cares program assessment report 053113 · cares assessment report executive summary 2 address small...

CARESProgramAssessmentReportAProjectinSupportoftheCaliforniaAnimalResponse

EmergencySystem(CARES)

May2013

PreparedFor:CaliforniaVeterinaryMedicalAssociation

Sacramento,California

Preparedby:WittO’Brien’s1501MStreet

Washington,DC20005

CARESAssessmentReport

DRAFT


DisclaimerandDisclosure,Acknowledgements i

DISCLAIMERANDDISCLOSURE

This document was prepared under a grant from FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate, U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity.PointsofvieworopinionsexpressedinthisdocumentarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyrepresenttheofficialpositionorpoliciesofFEMA'sGrantProgramsDirectorateortheU.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity.

Theauthor’sopinions,findings,conclusions,and/orrecommendationsareprovidedsolelyfortheuseandbenefitoftherequestingparty. Anystatements,allegations,and/orrecommendationsinthis report should not be construed as CVMA, CDFA, or Cal EMA policy, or decision, unless sodesignatedbyotherdocumentation.Thereportisbasedonthemostaccuratedataavailableatthetimeofpublication,andthereforeissubjecttochangewithoutnotice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ThisprogramassessmentandrecommendationsreportdevelopmentwasguidedbytheCaliforniaVeterinaryMedicalAssociation,incoordinationwithitsprogramsteeringcommitteepartners,theCaliforniaDepartmentofFoodandAgricultureandtheCaliforniaEmergencyManagementAgency.

Todevelop thisassessmentreport theCVMAretained theconsultingservicesofWittO’Brien’s,aglobal leader in preparedness, crisismanagement, and disaster response and recoverywith thedepthofexperienceandcapabilitytoprovideservicesacrossthecrisisanddisasterlifecycle.WittO’Brien’swouldlikeatacknowledgeitspartnersfromtheCaliforniaStateUniversity,Sacramento,Center forCollaborativePolicy,and fromCauleyConsulting, for theirexpertise insupportingthisassessmentreport.Theconsultingteamdevelopedthesurvey,conductedfollow‐upoutreachcalls,and developed this assessment report, including the recommendations, for the CVMA and thesteeringcommittee.


TableofContents ii

TABLEOFCONTENTS

DisclaimerandDisclosure.....................................................................................................................................................i

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................................................i

ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................................................................1

1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................1

2 Background.......................................................................................................................................................................1

3 Purpose,ScopeandMethodology............................................................................................................................1

4 KeyFindings......................................................................................................................................................................1

4.1 RegionI.....................................................................................................................................................................2

4.2 RegionII...................................................................................................................................................................3

4.3 RegionIII..................................................................................................................................................................5

4.4 RegionIV..................................................................................................................................................................7

4.5 RegionV...................................................................................................................................................................8

4.6 RegionVI................................................................................................................................................................10

4.7 StateandFederalLevel....................................................................................................................................12

5 AnalysisofFindings.....................................................................................................................................................14

5.1 Planning.................................................................................................................................................................14

5.2 Training..................................................................................................................................................................14

5.3 Exercises................................................................................................................................................................14

5.4 Resources..............................................................................................................................................................14

6 Recommendations........................................................................................................................................................16

6.1 Planning.................................................................................................................................................................16

6.2 Training..................................................................................................................................................................16

6.3 Exercises................................................................................................................................................................17

6.4 Resources..............................................................................................................................................................17

6.5 ProgramDevelopment.....................................................................................................................................17

7 Appendices......................................................................................................................................................................18

7.1 SurveyResults.....................................................................................................................................................19

7.2 OperationalAreaSummaries........................................................................................................................34

7.2.1 RegionI..............................................................................................................................................................34

7.2.2 RegionII............................................................................................................................................................43

7.2.3 RegionIII...........................................................................................................................................................54


TableofContents iii

7.2.4 RegionIV...........................................................................................................................................................64

7.2.5 RegionV.............................................................................................................................................................73

7.2.6 RegionVI...........................................................................................................................................................80


ExecutiveSummary 1

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

OVERVIEW: TheCaliforniaVeterinaryMedicalAssociation(CVMA),theCaliforniaDepartmentofFood and Agriculture (CDFA), and the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA)sponsoredanassessmentofthecurrentstateofaffairsforanimalemergencyresponseintheStateofCalifornia.CVMAanditspartnersandconsultantsdevelopedandimplementedanonlinesurveythatwas sent toover850 local, regional, tribal, state, and federal governmentorganizationsandnon‐governmental/private sector organizations. Responses were received from 195 individuals.CVMAconsultantsthenfollowed‐upwithcontactsatcountyemergencymanagementand/oranimalservicesagencies.FINDINGS: Plansandresponseproceduresat the field levelare inplaceand for themostpartcomplete;

this is not the case, however, for animal emergency management plans and mutual aidagreements.Organizationswantwrittenguidanceandsupportwithplanningandrelationshipbuildingtoenhancecoordinationandcommunication.

Participation in field level traininganddrillsandexercises is strong,butactiveorganizationsfelt their training and exercise program could be much improved. Likewise, provision oftraining at the local government/operational area level and inclusion of animal issues inemergency operations exercises was seen as not yet adequate tomeet local areamanager’sneeds.Organizationswantaccessibletraining,trainingprogramdevelopmentguidance,actualtrainingmaterials,andsupportfordrillsandexercises.

