response.
Categories were subsequently added as needed to ensure that all central themes occurring in the responses were identified.
All responses were then mapped to relevant categories and the frequency of each category was calculated.
Results were aggregated and summarized into tables that identified the top 3 to 4 themes.
In general, this qualitative analysis was required for questions that inquired into:
Barriers to effective collaboration
Identifying top PHEP/HPP capabilities
Identifying needs within PHEP/HPP specific areas

8. The Mountain West Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Center (MWPERLC) Service area includes the states of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. Additionally, the service area also includes the tribal communities within each state’s borders.

9. Expertise in Preparedness
The total number of responses for the Tribal Partners Needs Assessment was 15. Since the n-value of all respondents to this survey was low, it was impossible to divide the responses by tribe or region while maintaining survey anonymity. For this reason, all data presented here is aggregate for all responses.
Additionally, respondents were asked to identify their years in their respective position, agency, and field. The average of each was take to provide the following:
Average Years in Position: 6.33
Average Years in Agency: 8.73
Average Years in Field: 16.40

11. Section I: Emergency Preparedness Program Funding

12. What are your sources of funding?

13. What happens if funding ends?
Tribal Responses
Reducing the program
Canceling the PHEP program
Seek out alternative funding sources
State and Local Responses
Apply for other sources of funding
The program/funding responsibility would shift to different program/budget
Interagency Collaboration would address gaps
Preparedness Efforts would cease
The respondents were asked to identify how they would continue their program should funding end. Since each jurisdiction is unique in their approach, this question was open-ended to allow for varied responses. Those responses were then reviewed for common themes and phrases. Whenever there was an answer similar to a previous one, they were both categorized in the same grouping. This analyses allowed the MWPERLC team to identify the general responses to the question listed here.

14. Section II: Emergency Preparedness Planning

15. All-Hazards Emergency Operations Plan
Respondents were asked if their agency had an All-Hazards Emergency Operations Plan. 73% responded that they did, while 13% indicated that they did not, and another 13% reported that they were not sure. Those who said that their agency did have a plan were then asked to indicate how familiar they were with the plan. 91% reported being “very familiar” while 9% reported being “somewhat familiar.”

16. All-Hazards Emergency Operations Plan cont.

17. All-Hazards Emergency Operations Plan
Those respondents who indicated that they were “very familiar” or “somewhat familiar” were also asked how often their agency updated the All-Hazards Emergency Operations Plan. They were given the options of “annually,” “every 2-3 years,” “greater than 3 years,” “semi-annually,” and “not sure.” Their breakdown is provided:
Annually: 50%
Every 2-3 years: 50%

18. Multi-year Training and Exercise Plan
In responding to the question as to whether their agency participated in developing a Multi-year Training and Exercise Plan, 60% indicated in the affirmative, 27% in the negative, and 13% not sure.

19. Multi-year Training and Exercise Plan
Top three priority training areas for
Community Recovery
Community Preparedness
Information and Warning
Medical Countermeasure Dispensing Operations
Continuity of Operations
Public Health Incident Management
Emergency Operations Coordination
Mass Fatality
Information Sharing
Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions
Recovery
Mass Care
Emergency Operation Center
Survey respondents were asked to provide their top three training priorities from their MYTEP for The question was open-ended, allowing respondents to reply as they saw fit. These responses were taken as a group to analyze for common phrasing and concept. The areas presented in this slide provide the most common responses for training. Whenever a training area appears larger indicates that this capability/topic was mentioned by multiple respondents.

20. Section III: Statewide Exercise

21. Are you or Your Agency Participating in a
State-wide Exercise in ?
Participants were asked whether they had a role in an upcoming statewide exercise in
85.37% said that they did, while 12.20% said that they did not. 2.44% reported being not sure.

22. What is your anticipated role?
Statewide Exercise
What is your anticipated role?
Those who indicated that they did have a role were then asked to identify that role from a list provided:
Hosting Agency: 20%
Participating Agency: 74%
Observing Agency: 3%
Other: 3%

23. Capabilities Targeted by Exercise
Statewide Exercise
Capabilities Targeted by Exercise
Respondents who were participating in a statewide exercise were asked which capabilities were targeted by the exercise. Respondents were allowed to select multiple options.
Public Health Emergency Preparedness: 100%
Hospital Preparedness Program: 100%
Joint Commission: 29%
Other: 14%

24. Section IV: Multijurisdictional Coordination

29. Multi-jurisdictional Coordination
In addition to the previous question on collaboration with systems partners, the Needs Assessment asked respondents to evaluate their relationships with tribal communities specifically. 66% reported that there were sufficient opportunities for interaction. 24% reported insufficient opportunities, and 10% indicated that there were just the right amount of opportunities for collaboration.

31. Work to establish communication Collaboration is strong among agencies
Why do you feel there are sufficient or just the right amount of opportunities?
Work to establish communication
Collaboration is strong among agencies
Work together
Partnerships developed
Interaction between agencies
Why do you feel there are insufficient or just the right amount of opportunities?
Infrastructure could be stronger
Lack of staff
Location is a challenge (rural/urban)
Once respondents indicated their opportunities for collaboration with tribal communities, they were then asked to specify why they felt the opportunities were as they reported.
The information provided here is based off of identifying the general themes to their respective responses.

32. Continue to pursue relationships with tribes through
What recommendations do you have to enhance collaboration with tribal partners?
Continue to pursue relationships with tribes through
communication and invitation
Invite them more frequently to events and meetings
Need a better understanding of what’s needed or expected by all partners
Additionally, all respondents were asked to provide recommendations for enhancing collaboration with tribal partners. As in the qualitative data provided previously, the information provided here is based off of identifying general trends and themes in the responses to the question presented.

33. Section V: Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Hospital Preparedness Program Priorities

34. Public Health Emergency Preparedness Priorities
Respondents were asked to identify their top three general PHEP priorities. Based on the results provided in the Needs Assessment, those top three were:
#1: Emergency Operations Coordination
#2. Community Recovery/Information Sharing (tie)
#3 Medical Countermeasure Dispensing
The counts are varied, since each individual respondent was asked to identify 3 distinct priorities.

35. Additionally, participants were asked to identify whether there was a technical assistance, planning, training, or exercise support need for each of the identified Public Health Emergency Preparedness Program priorities. Those areas are listed left-to-right within each capability.

36. Hospital Preparedness Program Priorities
As with the PHEP priorities previously mentioned, respondents were asked to identify their top three HPP priorities. Based on the results provided in the Needs Assessment, those top three were:
#1: Emergency Operations Coordination/Medical Surge (tie)
#2. Information Sharing
#3 Healthcare System Preparedness
The counts are varied, since each individual respondent was asked to identify 3 distinct priorities.

37. Participants were also asked to identify whether there was a technical assistance, planning, training, or exercise support need for each of the identified Hospital Preparedness Program priorities. Those areas are listed left-to-right within each capability.

38. Questions can be directed to:
For additional information and discussion of the findings, please refer to the Needs Assessment Report available on the
MWPERLC Learning Portal
Questions can be directed to:
Brenda Granillo, MS, MEP
Director
MWPERLC
(520)