Emergency Management Programs in Higher Education:
Status Update
2017 FEMA Higher Education Program Report
1
2017 EM Higher Ed: Status Update /Acknowledgements
This report would not be possible without the efforts of the FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Program. Specifically, the continued support of Wendy Walsh, Barbara Johnson, and Danielle Green was instrumental in reaching active emergency management programs. Additionally, a special thanks to Dr. Carol Cwiak for the use of her initial survey instrument and to all of the institutional representatives who took the time to participate in this survey.
*Cover image: Word cloud of the emergency management-related program titles from the 131 respondents to the survey. Words used the mostare indicated with larger font sizes.
1
D. Bennett, University of Nebraska at Omaha
2017 EM Higher Ed: Status Update /Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to summarize the results from the 2017 survey of programs offering degrees, minors, certificates, or concentrations related to emergency management at universities, colleges, or other institutions of higher learning. The purpose of this survey was four-fold:
(1)Learn about the current degree offerings and classroom settings of the colleges and universities offering emergency management-related courses
(2)Identify the types of students interested in the program and where they typically work following graduation
(3)Gain knowledge on the faculty and program support for the field on higher education campuses
(4)Identify which FEMA services and products are useful among emergency management higher education programs
While the survey focused on U.S. based programs, international programs were invited to participate as they also may benefit from the services and products offered by the FEMA Higher Education program. Emergency Management program representatives from a total 300 different schools were contacted via email to participate in this survey. The report summarizes the results from 110 different schools representing 131 different programs, for a 37% response rate. A total of 127schools were U.S. based. Note that some of the schools have more than one emergency management program.
Degree Offerings and Classroom Settings
Most of the programs are focused on curriculum that prepares students for the public sector (93%, N=120). Majority of the courses were taught online (80%, n=116). The programs overwhelming indicatedthey were satisfied with their current curriculum; only 32% of respondents indicated that their programs are still developing new coursework. Those programs anticipating changes indicated that the changes were related to updating their coursework and providing more courses online.
Types of Students
Over the 2016-17 school year,nearly7,000 students have graduated with an emergency management degree. Over 50% of programs reported an observed increase in enrollment. Many programs reported no change and very few indicated a decrease in enrollment. This survey was the first to ask specific questions related to the diversity of the student body. Over 65% of respondents reported an observed increase in diversity related to student demographics.
Faculty and Program Support
Majority of the programs currently rely heavily on part-time faculty (n=103). Additionally, many programs have actively tried to hire more faculty or staff in the last 12 months, most of those attempts were from institutions with graduate emergency management programs. Respondents indicated the most inaccessible program support was with external and institutional funding, 51% and 35% respectively. Library resources were the most accessible form of support indicated by respondents
FEMA Higher Education Programs
The most popular FEMA Higher Education program curriculum used was the independent study (IS) courses. Majority of the programs used the IS courses as supplemental material. Both the ‘Principles of Emergency Management’ document and the journal articles available on the FEMA Higher Ed website were also frequently used. However, the ‘Principles of Emergency Management’document was typically used at the undergraduate level, while the journal articles were used more at the graduate level. The most commonly used Higher Education Course was the Disaster Response Operations and Management course. While many program representativeswere aware of the FEMA EMI Higher Education Annual Symposium, many were unaware of the focus group opportunities or the special interest groups and nearly all are interested in more information about both.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Overview
Methodology
Program
Degree Offerings
Sector Focus
Curriculum
Students
Enrollment
Post Graduation
Diversity
Faculty and Institutional Support
Type of Faculty
Access to Program Support
Anticipated Changes
FEMA EMI Higher Ed Resources
Online Resources
Participation in Programs
Ideas for Different Products and Services
Responses by Program Type
Undergraduate Programs
Graduate Programs
International Schools
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Appendix I
List of Participating Institutions
1
D. Bennett, University of Nebraska at Omaha
2017 EM Higher Ed: Status Update /List of Figures
Figure 1. Survey sample of emergency management higher education programs1
Figure 2. Survey responses over a 30-day period2
Figure 3. Top seven words used in the names of emergency management-related programs3
Figure 4. Type of degree offerings from surveyed programs4
Figure 5. Programs coursework by percentage offered online5
Figure 6. Enrollment and graduation over the past three years and projections for the next
three years6
Figure 7. Observed increase in diversity of the emergency management student body7
Figure 8. Eight key anticipated changes identified from respondents 10
Figure 9. Use of FEMA Higher Education program online resources 11
Figure 10. Primary use of Independent Study (IS) courses 11
Figure 11. Types of classes in which the ‘Principles of Emergency Management’ document
was used 12
Figure 12. Participation in specific FEMA Higher Education programofferings 13
Figure 13. Interest in FEMA Higher Education Special Interest Groups (SIGs) 13
Figure 14. Interest in FEMA Higher Education Focus Groups 13
Figure 15. Use of the ‘Prototype Curriculum for Associates Degrees in Emergency Management’ 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Sector focus of emergency management programs4
Table 2. Number of graduates from emergency management programs6
Table 3. Type of faculty in emergency management programs8
Table 4. Total number of faculty as reported, by type8
Table 5. Accessibility of various types of programs support9
Table 6. Comparison of the access and support indicators9
1
D. Bennett, University of Nebraska at Omaha
2017 EM Higher Ed: Status Update /Overview
Since 2007,the FEMA Higher Education Program has requested the current status ofemergency management programs at institutions of higher learning. This year, 2017, the effort was contracted to Dr. DeeDee Bennett at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.Prior to 2017, the effort was contracted to Dr. Carol Cwiak between the years of 2007 and 2016. This particular annual survey and report is one of the few that provides consistent data related to the faculty, curriculum, and students of emergency management programs. The survey was initiated in 2004 by former FEMA Higher Education Program Director, Dr. Wayne Blanchard and initially conducted by Dr. Henry Fischer (Cwiak, 2016). The survey has been conducted every year with the exception of 2005, 2006 and 2013.