Resourcesforanimalemergenciesareahugeissue.Resourcelistsareincompleteandlevelsofpersonnel,equipmentandsuppliesareinsufficient.Resourcedatabases,mutualaidplansandagreements,andadditionalresourcesandfundingareneeded.

RECOMMENDATIONS:ThefollowingactionsarerecommendedtoimprovepreparednessandresponsecapabilityintheState.Planning: Providetemplates,guidanceandbestpracticesforplans,procedures,keyresourceacquisition

guides,mutualaidagreements,andmemorandaofunderstanding. Addressintegration,coordinationandcommunicationamong:governmentandnon‐

governmentalorganizations;evacuationandanimalshelteringresponders;proponentsofco‐locatedsheltersandco‐sheltering;andsmallercities,ruralcommunitiesandtheoperationalarea.

SupportthedevelopmentofaStateAnimalEmergencyMutualAidPlan. Exploreresourcesandfundingtosupportplanningefforts.TrainingandExercises: Supportprovisionoftrainingandexercisestoincreasecoordinationamongkeypartners.


ExecutiveSummary 2

Addresssmallandlargeanimalcare,animalcareandshelteroperations,large‐scalefieldresponse,andevacuations.

Supporttrainingandexercisesforsmallercitiesandruralcommunities. Provideand/orsupportlocalleveltrainingthatispractical,affordableandonaflexible

schedule. Provideguidanceonanimalemergencyresponsetrainingprogramandcoursedevelopment. Exploreresourcesandfundingtosupporttrainingefforts.Resources Developaresourcedatabaseandlistsofavailablephysicalresourcesandorganizations. Exploretheacquisitionofkeyresourcesrelatedtosheltering,evacuation,transportation,and

careofanimals. Exploretheacquisitionofsuppliesforanimalcareandpersonnelprotection. Supportthedevelopmentofanimalemergencymutualaidplansandagreements. Explorefundingforadditionalpersonnelandequipment.ProgramDevelopment Conductfacilitatedregionalprogramdevelopmentworkshopsthroughoutthestateto:sustain

interestinCARES;educateparticipantsonthecurrentCARESprogram;providerequestedopportunityforcross‐jurisdictionalandcross‐functionalinteractionataregionallevel;andreceivefeedbackandinputfromparticipantsonthefutureofCARESanditsmission,services,productsandactivities.


Introduction,Background 1

1 INTRODUCTION

The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), the California Department of Food andAgriculture (CDFA), and the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) partnered tosupportandimprovetheCaliforniaAnimalResponseEmergencySystem(CARES)Program.Partofthat effort is an assessment of the current state of affairs for animal emergency response in thestate.ThegoalistoidentifykeyareasandactivitiesthatwillfurtherthedevelopmentofCARESandtherebysupporttheagenciesandorganizationsthatareresponsible forprotection,responseandrecoveryeffortsforanimalsindisasters.

2 BACKGROUND

California law (Government Code 8608) requires Cal EMA to incorporate CARES, developed byCDFA, into the state's emergency management system. CARES can only be successful throughcollaborative efforts among stakeholders. To that end, the CARES Steering Committee,representing keyorganizations and animal experts,wasestablished in 2011. In2012, Cal EMAawarded a grant to the CVMA to support the committee, help develop and update guides andother materials, better define the specific role of CARES, and help identify or establish anorganization tosupportCARES.

Themajorgoalsofthecommittee aretoensurethat:

CARES isconsistent withStateStandardEmergencyManagement System(SEMS)pursuant toCalifornia GovernmentCodeSection8607(a).

There isastructural framework inplacetosustainandmaintainCARES. CARESmeets theneedsofpublicandprivateorganizations thatprotect andcareforanimals

duringdisasters.


Purpose,ScopeandMethodology 1

3 PURPOSE,SCOPEANDMETHODOLOGY

The purpose of this assessment is to assess the overall state of animal emergency planning andpreparedness in the state and to provide recommendations for improvement. The assessmentcovers thestatusofdisasterplans,mutual aidagreements, supplycaches, trainingandexercises,andothertopicspertainingtoanimaldisasterplanningandresponse.

An online survey was sent to over 850 local, regional, tribal, state, and federal governmentorganizations and non‐governmental/private sector organizations that participate in animaldisaster planning and response. Examples of recipients include sheriff’s departments, animalservices/control departments, animal shelters, city and county emergency planners, countyagricultural commissioners, farm bureaus, and other non‐profit animal groups. An invitation toparticipateinthesurveywassentviaemailbyCVMAandincludedasignedletterfromCVMA,CDFAandCalEMAonFebruary14,2013.CVMAfollowedupwithanemailwiththelinktothesurveyonFebruary19;surveyremindersweresentoutonFebruary27andMarch6.

Responsestothesurveywerereceivedfrom195individuals.Follow‐upcontactsweremadewithcounty emergency management and/or animal control agencies to ensure an understanding ofsummarized data and to give the Operational Area level an additional opportunity to provideinsightonthestrengthsandgapsoftheiranimalemergencymanagementprograms.


KeyFindings 1

4 KEYFINDINGS

Key findings from the survey and follow‐up contacts are grouped by California’s sixmutual aidregions(seefigurebelow). Anoverviewofthestateandfederal levelagenciesandorganizationsthatrepliedisalsoincludedinthissection.

AcompilationoftheallthesurveyresultsisincludedinAppendix7.2.IndividualOperationalAreaSummariesareprovidedinAppendix7.3.

