Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Executive SummaryThe following overview is from the Alberta Emergency Social Services (ESS) Community survey conducted through an online survey via Survey Monkey throughout October and November 2014.
Survey Scope
Survey questions were targeted to Emergency Social/Support Services (ESS) participants and planners in Alberta that have a key role in delivering ESS within their community. For the purpose of this survey, the word "Community" refers to municipalities, First Nations, Reserve and Métis Settlement communities.
This is the first time a province-wide ESS survey has been formally conducted therefore it will serve as the benchmark on municipal and provincial ESS systems, planning and training programs in Alberta to help build a stronger, standardized and integrated ESS support program province-wide.
Individual survey results were kept confidential.
Survey comments were a straight copy and paste from the survey. They were not edited for spelling, punctuation or grammar.
Only a selection of comments were incorporated into this survey. All comments are available in the raw data results.
Some comments from this survey may also be included in the ESSNA newsletter distributed to ESSNA members in early January 2015.
Survey Participants
There were 156 respondents that went through the survey.
53.21% (83 out of 156 possible recipients) completed the survey in entirety.
Distribution was through the ESSNA website and a weblink sent via email to Family & Community Services Association (FCSS) members, Alberta Emergency Management Agency (AEMA) staff and Directors of Emergency Management in Alberta.
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 1 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Executive Summary Results Overview
This survey results overview presents significant highlights only from each of the survey categories. A complete copy of the raw data is in the 88-page summary available on the ESSNA Google shared drive.
Mean Score : Arithmetic average of the set of responses. The mean is calculated by summing all responses and dividing by the number of responses. Possible scores can range from 0 to 10.
Bottom 2 Box Score : The bottom box score represents the percentage of respondents who gave the least in agreement responses (either a 1-Completely Disagree or 2-Disagree on a 1-7 scale). Possible percentage scores can range from 0 to 100.
Top 2 Box Score : The top box score represents the percentage of respondents who gave the most in agreement responses (either a 6-Agree or 7-Completely Agree on a 1-7 scale). Possible percentage scores can range from 0 to 100.
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 2 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
S1 – ESS Within Emergency Management Framework Results Overview
The following highlights are the top three responses for each of the questions in the ESS Within Emergency Management Framework category.
Q1. Community population / sizeThere were 151 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 31.13 % (41 of 151 respondents) – have 1,000 to 4,999 people in the Communityo 21.19 % (36 of 151 respondents) – have 10,000 to 24,999 people in the Communityo 15.89 % (24 of 151 respondents):
Have 0 to 999 people in the Community Have 5,000 to 9,999 people in the Community
Q2. Who’s responsible in Community for DELIVERING ESS?There were 152 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 51.32 % (78 of 152 respondents) – identified FCSS as responsible for ESS delivery in their Community
o 30.26 % (46 of 152 respondents) – identified Community Services as responsible for ESS delivery in their Community
o 29.61 % (45 of 152 respondents) – identified Emergency Management as responsible for ESS delivery in their Community
o Feedback : Some of the other departments or organizations responsible for ESS delivery in their Community included:
Latter Day Saints (LDS) Church Group Red Cross Neighbouring municipality Many different groups and organizations have ESS responsibility
Q3. ESS representation within Community’s emergency managementThere were 150 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 87.33 % (131 of 150 respondents) – identified that ESS was part of Community’s emergency management organization
o 12.67 % (19 of 150 respondents) – identified that ESS was not part of Community’s emergency management organization
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 3 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Q4. Community RESPONSIBILITY for ESS within EOCThere were 148 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 46.62 % (69 of 148 respondents) – identified FCSS has ESS responsibility within EOCo 26.35 % (39 of 148 respondents):
Identified Community Services has ESS responsibility within EOC Identified Emergency Management has ESS responsibility within EOC
Q5. Visits or tours of an EOCThere were 152 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 70.39 % (107 of 152 respondents) – identified they have visited or toured an EOCo 27.63 % (42 of 152 respondents) – identified they have not visited or toured an EOC
Q6. Visits or tours of an ACTIVATED EOCThere were 152 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 54.61 % (83 of 152 respondents) – have visited or toured an activated EOCo 42.11 % (64 of 152 respondents) – have not visited or toured an activated EOCo 3.29 % (5 of 152 respondents) – have visited or toured an activated EOC but only for
table top exercises or mock disaster training
Q7. Incident Command System (ICS) use in Community’s emergency response activities and within EOC
There were 150 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 71.33 % (107 of 150 respondents) – identified they use ICS in their Communityo 12.00 % (18 of 150 respondents) – don’t know if ICS is used in their Communityo 10.67 % (16 of 150 respondents) – identified they don’t use ICS in their Community
Survey Feedback:o “We will be working on having our ESS use the ICS.”o “But we are moving that direction.”o “We haven't had to open an EOC but would use the ICS.”o “Just got the training last year however we have not been able to utilize the ICS due to no
emergencies.”o “We will be in the near future.”o “Yes, however the training has not been completed by anyone yet.”o “We’ve received some ICS training. Our plan is to fully incorporate in our Emergency
Plan.”