The purpose of this project is to assess the usefulness of the products and services provided by the FEMA Emergency Management Institute Higher Education program (FEMA Higher Ed) and to collect data on the current status of emergency management programs. The sample of programs contacted was identified from the FEMA Higher Ed database. The FEMA Higher Eddatabase contained 286 schools with emergency management-related programs across the country and 14 internationals schools with emergency management-related programs abroad. Using these 300 schools as the sample size, a survey was sent to answer four basic assessment questions: (1) what is the focus of the EM program? (2) Who are the students that benefit from this program? (3) What type of support is accessible to the program? (4) What FEMA Higher Ed services do the EM programs use?
Similar surveys have been sent annually for the last 13 years. Included for the first time in the survey were questions about diversity of students, specific services provided by FEMA Higher Ed, and inclusion of programs outside of the United States. Of the 286 U.S. based schools in the sample, a total of 106schools completed the survey for a ‘straight forward’ 37% response rate, representing 131 programs. However, of the 300 schools contacted, several opted out of receiving the survey (N=11)and a number of bounced emails (N=28). Eight potential respondents replied to the email request that they were no longer offering emergency management-related programs and were asked to select the ‘opt out field’ so that they could be properly counted. The bounced emails and programs no longer offering emergency management curriculum changes the response rate slightly. For conservative estimates, this report uses the ‘straight forward’ 37% response rate. The breakdown of overall response is shown in Figure 1.
Figure1. Survey sample of emergency management higher education programs
The sample of potential respondents was identified from the FEMA Higher Ed database, which contained 300 different institutions. Reporting in this survey assumes that nearly 100% of institutions that offer emergency management related courses are represented in the FEMA Higher Ed database. Therefore, the survey respondents from 106 participating institutions represent 37% of the U.S. based programs. Any program not within the FEMA Higher Ed database was not contacted.
Approximately 29%of all international programs from the FEMA database responded to the survey. International programs only represent nearly 5% (n=14) of the programs that benefit from the FEMA Higher Ed program. The results reported in this document reflect responsesfrom 131 U.S. and international based programs that reside in 110 participating institutions.Appendix I lists the names of the participating institutions reflected in this survey.
Methodology
This project used a web-based survey administered online. Invitations to participate were sent via email. The survey used a single-stage sampling technique in which the researcher used the FEMA Higher Ed database to invite all known emergency management higher education programs that had at one time used a product or service offered by FEMA (Cresswell, 2008; Dillman, Smyth, and Christian, 2014). All representatives listed as the point of contact for the emergency management programs were invited to participate in the online survey via email. The survey instrument used was modified from the previous survey administered in 2016 by Carol Cwiak at North Dakota State University, with permission (Cwiak, 2016). The administered instrument was modified to include specific questions related to student diversity, international programs, and detailed information about the products and services provided by FEMA Higher Ed program. The 2017 version of the survey used logic question blocks to minimize the respondents survey time and receipt of irrelevant questions. Approximately 68% of respondents took less than 20 minutes finish and 38% took 10 minutes or less to complete the survey. Furthermore, none of the questions (except the first one consenting to the survey) required a response from every program. For example, only programs that indicated they offered associates degrees were asked subsequent questions relating to the associate’s degree curriculum. Therefore, for each section of this report, take note of the total number of program respondents, reported as “n,” which may vary.
Figure2.Survey responses over a 30-day period
The survey instrument was administered on the University of Nebraska at Omaha Qualtrics Insight Platform-hosted website. Answers to open ended short-answer questions were rudimentarily coded by semantic content analysis, grouping the frequency of similar answers (such as services, curriculum) and any extreme qualifiers (positive or negative) to give on overview of respondent sentiment (Krippendorff, 2004). The open-ended questions were grouped and coded using Nvivo11 software.
Each university and college representative from the FEMA database were contacted by email to participate in the online survey March 1st 2017. A follow-up email was sent March 8th to all representatives that did not start (or complete the survey). The stacked chart, Figure 2, shows the response rate over the month period.
The results are highlighted in the following sections related to the four-fold focus for all U.S. based programs; information about the program, the students, the faculty and institutional support, and the use of the FEMA Higher Ed products and services. Subsequent sections report the results from undergraduate, graduate, and international programs. Where appropriate, comparisons are made between the results of the 2017 survey with the report from the 2016 survey.