NOTE: Surveyrespondentsweregiven thechoice toanswerquestions in threeareas relating totheirexperience: thosewithresponsibility for fieldresponse; thosethatcoordinateactivitiesasalocal government orOperational Area entity; or those that support animal care issues as a non‐governmental or private sector entity. In some cases, respondents did not reply to all surveyquestions. Therefore, totals for some questions may not equal the total number of possiblerespondentsforthatcategory.


KeyFindings 2

4.1 REGIONIOperationalAreas:LosAngeles,Orange,SanLuisObispo,SantaBarbara,Ventura

SURVEYRESPONDENTS

Survey responses were received from all five operational areas. Of the forty‐seven surveyrespondents, forty‐one were from government organizations (twenty‐seven emergencymanagement and fourteen animal care) and six from non‐governmental/private organizations.Thirty‐one respondents had field level responsibilities and thirty‐eight had localgovernment/operationalarealevelresponsibilities.CURRENTSITUATION

Field level plans and procedures are in place for three‐quarters of the responding entities; one‐thirdofthoseareconsideredcompleteorverycomplete.Atthelocalgovernment/operationalarealevel,lessthanhalftheentitiesrespondingstatedtheyhaveananimalemergencyplan.Inthenon‐governmental/private sector, one‐third have a written plan and one‐third participate in theirjurisdiction’sanimalplanningactivities.Over half the respondents rated the effectiveness of their field response as effective to veryeffective.Of theeighteen localgovernment/operationalarearespondingorganizationsexpressinganopinion,one‐thirdstatedthattheyareabletocoordinateprettywellorwellwiththeRegionalEmergencyOperationsCenter.

Almosttwo‐thirdsoftherespondentswithfieldresponsibilitiesstatedtheyhavereceivedtrainingand almost half have participated in drills or exercises; third of those responding stated theirtrainingandexerciseprogramissufficient. Atthelocalgovernment/operationalarealevel,tenofthe twenty‐eight responding entities stated they have been trained on animal responsecoordination activities and six of seventeen indicated Emergency Operations Center (EOC)exercisesincludeanimalissues.

At the field level, one‐third of the respondents said their resource lists are complete to verycomplete.Atthelocalgovernment/operationalarealevel,twoofthetwenty‐sixrespondentsstatedthelevelofresourcesavailabletotheiragency(personnel,equipment,andsupplies)issufficienttoverysufficient.Outoftwenty‐sixrespondents,tenhaveasupplycacheandninehavejust‐in‐timepurchaseagreements. Twoofthefivenon‐governmental/privatesectorrespondentshaveformalagreements with government agencies to provide disaster services. Seven of the twenty‐fourrespondents stated that the Master Mutual Aid Agreement adequately addresses animal‐relatedresources.


KeyFindings 3

STRENGTHS

Effectivenessoffieldlevelresponse Participationoffieldpersonnelintrainingandexercises

GAPSANDNEEDS

PLANNING Templates,how‐toguidanceandbestpracticesforplans,SOPs,resourcelists,andMOUs

forgovernment,volunteerrescueoperations,facilities(e.g.,zoos)andanimalbusinesses(e.g.,groomers).

Informationonanimalevacuations. Plandevelopmentsupport. Supportforplanningwithlocalandregionalpartners.

TRAINING Smallandlargeanimalcareindisasters. Evacuationanddeployment,especiallyresponsetolargeanimalevacuations. Moretrainingforvolunteers. Materialstoconducttraining,e.g.,lowcost,sustainable,internal.

EXERCISES

Drillsandexercisesforcareofbothsmallandlargeanimalsinadisaster. Practiceevacuationplanforanimalsheltersandforlargeandcommercialanimal.

RESOURCES

Lackoftrainedfieldresponders. Sheltersforlargeandsmallanimals. Trailersforlargeandsmallanimalevacuationandmovement. Basicanimalcaresupplies. Mutualaidplanandagreementsforanimalresources.

4.2 REGIONIIOperational Areas: Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino,Monterey,Napa,SanBenito,SanFrancisco,SanMateo,SantaClara,SantaCruz,SolanoandSonoma.

SURVEYRESPONDENTS

Surveyresponseswerereceivedfromtwelveofthesixteenoperationalareas.Ofthethirtysurveyrespondents, twenty‐onewere fromgovernment organizations (ten emergencymanagement andelevenanimalcare)andninefromnon‐governmental/privateorganizations.Eighteenrespondentshave field level responsibilities and nineteen have local government/operational area levelresponsibilities.


KeyFindings 4

CURRENTSITUATION

Fieldlevelplansandproceduresareinplacefortwo‐thirdsoftherespondingentities.Halfofthoseare considered complete tovery complete. At the local government/operational area level, two‐thirds of those responding stated they have an animal emergency plan. One‐third of the non‐governmental/private organizations have a written plan and almost half participate in theirjurisdiction’sanimalplanningactivities.

Welloverhalf the respondents rated theeffectivenessof their field responseaseffective toveryeffective. In interviews, threeoperational areasnoted they coordinate andplanwith a variety oforganizations. Of the seven local government/operational area responding organizationsexpressinganopinion,almosthalfstatedthattheyareabletocoordinateprettywellorwellwiththeRegionalEmergencyOperationsCenter.