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 4 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
o “Haven't had one yet.”o “Not yet but we are planning to and training is beginning.”o “We are developing the ICS system.”o “Modified use.”o “In the process of switching to ICS. Staff have received ICS training.”o “We in the process of training and planning to this new system - we have not formally
implemented this yet.”o “It varies across the region.”o “We are in the process of moving toward that direction.”
Q8. Comfort level using ICS There were 150 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
4.44 Mean Score (out of 7.0 scale) – was average rating for this question covering comfort level in using ICS. Basically, respondents were Neutral overall with their comfort in using ICS.
Combined Percentage
Number ofRespondent
s
Rating
30.67 % 46 of 150 Top 2 Box – Very Comfortable & Comfortable
19.33 % 29 of 150 Somewhat Comfortable
17.33 % 26 of 150 Somewhat Uncomfortable
14.00 % 21 of 150 Bottom 2 Box - Very Uncomfortable & Uncomfortable
12.67 % 19 of 150 Neutral
Survey Feedback:o “Can’t merge ESM and ICS not enough people to run ICS adequately.”o “Levels of confidence vary within the three.”o “Completely unfamiliar.”o “I'm aware of ICS but it's not currently being used with our ESS but we want to move in
that direction.”
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 5 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Q9. Understand ESS role and responsibilities within…There were 150 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
4.67 Mean Score (out of 7.0 scale) – was average rating for these three questions on understanding ESS role and responsibilities within community, provincial and federal government. Basically, respondents were Neutral overall with their understanding of the ESS role and responsibilities.
Combined Percentage
Number ofRespondents
Rating Level of Agreement
66.22 % 100 of 151 Top 2 Box – Completely Agree and Agree My Community
31.54 % 47 of 151 Top 2 Box – Completely Agree and Agree Provincial Government
27.52 % 41 of 151 Somewhat Agree Provincial Government
21.48 % 32 of 151 Bottom 2 Box – Completely Disagree & Disagree Federal Government
21.48 % 32 of 151 Somewhat Agree Federal Government
Survey Feedback:o “First Nations participation is not fully represented.”o “I didn't know the feds had a role in local emergency management unless the armed
forces are mobilized.”o “ESS responsiblities are not always clear.”
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 6 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Q10. Community’s capacity to deal with incident is going to exceed then…There were 152 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
5.25 Mean Score (out of 7.0 scale) – was average rating for these three questions on knowing when, who and how to ask for support for when their community is about to exceed its capacity to deal with an incident. Basically, respondents Somewhat Agree overall with when, who and how to ask for support for their Community.
Combined Percentage
Number ofRespondents
Rating Level of Agreement
56.58 % 86 of 152 Top 2 Box – Completely Agree and Agree I know WHEN to ask for support before the incident becomes critical.
54.61 % 83 of 152 Top 2 Box – Completely Agree and Agree I know WHO to contact to ask for support.