Program
The universities, colleges, institutes, and academies contacted were previously known to offer emergency management or emergency management-related coursework for undergraduate and graduate students. However, each of the programs resides in a number of different schools and departments. The most popular locations to house emergency management programs were in schools related public administration, policy, or affairs, and in emergency service. Figure 3, highlights the top seven (7) words used for each of the programs, showcasing an overall emphasis on public and service.
Figure 3. Top seven words used in the names of emergency management-related programs
The cover of this report shows a word cloud of the words used for emergency management and related programs. In the word cloud, larger font sizes representthe increased frequency to which the word is used. All the words used are represented in the word cloud beyond the 7 highlighted in Figure 3.
Degree Offerings
Survey respondents represented program directors, professors, and/or academic advisors for the programs. The curriculums varied by level and type of degrees offered. A total of 266 degree, concentrations and certificates were offered by the responding programs. This is a significant increase from the179offerings reported from 2016 (Cwiak, 2016). Majority of the responses indicated that most programs cater to undergraduate students (n=77). However, several programs also cater to graduate level scholarship (n=64). Figure 4 shows the types of degrees offered by the emergency management (EM) and related programs surveyed and compares to the 2016 report.
Figure 4. Types of degree offerings from surveyed programs
Sector Focus
Emergency management is a unique field of study that can lead to employment in the public, private, and non-profit sectors, both domestically and abroad. Since the curriculum may change based on program focus, the survey contained questions related to the sector to which the programs prepare their students. Majority of the responding programs offer curriculum that prepares students for the public sector (93%), as a stand-alone focus (32%) or in combination with others (61%), see Table 1. Nearly 42% of the programs focus on all sectors, domestically and abroad. Note that Table 1 also includes a comparison from 2016-reported percentage of sector focus.
Table 1. Sector focus of emergency management programs
Sector Focus / 2016 Percent (%) / 2017 Percent (%) / 2017 n /Public Sector / 37.00 / 31.67 / 38
Private Sector / -- / 01.67 / 2
Non-profit (VOAD) Sector / -- / 00.00 / 0
Humanitarian (global Emergency Management) / 01.00 / 00.83 / 1
All of the above / 35.00 / 41.67 / 50
Other / 01.00 / 02.50 / 3
Various combination / 26.00 / 21.67 / 26
Within the ‘various combination’ focus, all respondents indicated that they focused on the public sector in combination with one or more other sector, but not all sectors. Also shown in Table 1, only one program focused solely on humanitarian or global emergency management, in line with previous reporting. Within the ‘other’ category, programs indicated that they focused on first responders or disaster mental health.
Curriculum
Most programs are generally comfortable with their curriculum offerings. Only 32% of respondents indicated that they are still developing new programs or coursework over the next year (n=36). Some of the types of programs under consideration include: Cyber Disaster Management, Environmental Health and Safety, Emergency Management Leadership, and Geospatial Information Systems.
Figure 5. Program coursework by percentage offered online
Majority of emergency management- related classes are taught all or in-part on line. Over 80% of respondents report that they offer coursework through distance learning or online (n=95). Approximately, 60% of classes are offered both online and in-person and more than 70% of classes are offered only online. Table 5 shows the program coursework offered only online or both online and in person. Comparing to the 2016 report, there is a reported increase in the number of programs that offer 100% of their coursework online and those that offer their coursework 25% online.
As mentioned in the overview, a number of programs indicated that they no longer offered courses related to emergency management. While they were asked to select the ‘opt out’ feature of the email request, many were also asked why their schools stopped their program. The most common answers were due to lack of enrollment and/or lack of funding.
Students
In this past academic year, the total number of students that graduated was 2,364. Assuming the FEMA Higher Education Program database represents 100% of the EM programs, extrapolation for total number of students is based on 37% of U.S. based programs represented in the survey. From extrapolation, approximately 6,389students graduated from an emergency management program during the 2016-2017 academic year,see Table 2.
Table 2. Number of graduates from emergency management programs (partially adapted from Cwiak, 2016, 16)
2016raw numbers / 2016 extrapolated est. / 2017
raw
numbers / 2017 extrapolated est.
Number of EM graduates / 2,409 / 5,019 / 2,364 / 6,389
Number graduates since inception of FEMA Higher Ed. / __ / 29,660 / __ / 36,049
In 2016, Dr. Cwiak reported that 29,660 students graduated from emergency management programs since inception of the FEMA Higher Education Program (Cwiak 2016). Adding in the extrapolated data from this year, the estimated number of graduates since inception is just over36,000.
Enrollment
Of the 111 programs reporting, over 2,000 students are projected to graduate for the 2016-2017 academic year. With 54% of programs reporting, enrollment has generally increased over the past 3 years.Only 16% of emergency management programs observed a decrease in enrollment. Most programs are optimistic about the next 3 years with nearly 71% of programs anticipating an increase in enrollment.On average 48% of programs reported an increase in the number of graduates in the past year. However, 43% of programs reported no change in the number of graduates in the past year. Again, most programs are optimistic about the number of students graduating in the next three years with nearly 67% of programs reporting.