Over half the respondents with field responsibilities stated they have received training andparticipateindrillsorexercises;one‐quarterofthoserespondingstatedtheirtrainingandexerciseprogram is sufficient. At the local government/operational area level, seven of the elevenrespondingentitiesstatedtheyhavebeentrainedonanimalresponsecoordinationactivitiesandthatEOCexercisesincludeanimalissues.

Atthefieldlevel,morethanone‐thirdoftherespondentssaidtheirresourcelistsarecompletetovery complete. Six operational areas mentioned volunteer resources as an asset. At the localgovernment/operational area level, one of the eight respondents stated the level of resourcesavailable to their agency (personnel, equipment, and supplies) is sufficient. Out of elevenrespondents,fivehaveasupplycacheandthreehavejust‐in‐timepurchaseagreements.OneofthenineNGO/privatesectorrespondentshasaformalagreementwithgovernmentagenciestoprovidedisaster services. Two of the eleven respondents stated that the Master Mutual Aid Agreementadequatelyaddressesanimal‐relatedresources.

STRENGTHS

Developmentandcompletenessoffieldlevelplansandprocedures. Developmentoflocalgovernment/operationalareaanimalemergencyplans. Effectivenessoffieldresponse. Participationoffieldandlocalgovernment/operationalareapersonnelintrainingand

exercises.

GAPSANDNEEDS

PLANNING Template,guidance,andbestpracticestoaddressplansandprocedures,andresource

needs. Supportforandassistancewithplandevelopment. Supportforplanningandrelationshipdevelopmentwithlocal,regional,state,and

industrypartners,includingnon‐governmentalorganizations.


KeyFindings 5

TRAINING

Trainingonaregularscheduleonplansandproceduresforstaffandvolunteers. Trainingwithkeypartners,includingnon‐animalcarepersonnelandvoluntary

organizations. Guidanceontrainingdevelopment. Additionalfundingtosupporttrainingopportunities.

EXERCISES Comprehensiveexerciseprogramthatincludesdrillsandexercisesforplans,

proceduresandagreementswithfieldandemergencymanagementpersonnel.

RESOURCES Needadditionalresourcesspecifictoanimaloperations,includingequipmentforanimal

careandpersonnelprotection,transportationvehicles,andmobileresponsetrailers. Additionalpersonnelandvolunteerstosupportoperationsduringemergencies. Mutualaidplansandagreementsforanimalresources.

4.3 REGIONIIIOperationalAreas:Butte,ColusaGlenn,Lassen,Modoc,Plumas,Shasta,Sierra,Siskiyou,Sutter,Tehama,Trinity,Yuba

SURVEYRESPONDENTS

Surveyresponseswerereceived fromelevenof the thirteenoperationalareas. Of the twenty‐sixsurveyrespondents,twentywerefromgovernmentorganizations(sixteenemergencymanagementandfouranimalcare)andsixfromnon‐governmental/privateorganizations.Twelverespondentshad field level responsibilities and seventeen had local government/operational area levelresponsibilities.

CURRENTSITUATION

Fieldlevelplansandproceduresareinplacefortwo‐thirdsoftherespondingentities.Amajorityofthoseareconsideredcompletetoverycomplete. At the localgovernment/operationalarea level,eightofelevenrespondingtothequestionstatedtheyhaveananimalemergencyplan.Ofthesixnon‐governmental/private organizations, one has a written plan and one participates in theirjurisdiction’sanimalplanningactivities.

Half the operational areas noted that there is a wide variety of animal response entities andorganizationsthatsupportemergencyoperationsandcoordinateeffectivelywitheachother.Overhalftherespondentsratedtheeffectivenessoftheirfieldresponseaseffectivetoveryeffective.Ofthe ten local government/operational area responding organizations expressing an opinion, two


KeyFindings 6

statedthattheyareabletocoordinateprettywellorwellwiththeRegionalEmergencyOperationsCenter.

Over half the respondents with field responsibilities stated they have received training andparticipateinexercises.Overhalfoftherespondentsstatedtheirtrainingandexerciseprogramisnotsufficient. Atthelocalgovernment/operationalarealevel,twooftheninerespondentsstatedtheyhavebeentrainedonanimalresponsecoordinationactivitiesandthreeofeightindicatedEOCexercisesincludeanimalissues.

At the field level, slightly less thanhalf of the respondents said their resource list is complete toverycomplete. At the localgovernment/operationalarea level, thehighestratingbythreeof theeightrespondentswasthatthelevelofresourcesavailabletotheiragency(personnel,equipment,andsupplies)issomewhatsufficient.Outofninerespondents,fourhaveasupplycacheandthreehave just‐in‐time purchase agreements. Three operational areas stated they have mutual aidagreements ormemoranda of understanding in place for resources. One of the six NGO/privatesectorrespondentshasformalagreementswithgovernmentagenciestoprovidedisasterservices.Oneof thenine respondents stated that theMasterMutualAidAgreement adequately addressesanimal‐relatedresources.

STRENGTHS

Developmentandcompletenessoffieldlevelprocedures. Effectivenessoffieldlevelresponse. Participationintrainingandexercisesatthefieldlevel. Broadspectrumoforganizationsinvolvedinresponse.

GAPSANDNEEDS

PLANNING Trainingandguidanceinthedevelopmentofanimal‐specificplans,policies,

agreements,andprocedures,includinglargeanimals. Fundingthatsupportsadditionalplandevelopment. Informationhandoutsforanimalpreparednessforindividualsandfamilies.

