Executive Summary
2014 Alberta ESS Benchmark – Survey Results

Executive Summary

The 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.

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.

S1 – ESS Within Emergency Management FrameworkResults 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 / size

There were 151 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.

  • 31.13% (41 of 151 respondents) – have 1,000 to 4,999 people in the Community
  • 21.19% (36 of 151 respondents) – have 10,000 to 24,999 people in the Community
  • 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.

  • 51.32% (78 of 152 respondents) – identified FCSS as responsible for ESS delivery in their Community
  • 30.26% (46 of 152 respondents) – identified Community Services as responsible for ESS delivery in their Community
  • 29.61% (45 of 152 respondents) – identified Emergency Management as responsible for ESS delivery in their Community
  • 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 management

There were 150 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.

  • 87.33% (131 of 150 respondents) – identified that ESS was part of Community’s emergency management organization
  • 12.67% (19 of 150 respondents) – identified that ESS was not part of Community’s emergency management organization

  • Q4. Community RESPONSIBILITY for ESS within EOC

There were 148 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.

  • 46.62% (69 of 148 respondents) – identified FCSS has ESS responsibility within EOC
  • 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 EOC

There were 152 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.

  • 70.39% (107 of 152 respondents) – identified they have visited or toured an EOC
  • 27.63% (42 of 152 respondents) – identified they have not visited or toured an EOC
  • Q6. Visits or tours of an ACTIVATED EOC

There were 152 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.

  • 54.61% (83 of 152 respondents) – have visited or toured an activated EOC
  • 42.11% (64 of 152 respondents) – have not visited or toured an activated EOC
  • 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.

  • 71.33% (107 of 150 respondents) – identified they use ICS in their Community
  • 12.00% (18 of 150 respondents) – don’t know if ICS is used in their Community
  • 10.67% (16 of 150 respondents) – identified they don’t use ICS in their Community

Survey Feedback:

  • “We will be working on having our ESS use the ICS.”
  • “But we are moving that direction.”
  • “We haven't had to open an EOC but would use the ICS.”
  • “Just got the training last year however we have not been able to utilize the ICS due to no emergencies.”
  • “We will be in the near future.”
  • “Yes, however the training has not been completed by anyone yet.”
  • “We’ve received some ICS training. Our plan is to fully incorporate in our Emergency Plan.”
  • “Haven't had one yet.”
  • “Not yet but we are planning to and training is beginning.”
  • “We are developing the ICS system.”
  • “Modified use.”
  • “In the process of switching to ICS. Staff have received ICS training.”
  • “We in the process of training and planning to this new system - we have not formally implemented this yet.”
  • “It varies across the region.”
  • “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 of
Respondents / 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:

  • “Can’t merge ESM and ICS not enough people to run ICS adequately.”
  • “Levels of confidence vary within the three.”
  • “Completely unfamiliar.”
  • “I'm aware of ICS but it's not currently being used with our ESS but we want to move in that direction.”

  • 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 of
Respondents / 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:

  • “First Nations participation is not fully represented.”
  • “I didn't know the feds had a role in local emergency management unless the armed forces are mobilized.”
  • “ESS responsiblities are not always clear.”

  • 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 of
Respondents / 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:

  • “NOt my role, so I guess the director of Emergency SEvices should know and that's who I would defer to.”

S2 – ESS Plans & ProgramsResults Overview

  • Q11. ESS structure, plans, resources and support

There 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 of
Respondents / 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!”
  • Q12. Community ESS plan

There were 135 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.

  • 78.52% (106 of 135 respondents) – identified they do have a Community ESS plan
  • 13.33% (18 of 135 respondents) – identified they do not have a Community ESS plan
  • 8.15% (11 of 135 respondents) – identified they don’t know if they have a Community ESS plan
  • 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 plans

There were 127 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question. Respondents could check off more than one answer for this question.

  • 60.63% (77 of 127 respondents) – identified templates of ESS plans as most beneficial
  • 59.06% (75 of 127 respondents) – identified ESS training as most beneficial
  • 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.

  • 17.50% – identified documentation (templates and other Community ESS plans, etc.) as most valuable resource for them
  • 57.50% – identified ICS and ESS training, and table top exercises as most valuable resources for them
  • 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
  • 10.00% – identified ESS role clarity would be most valuable to know
  • Staff, budget and time to work on plans and training were also noted

  • 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% / 29
Other:
  • 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

There were 137 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.

  • 69.34% (95 of 137 respondents) – identified that their ESS plan does identify volunteers, volunteer groups and other Community resources
  • 15.33% (21 of 137 respondents) – identified that their ESS plan does not identify volunteers, volunteer groups and other Community resources
  • 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 ESSNA

There were 132 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.

  • 66.67% (88 of 132 respondents) – identified that they don’t know if their Community would share their ESS plan with ESSNA
  • 25.00% (33 of 132 respondents) – identified that they would share their Community ESS plan with ESSNA
  • 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 Communities

There were 135 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.

  • 88.15% (119 of 135 respondents) – identified that they have considered formalizing ESS mutual aid agreements with neighbouring Communities
  • 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 Communities

There were 98 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.

  • 58.16% (57 of 98 respondents) – identified that they have not formally documented ESS mutual aid agreements with neighbouring Communities
  • 41.84% (41 of 98 respondents) – identified that they have formally documented ESS mutual aid agreements with neighbouring Communities
  • Feedback: A number of respondents are unsure if there’s any formalized documentation.

  • Q19. Community ESS plan part of a Regional plan

There were 115 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.

  • 38.26% (44 of 115 respondents) – identified their ESS plan is not part of a Regional plan
  • 32.17% (37 of 115 respondents) – identified they do not know if their ESS plan is part of a Regional plan
  • 29.57% (34 of 115 respondents) – identified their ESS plan is part of a Regional plan
  • 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 role

There were 125 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question. Respondents could identify more than one thing for this question.

  • 66.40% (83 of 125 respondents) – identified ESS templates and sample plans as greatest need to fulfill their ESS role
  • 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
  • 59.20% (74 of 125 respondents) – identified ICS training as greatest need to fulfill their ESS role
  • 57.60% (72 of 125 respondents) – identified people, equipment, etc. as greatest need to fulfill their ESS role
  • Feedback: Time to work on plans and conduct training, as well as budget were common themes identified through open-ended responses.

S3 – TrainingResults Overview

  • Q21. Emergency Management training taken

There 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
  • Q22. ESS training in Communities

There were 118 of a possible 156 respondents that answered this question.