50.00 % 76 of 152 Top 2 Box – Completely Agree and Agree I know HOW to ask for the appropriate support.
26.97 % 41 of 152 Somewhat Agree I know WHO to contact to ask for support.
25.66 % 39 of 152 Somewhat Agree I know WHEN to ask for support before the incident becomes critical.
23.03 % 35 of 152 Somewhat Agree I know HOW to ask for the appropriate support.
Survey Feedback:o “NOt my role, so I guess the director of Emergency SEvices should know and that's who I would
defer to.”
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 7 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
S2 – ESS Plans & Programs Results Overview
Q11. ESS structure, plans, resources and supportThere were 137 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
5.40 Mean Score (out of 7.0 scale) – was average rating for these five questions on understanding ESS structure, plans, resources and support. Basically, respondents Somewhat Agree overall with how ESS fits into ICS model, the value of the ESS role, access to the plans and tools they need, and with the support they receive to execute their roles in their Community.
Combined Percentage
Number ofRespondents
Rating Level of Agreement
83.94 % 115 of 137 Top 2 Box I understand the value of my role in emergency management.
68.62 % 94 of 137 Top 2 Box I have the support of supervisor/manager to perform my role to the best of my ability.
64.24 % 88 of 137 Top 2 Box I have the support of my municipality to perform my role to the best of my ability.
46.72 % 64 of 137 Top 2 Box I understand how ESS fits into the ICS model.
46.72 % 64 of 137 Top 2 Box I have the plans, tools and resources I need to perform my role to the best of my ability.
Survey Feedback:
“I have the support of the community but am unaware of my role and responsibility in an emergency.”
“I really do not know.” “We may have a plan but the volunteer resource base is not there if we actually had an incident.” “Unfortunately I don't feel there isn't an adequate understanding of all the
people/equipment/financial resources required to respond to an incident/emergency.” “I am FCSS and have a supporting role; however, I do not have the resources (FCSS staff) to do
much. Nor do I have the authority to identify and mobilize other human resources. The 'go to' people in my municipality are identified, but one is leaving for a new position outside the municipality in January. There is little communication between my FCSS program and the municipal leads, who are authorized and tasked to take the lead in mobilizing community for emergency social services, should the need arise. This is very concerning to me as I worry that the municipality assumes we are able to offer much more than we, in fact, are resourced or authorized to offer. My staff have sufficient training and knowledge -- just we don't have time and people!”
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 8 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Q12. Community ESS planThere were 135 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 78.52 % (106 of 135 respondents) – identified they do have a Community ESS plano 13.33 % (18 of 135 respondents) – identified they do not have a Community ESS plano 8.15 % (11 of 135 respondents) – identified they don’t know if they have a Community
ESS plan
o Feedback : Most of the comments identified that plans are basic with little detail, need updating or are in the process of being updated.
Q13. Assistance needed to update Community ESS plansThere were 127 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question. Respondents could check off more than one answer for this question.
o 60.63 % (77 of 127 respondents) – identified templates of ESS plans as most beneficialo 59.06 % (75 of 127 respondents) – identified ESS training as most beneficial o 53.54 % (68 of 127 respondents) – identified samples of other Community ESS plans
would be most beneficial
Feedback: Respondents could identify more than one thing for this question.o 17.50 % – identified documentation (templates and other Community ESS plans, etc.) as
most valuable resource for themo 57.50 % – identified ICS and ESS training, and table top exercises as most valuable
resources for themo 12.50 % – identified their Community’s ESS and/or emergency management plan is
currently being reviewed and/or updated however some respondents don’t know what the ESS plan looks like
o 10.00 % – identified ESS role clarity would be most valuable to knowo Staff, budget and time to work on plans and training were also noted
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 9 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Q14. Respondents identified the organizations, agencies and stakeholders that their Community has in place related to ESS contracts, agreements and/or memorandums of understanding – listed in order by popularity.
Respondents could identify more than one thing for this question.96 respondents answered question. 60 respondents skipped question.