TRAINING Trainingtoincreasecoordinationandcommunicationandenhanceprotocolsand

proceduresforgovernmentandnon‐governmentalanimalandemergencyresponsepersonnel.

Guidanceinthedevelopmentofananimaltrainingprogram,includingtheneedsoflargeanimals.

Localtrainingopportunitiesthatbotharepracticalandaffordable. Fundingthatsupportstraining.

EXERCISES Drillsandexercisestoenhanceprotocolsandprocedures,increasecoordinationand

communicationeffortsanddeterminegapsandimprovements.


KeyFindings 7

RESOURCES Resourcedatabaseandlistsoftheavailableresourcesandorganizationsthatarewilling

andabletoassistinanimalresponseoperations. Equipmentforresponseandshelteroperationsandfundingthatsupportsprocurement

ofadditionalresources. Mutualaidplansandagreementsforanimalresources. Fundingforadditionalpersonnel.

4.4 REGIONIVOperationalAreas:Alpine,Amador,Calaveras,ElDorado,Nevada,Placer,Sacramento,SanJoaquin,StanislausTuolumneandYolo.

SURVEYRESPONDENTS

Surveyresponseswerereceivedfromtenoftheelevenoperationalareas.Ofthetwenty‐sixsurveyrespondents, fifteenwere from government organizations (six emergencymanagement and nineanimalcare)andtenfromnon‐governmental/privateorganizations.Twelverespondentshadfieldlevelresponsibilitiesandthirteenhadlocalgovernment/operationalarealevelresponsibilities.

CURRENTSITUATION

Fieldlevelplansandproceduresareinplaceforoverhalfoftherespondingentities.Lessthanhalfofthoseareconsideredcompletetoverycomplete.Atthelocalgovernment/operationalarealevel,fourofnine responding to thequestionstated theyhaveananimalemergencyplan. Of the fiveresponding non‐governmental/private organizations, one has a written plan. Five of the ninerespondentsstatedtheyparticipateintheirjurisdiction’sanimalplanningactivities.

Three‐quartersoftherespondentsratedtheeffectivenessoftheirfieldresponseaseffectivetoveryeffective.Ofthesevenlocalgovernment/operationalareaorganizationsexpressinganopinion,twostatedthattheyareabletocoordinateprettywellwiththeRegionalEmergencyOperationsCenter.

Slightlymore than half of those respondingwith field responsibilities stated they have receivedtraining and participate in exercises. One‐third of the respondents stated their training andexerciseprogramissufficient. Atthelocalgovernment/operationalarea level, threeofthesevenrespondentsstatedtheyhavebeentrainedonanimalresponsecoordinationactivitiesand fiveofsevenindicatedEOCexercisesincludeanimalissues.

Atthefieldlevel,slightlylessthanhalfoftherespondentssaidtheirresourcelist iscomplete. Atthe local government/operational area level, one of the six respondents stated the level ofresourcesavailabletotheiragency(personnel,equipment,andsupplies)issufficient.Twoofsevenrespondents knew of a supply cache and one of eight knew of existing just‐in‐time purchaseagreements. Half the operational areas noted they have strong support fromnon‐governmentalagenciesandvolunteers.TwoofthenineNGO/privatesectorrespondentshaveformalagreementswithgovernmentagenciestoprovidedisasterservices.TwooftheninerespondentsstatedthattheMasterMutualAidAgreementadequatelyaddressesanimal‐relatedresources.


KeyFindings 8

STRENGTHS

Participationinfieldleveltraining. Effectivenessoffieldresponse. Supportandparticipationfromnon‐governmentalorganizationsandvolunteers. Inclusionofanimal‐relatedissuesinEOCexercises.

GAPSANDNEEDS

PLANNING

TemplateforanAnimalEmergencyResponsePlanthatincludesevacuation. Modelresourcelists. Developmentandassistancetocompleteawrittenplan. Guidanceandassistancetosetupeffectivedisasteranimalresponseprogramsinthe

smallercitiesandruralcommunities. Modelforintegrationandcommunicationbetweennon‐governmentalorganizations,public

agencies,andCARES. Bettercoordinationwithkeypartners.

TRAINING Trainingforfieldrespondersandanimalcareandshelteroperations. TrainingtofamiliarizefirstresponderswithAnimalEmergencyPlan. Trainingprovidedlocallyduetotravelprohibitionsandfundingissues. Disaster‐specifictrainingforsmallercitiesandruralcommunities.EXERCISES Drillsandexercisesspecifictoanimalcareandshelteroperationsandmutualaid

agreements. DrillsandexercisestofamiliarizefirstresponderswithAnimalEmergencyPlan. Drillsandexercisesforsmallercitiesandruralcommunities.RESOURCES Personnel,equipmentandsupplies. Financialsupportfornon‐governmentalorganizationstoacquireandmaintainequipment. Resourcesforevacuation,transportationandsheltering. Mutualaidplansandagreementsforanimalresources.

4.5 REGIONVOperationalAreas:Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,MercedandTulare.

SURVEYRESPONDENTS


KeyFindings 9

Survey responses were received from all seven operational areas. Of the seventeen surveyrespondents,twelvewerefromgovernmentorganizations(sevenemergencymanagementandfiveanimalcare)and five fromnon‐governmental/privateorganizations. Eightrespondentshad fieldlevelresponsibilitiesandtenhadlocalgovernment/operationalarealevelresponsibilities.CURRENTSITUATION

Field level plans andprocedures are in place for half of the responding entities. One‐quarter ofthose are considered complete. At the local government/operational area level, two of sevenresponding to the question stated theyhave an animal emergencyplan. Of the five respondingnon‐governmental/private organizations, two have a written plan and three participate in theirjurisdiction’sanimalplanningactivities.

Three‐quartersoftherespondentsratedtheeffectivenessoftheirfieldresponseaseffectivetoveryeffective.Ofthesevenlocalgovernment/operationalareaorganizationsexpressinganopinion,onestatedthattheyareabletocoordinatewellwiththeRegionalEmergencyOperationsCenter.Halftherespondentswithfieldresponsibilitiesstatedtheyhavereceivedtraining;one‐quarterhaveparticipatedindrillsandexercises.Noneofthefieldlevelrespondentsstatedtheirtrainingandexerciseprogramissufficient.Atthelocalgovernment/operationalarealevel,twoofthesixrespondentsstatedtheyhavebeentrainedonanimalresponsecoordinationactivitiesandthatEOCexercisesincludeanimalissues.Atthefieldlevel,one‐quarteroftherespondentssaidtheirresourcelistiscomplete.Atthelocalgovernment/operationalarealevel,noneofthesevenrespondentsstatedthelevelofresourcesavailabletotheiragency(personnel,equipment,andsupplies)issufficient.Threeofsixrespondentshaveasupplycacheandjust‐in‐timepurchaseagreements.NoneofthefourNGO/privatesectorrespondentshasaformalagreementwithgovernmentagenciestoprovidedisasterservices.NoneofthesixrespondentsstatedthattheMasterMutualAidAgreementadequatelyaddressesanimal‐relatedresources.STRENGTHS

Effectivenessoffieldresponse Participationinfieldleveltraining

GAPSANDNEEDS

PLANNING Templatesforplansandmutualaidagreements,includinglargescaleevacuationand

commerciallivestock Guidanceforsmallercitiesandruralcommunities GuidanceonandbenefitsofdevelopingaCountyAnimalResponseTeam Coordinationandcommunicationamonggovernmentandnon‐governmentalorganizations


KeyFindings 10

TRAINING Trainingforfieldandlocalgovernment/operationalareaentities,particularlyinlarge‐scale

fieldresponseandevacuationsEXERCISES Drillsandexercises,particularlyinlarge‐scalefieldresponseandevacuations

RESOURCES Equipmentandsuppliesforevacuationandshelteringincludingsmallanimals,horsesand

livestock Mutualaidplanandagreementsforanimalresources Fundingforstaffandresources

4.6 REGIONVIOperationalAreas:Imperial,Inyo,Mono,Riverside,SanBernardino,SanDiego

SURVEYRESPONDENTS

Survey responses were received from all six operational areas. Of the thirty‐one surveyrespondents,twenty‐twowerefromgovernmentorganizations(nineemergencymanagementandthirteenanimalcare)andninefromnon‐governmental/privateorganizations.Fifteenrespondentshad field level responsibilities and twenty‐one had local government/operational area levelresponsibilities.

CURRENTSITUATION

Field level plans and procedures are in place for over three‐quarters of the responding entities.Well over half of those are considered complete or very complete. At the localgovernment/operationalarealevel,overhalfofthoserespondingtothequestionstatedtheyhaveananimalemergencyplan. Ofthefourrespondingnon‐governmental/privateorganizations,onehas awrittenplan. Threeof nine respondents participate in their jurisdiction’s animalplanningactivities.

Three‐quartersoftherespondentsratedtheeffectivenessoftheirfieldresponseaseffectivetoveryeffective. Of the ten local government/operational area responding organizations expressing anopinion, six stated that they were able to coordinate pretty well or well with the RegionalEmergencyOperationsCenter.

Almost three‐quarters of the respondents with field responsibilities stated they have receivedtraining; lessthanhalfparticipateindrillsandexercises. One‐thirdofthefieldlevelrespondentsstatedtheirtrainingandexerciseprogramissufficient. Atthelocalgovernment/operationalarealevel, seven of the thirteen respondents stated they have been trained on animal responsecoordinationactivitiesandfivestatedthatEOCexercisesincludeanimalissues.


KeyFindings 11

Atthefieldlevel,slightlylessthanhalfoftherespondentssaidtheirresourcelistwascompleteorvery complete. At the local government/operational area level, one of the eleven respondentsstated the level of resources available to their agency (personnel, equipment, and supplies)wassufficientorverysufficient.Sixofthirteenrespondentshaveasupplycacheandthreehavejust‐in‐time purchase agreements. Two of the nine NGO/private sector respondents have a formalagreement with government agencies to provide disaster services. Seven of the thirteenrespondents stated that the Master Mutual Aid Agreement adequately addresses animal‐relatedresources.

STRENGTHS

Developmentandcompletenessoffieldlevelprocedures. Developmentoflocalgovernment/operationalareaanimalemergencyplans. Effectivenessoffieldresponse. CoordinationwiththeRegionalEmergencyOperationsCenter. Participationinfieldandlocalgovernment/operationalarealeveltraining. Supportfromlocalcommunities.

GAPSANDNEEDS

PLANNING Supportandassistancefordevelopmentofplans,proceduresandprotocolstoaddress

theneedsofanimals,includinglargeanimalsandlivestock,duringemergencyresponseoperations.

Evaluationofanimaldemographicstoensureplanningandpreparednessmeetpotentialneeds.