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
School Board 65.6% 63
AHS - Mental Health & Addictions 50.0% 48
Red Cross 45.8% 44
Salvation Army 30.2% 29Other: FCSS Honestly don’t know Local businesses and services: ie. catering, clothing
distributors, grocery stores, hotels, human service agencies, immigrant services for translation services, restaurants, second-hand stores, pet rescues and vet clinics
Mennonite Central Committee Municipality and its various departments Neighbouring municipality No contracts or MOU's in place, some very old mutual aid
agreements long ago expired None as of yet, we are just starting as we are a new First
Nation previously under Municipal authority None of the above Our Social Services Group is made up of a number of local
church ministers Region Victim Services
29.2% 28
SPCA 24.0% 23
Pharmacy 21.9% 21
St. John Ambulance 18.8% 18
Samaritan's Purse 6.3% 6
Q15. Community ESS plan identifies volunteers, volunteer groups and other resources
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 10 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
There were 137 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 69.34 % (95 of 137 respondents) – identified that their ESS plan does identify volunteers, volunteer groups and other Community resources
o 15.33 % (21 of 137 respondents) – identified that their ESS plan does not identify volunteers, volunteer groups and other Community resources
o 12.41 % (17 of 137 respondents) – identified that they don’t know if their ESS plan identifies volunteers, volunteer groups and other Community resources
Q16. Will your Community share ESS plan with ESSNAThere were 132 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 66.67 % (88 of 132 respondents) – identified that they don’t know if their Community would share their ESS plan with ESSNA
o 25.00 % (33 of 132 respondents) – identified that they would share their Community ESS plan with ESSNA
o 8.33 % (11 of 132 respondents) – identified that they would not share their Community ESS plan with ESSNA
Q17. Considered formalizing ESS mutual aid agreements with neighbouring CommunitiesThere were 135 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 88.15 % (119 of 135 respondents) – identified that they have considered formalizing ESS mutual aid agreements with neighbouring Communities
o 11.85 % (16 of 135 respondents) – identified that they have not considered formalizing ESS mutual aid agreements with neighbouring Communities
Q18. Formalized ESS mutual aid agreements with neighbouring CommunitiesThere were 98 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 58.16 % (57 of 98 respondents) – identified that they have not formally documented ESS mutual aid agreements with neighbouring Communities
o 41.84 % (41 of 98 respondents) – identified that they have formally documented ESS mutual aid agreements with neighbouring Communities
o Feedback : A number of respondents are unsure if there’s any formalized documentation.
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 11 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Q19. Community ESS plan part of a Regional planThere were 115 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 38.26 % (44 of 115 respondents) – identified their ESS plan is not part of a Regional plan o 32.17 % (37 of 115 respondents) – identified they do not know if their ESS plan is part of
a Regional plano 29.57 % (34 of 115 respondents) – identified their ESS plan is part of a Regional plan
o Feedback : Regional plans identified included: East Central Region:
Camrose County Emergency Mutual Aid Beaver Emergency Services Commission
North Central Region: County and Town of Barrhead
Northeast Region: St. Paul Regional Emergency Plan Town and Municipal District of Bonnyville
Northwest Region: Grande Prairie Regional Emergency Partnership (GPREP)
South Central Region: Wheatland County
Southern Region: Pincher Creek Community Emergency Management Agency (PCCEMA)
Q20. Needs to fulfill ESS roleThere were 125 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question. Respondents could identify more than one thing for this question.
o 66.40 % (83 of 125 respondents) – identified ESS templates and sample plans as greatest need to fulfill their ESS role
o 60.80 % (76 of 125 respondents) – identified training related to ESS role and responsibilities as well as Alberta-based solutions for multi-jurisdictional or Community support as greatest need to fulfill their ESS role
o 59.20 % (74 of 125 respondents) – identified ICS training as greatest need to fulfill their ESS role
o 57.60 % (72 of 125 respondents) – identified people, equipment, etc. as greatest need to fulfill their ESS role
o Feedback : Time to work on plans and conduct training, as well as budget were common themes identified through open-ended responses.