Educationalmaterialsforthepubliconpreparedness.

TRAINING Trainingforfieldandlocalgovernment/operationalareapersonnel,includinganimal

careandshelteroperations. Trainingtosupportincreasedcoordinationamonggovernmentandnon‐governmental

entities. Affordablelocaltrainingwithaflexibleschedule. Additionalfundingfortrainingopportunities.

EXERCISES Exercisesforthelocalgovernment/operationalareaplanandfieldresponse.

RESOURCES Additionalpersonneltotakeontheresponsibilityofaddressinganimalneeds. Equipmentandsupplycachestosupportresponse,includingcareandshelteroperation. Resourcedatabaseofavailableresources.


KeyFindings 12

Additionaltrainedpersonneltorespondtotheneedsofanimalsduringemergencies. Resourcedatabasethatidentifiesavailableresourcesintheregionandstate.

4.7 STATEANDFEDERALLEVEL

SURVEYRESPONDENTS

Surveyresponseswerereceivedfromelevengovernmentalorganizations(eightemergencymanagementandthreeanimalcare)andeightnon‐governmental/privatesectorentities1.Sevenrespondentshadfieldlevelresponsibilitiesandeighthadsupportresponsibilitiesforlocalgovernment/operationalarealevel.CURRENTSITUATION

Fieldlevelplansandproceduresareinplaceforalmostthree‐quartersoftherespondingentities.More than half of those are considered complete or very complete. At the localgovernment/operational area support level, all seven entities responding stated they have ananimalemergencyplan. OftheeightrespondingNGO/privatesectorentities,twohaveawrittenplan.Fiveofsevenrespondentsparticipateintheirjurisdictionalanimalplanningactivities.

Three‐quartersoftherespondentsratedtheeffectivenessoftheirfieldresponseaseffectivetoveryeffective.Ofthesixrespondinggovernmentorganizationsexpressinganopinion,threestatedthattheywereabletocoordinateprettywellorwellwiththeRegionalEmergencyOperationsCenter.

Six of seven respondents with field responsibilities stated they have received training and fiveparticipate in drills and exercises. Half of the field level respondents stated their training andexerciseprogramissufficient.Atthelocalgovernment/operationalareasupportlevel,twoofthesixrespondentsstatedtheyhavebeentrainedonanimalresponsecoordinationactivitiesandfivestatedthatEOCexercisesincludeanimalissues.

At the field level, two of the four respondents said their resource list is complete. At the localgovernment/operational area support level, three respondents stated the level of resourcesavailabletotheiragency(personnel,equipment,andsupplies)issomewhatsufficient.Twooffiverespondentshaveasupplycacheandfourhavejust‐in‐timepurchaseagreements.Noneofthefournon‐governmental/privatesectorrespondentshaveaformalagreementwithgovernmentagenciesto provide disaster services. One of the six respondents stated that the Master Mutual AidAgreementadequatelyaddressesanimal‐relatedresources.

1CaliforniaStateGovernment:DepartmentofFishandWildlife;CaliforniaEmergencyManagementAgency;DepartmentofSocialServices;UniversityofCalifornia,Davis(SchoolofVeterinaryMedicine;OiledWildlifeCareNetwork).FederalGovernment:FederalEmergencyManagementAgency;UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture/AnimalandPlantHealthInspectionService.Non‐Governmental:CaliforniaVeterinaryMedicalAssociation;CaliforniaVeterinaryMedicalReserveCorps;PetSafeCoalition;CaliforniaPoultryFederation;CaliforniaDairyCampaign.


KeyFindings 13

STRENGTHS

Developmentandcompletenessoffieldlevelplansandprocedures. Developmentofgovernmentanimalemergencyplans. Participationofnon‐governmental/privatesectorinplanningactivities. Effectivenessoffieldresponse. CoordinationwiththeRegionalEmergencyOperationsCenter.

GAPSANDNEEDS

PLANNING Developmentofnon‐governmental/privatesectorplanstocoordinatewith

governmentalentities. Guidanceforevacuation(includingforthoseunabletobeevacuated),animalsheltering,

andco‐sheltering.TRAINING

Resourcesandfundingtoexpandtrainingprograms.

RESOURCES Countyresourceroster. Resourcesandfundingforequipment.


AnalysisofFindings 14

5 ANALYSISOFFINDINGS

5.1 PLANNINGLocal, state and federal government agencies have put plans and procedures in place for fieldresponse and at their respective governmental levels. Most field response plans are viewed ascomplete. However, it appearsanimalemergencymanagementplansarenotascompleteacrossthe state. While many non‐governmental/private sector organizations participate in planningactivities,therearefewwithwrittenplans.Itisclearthatorganizationsandagencieswantwrittenguidanceandtemplatesforplans,procedures,andagreementsforthevarietyofanimalemergencyresponseactivitiestheycarryout.Inaddition,thosesameentitiesrecognizethatwrittenmaterialswill not solve all their problems and they have asked for support and assistance with plandevelopment.

Manyregionsreflectstrongsupportandinclusivenessfromlocalcommunities,voluntaryagenciesandvolunteersinplanningandresponseandrecognizehowcriticalthisis.Thesameneedexistsatthelocal,regionalandstatelevelsforsupportwithplanningandrelationshipbuildingtoenhancecoordinationandcommunicationamongallgovernmentandnon‐governmentalstakeholders.