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 12 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
S3 – Training Results Overview
Q21. Emergency Management training takenThere were 127 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question. Respondents could identify more than one thing for this question.
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Introduction to / Basic Emergency Management 88.2% 112
ICS 100 - Introduction to Incident Command System 68.5% 87
Introduction to Emergency Operations Centres 65.4% 83
Emergency First Aid (any level) 64.6% 82
AEMA - Disaster Social Services 59.1% 75
AEMA - Registration & Inquiry 50.4% 64
ICS 200 - Single Resources and Initial Action Incidents 44.1% 56
ICS 300 - Expanding Incidents 22.8% 29
AEMA - Persons with Functional Needs 20.5% 26
ICS 400 - ICS for Command and General Staff - Complex Incidents 14.2% 18
ICS 402 - ICS for Executives 1.6% 2
Other (please specify): Actual Incidents – a fire and a few floods AEMA - Functional Needs, and Registration and inquiry B.A. Disaster & Emergency Studies DSS through Red Cross CEMA - HR Management, Reception Centre Management, Personal Care ESS Forum sessions Fire fighting training of many courses including ICS as it applies to fire
fighting Food safety JIBC - ESS Site Management, ESS Director, ESS managing walk-in
volunteer Mental Health First Aid - Critical Incident Stress Management and ASSIST No ICS training None - management does not think its needed as she knows Public Information Officer
18
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 13 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Q22. ESS training in CommunitiesThere were 118 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 46.61 % (55 of 118 respondents) – identified their Community does not offer ESS training o 32.20 % (38 of 118 respondents) – identified their Community does offer ESS trainingo 21.19 % (25 of 118 respondents) – identified they don’t know if their Community offers
any ESS training
Q23. ESS training DELIVERY in CommunitiesThere were 120 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 69.17 % (83 of 120 respondents) – identified that AEMA delivers ESS training in their Community
o 34.17 % (41 of 120 respondents) – identified that their Emergency Management organization delivers ESS training in their Community
o 18.33 % (22 of 120 respondents) – identified that FCSS delivers ESS training in their Community
o Feedback : The Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC) and municipal staff were common themes identified as organizations that offered ESS training in Communities.
Q24. ESS representatives participation in EOC and/or ICS training or exercisesThere were 131 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 71.76 % (94 of 131 respondents) – identified that ESS representatives from their Community have participated in EOC and/or ICS training or exercises
o 16.03 % (21 of 131 respondents) – identified that ESS representatives from their Community have not participated in EOC and/or ICS training or exercises
o 12.21 % (16 of 131 respondents) – identified that they don’t know if ESS representatives from their Community have participated in EOC and/or ICS training or exercises
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 14 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 15 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
S4 – Emergency Social Services Network of Alberta (ESSNA) Results Overview
Q25. ESSNA awarenessThere were 132 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 65.15 % (86 of 132 respondents) – were aware of ESSNA before filling out surveyo 34.85 % (46 of 132 respondents) – were not aware of ESSNA before filling out survey
Aware of ESSNA Through… Response Percent
Response Count
AEMA - website or staff member 34.9% 29
Colleague in my municipality 31.3% 26
Other:
FCSS
ESSNA member
25.3% 21
ESSNA website 19.3% 16
Colleague at an event I participated in (ie. Slave Lake, Southern Alberta Floods, etc.) 15.7% 13
Internet search 3.6% 3
NGO contact (ie. Samaritan's Purse, Red Cross, etc.) 1.2% 1
Q27. ESSNA region representationThere were 125 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
Respondent Work in Following ESSNA Region Response Percent
Response Count
North West Region 24.8% 31
Central Region / East Central Region 23.2% 29
South Central Region 21.6% 27
Southern Region 12.8% 16
North Central Region 10.4% 13
North East Region 7.2% 9
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 16 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Q28. Information to post to ESSNA websiteThere were 119 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
Answer OptionsRespon
se Percent
Response
Count
ESS resources - like plan samples and templates 84.0% 100
ESS-related training information 82.4% 98
Best practices 77.3% 92
Workshops 77.3% 92
Regional contacts 76.5% 91
ESSNA Forum 45.4% 54
Other: Webinars How to get funds to attend
training, conferences, workshops, etc.
Networking opportunities After Event Action Reviews
13
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 17 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Q29. Areas of interest for ESSNA participation There were 119 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Not interested in participating 20.2% 24
Training Opportunities 68.1% 81
Regional Representative 25.2% 30
Event Specific - Key Learnings Workshops 25.2% 30
Focus Group(s) 24.4% 29
Event Specific - ESSNA Forum 22.7% 27
Working Committee – Administration 16.0% 19
Working Committee - Events 16.0% 19
Working Committee - ESS Registration Forms 15.1% 18
Working Committee – Communication 10.1% 12
Working Committee - Network Administration 8.4% 10
Communication Specific – Newsletter 6.7% 8
Working Committee - Membership 6.7% 8
Working Committee – Research 6.7% 8
S5 – ESSNA Contacts Results Overview
The next section is the list of individuals (via email addresses) that identified how they’d like to participate further in ESSNA.
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 18 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Focus Group(s):
o [email protected] Kathy Oblak Summer Village of Ghost Lake
Regional Representative:
o [email protected] Kathy Oblak Summer Village of Ghost Lake
Training Opportunities:
o [email protected] Kathy Oblak Summer Village of Ghost Lake
Working Committee – Administration:
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 19 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Working Committee – Communication:
Communication Specific – Newsletter:o [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected]
Working Committee - ESS Registration Forms:
Working Committee – Eventso [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected]
Event Specific - ESSNA Forum:
o [email protected] Kathy Oblak Summer Village of Ghost Lake
Event Specific - Key Learnings Workshops:
Working Committee – Membershipo [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected]
Working Committee - Network Administration:
o [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected]
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 20 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Working Committee – Research:o [email protected] o [email protected]
o [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected] o [email protected]
S6 – Annual ESS Forum Results Overview
Q31. Areas of interest for ESSNA participationThere were 112 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Current disaster response / recovery info – within Alberta 83.96% 89
ESS training 81.13% 86
Municipal presentations on lessons learned 77.36% 82
Keynote speakers on disaster response 58.49% 62
Networking opportunities 55.66% 59
Keynote speakers on disaster recovery 54.72% 58
Current disaster response / recovery info – within Canada 41.51% 44
Time for working committees / focus groups to meet face-to-face 30.19% 32
Other: ESS Boot Camp Recovery phase Registration form
3.77% 4
Q32. Challenges that may prevent ESS Forum attendanceThere were 112 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.
o 82.14 % (92 of 112 respondents) – identified work responsibilities or time away from the office as to why they may not be able to attend future ESS Forums
o 67.86 % (76 of 112 respondents) – identified budget for expenses (ie. registration, travel) as to why they may not be able to attend future ESS Forums
o 10.71 % (12 of 112 respondents) – identified no support from supervisor, manager or director as to why they may not be able to attend future ESS Forums
o Open-ended feedback included:
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 21 of 22
Executive Summary2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results
Other key people in the community may not step up and get involved. We are truly in a multi-jurisdictional situation which presents challenges.
Back to back conferences, seats are filled within one day- need to offer more often or have more seats.
Other obligations at this time of year (November) Rely on neighbouring urban muni to oversee the ESS program. Conflicts with FCSSAA Conference - not necessarily the same days, but too
much time out of the office within days or a week or so of each other. Time constraints and distances, only. Someone else from my municipality will attend the forum. Weather based on time of year. Can’t afford to attend the Forum - $$ or time away from our FCSS work - these
days. As a rural muni far from Edmonton or Calgary, ESS is a low priority. We rely on
the neighbouring urban muni to supply most of the ESS that our community needs.
Too bad I have to choose between the FCSSAA Annual Conference and ESSNA Conference - I guess FCSS programs are not key players in the ESSNA community? I've found that most FCSS programs are deeply involved in ESS.
revised: Jan. 22, 2015 22 of 22