5.2 TRAININGParticipation in field level training is strong across the state and, together with plans andprocedures,supportsaneffectivefieldresponse.Evenso,mostfieldorganizationsfeltthattrainingwasnotsufficient.Farlessthanhalfthelocalgovernment/operationalarealevelrespondentshavebeentrainedonanimalresponsecoordination.Thereisaneedfortrainingtoincreasecoordinationacross governmental levels and functional responsibilities. In order for that training to beaccessible,providersmustrecognizethelimitationsofagencybudgetsandabilitytotravel.

Thereisaneedtoprovidenotonlythetrainingitself,buttoprovideguidanceonthedevelopmentof trainingprogramsandtoprovideactual trainingmaterials. Thiswillsupportsustainabilitybyallowingorganizationstodelivertheirowntraining.

5.3 EXERCISESParticipation in drills and exercises by field level organizations is fairly strong. However, liketraining,fieldlevelorganizationsoverwhelminglystatedthattheirexerciseprogramisinsufficient.At the local government/operational area level, the majority of emergency operations centerexercisesdonotincludeanimalissues.Planning,trainingandexercisesareimportantforeffectivepreparedness,especiallyconsideringthatexercisesaretheclosestthatorganizationsandtheirstaffwill come to a real event for practicing their skills. There is a need for drills and exercises topracticeandtestcoordinationandcommunicationamongalllevelsofresponders.

5.4 RESOURCESResourcesforanimalemergenciesareahugeissueinthestate.Onlythirtypercentoforganizationswithfieldresponsibilitiesstatedthattheirresourcelistsarecompleteandlessthantenpercentof


AnalysisofFindings 15

local government/operational area entities have a sufficient level of personnel, equipment andsupplies.Additionalresourcesandfundingtosupportandmaintainthemisneeded.

These organizations do recognize that it is not realistic for them to have a sufficient amount ofresources to respond to a disaster on their own. Theneed fordatabases of available resources,alongwithmutualaidplansandothertypesofresourceuseagreementsiscritical.


Recommendations 16

6 RECOMMENDATIONS

ThissectionprovidesrecommendationstosupporttheimprovementandsustainmentoftheCARESProgram.

6.1 PLANNING Develop templates for and guidance on the following for the field and local

government/operationalarealevels:o Planso Procedureso Resourcesidentificationandacquisitiono Mutualaidagreementso Memorandaofunderstandingforgovernmentandnon‐governmental

organizations. Ensurethatguidanceaddressesintegration,coordinationandcommunicationamong

governmentandnon‐governmentalorganizations;evacuation;animalsheltering;andco‐locatedsheltersandco‐sheltering.

Providespecificguidanceforanimalresponseprogramsforsmallercitiesandruralcommunities.

Developguidanceusableforkeynon‐governmentalanimalcareentitiesthatassuresalignmentandintegrationwithfieldrespondersandlocalgovernment/operationalareasduringdisasters.

Includebestpracticesinguidancematerials.Ensureplansalignwithotherpublicsectoremergencyprogrammaticplans,i.e.,strategic,emergencyoperations,mitigation,recovery,hazardspecificplans,etc.

SupportthedevelopmentofaStateAnimalEmergencyMutualAidPlan. Exploreresourcesandfundingtosupportplanningefforts.

6.2 TRAINING Identifyandprovidetrainingforthespecifiedaudiencesonthefollowing

topics:o Trainingtoincreasecoordinationamongkeypartners,includinggovernment,

non‐governmentalagenciesandbothanimalandnon‐animalemergencyresponsepersonnel.

o Trainingforfieldandlocalgovernment/operationalareapersonnel,includingsmallandlargeanimalcareindisasters,animalcareandshelteroperations,large‐scalefieldresponse,andevacuations(includinglargeanimals)andinformationtofamiliarizefirstresponderswithanimalemergencymanagementplan.

o Disaster‐specifictrainingforsmallercitiesandruralcommunities. Providepracticalandaffordablelocaltrainingonaflexibleschedule.


Recommendations 17

Provideguidanceonthedevelopmentofananimalemergencyresponsetrainingprogram.

Provideguidanceontrainingcoursedevelopment,includingmaterialstoconducttraining.

Exploreresourcesandfundingtosupportandexpandtrainingprogramsandopportunities.

6.3 EXERCISES

Provideandsupportdrillsandexercisestotest,improveandenhanceprotocolsandproceduresandincreasecoordinationandcommunicationeffortsforfieldrespondersandlocalgovernment/operationalarea.

Ensurethatdrillsandexercisesaddresslarge‐scalefieldresponse,evacuationsandcareandshelteroperationsforbothlargeandsmallanimals.

Supportdrillsandexercisestailoredforsmallercitiesandruralcommunities.

6.4 RESOURCES

Developaresourcedatabaseand/orlistsoftheavailableresourcesandorganizationsthatarewillingandabletoassistinanimalresponseoperations.

Exploretheacquisitionandidentificationofsheltersforlargeandsmallanimals;trailersandtransportationvehiclesforlargeandsmallanimalevacuationandmovement;equipmentandsupplycachestosupportresponse,includingequipmentforanimalcareandshelter(smallanimals,horsesandlivestock)andpersonnelprotection.

Supportthedevelopmentofanimalemergencymutualaidplansandagreements. Explorefundingforadditionalpersonnelandequipment.

6.5 PROGRAMDEVELOPMENTThefourrecommendationareasabove–planning,training,exercises,andresources–arevitaltothe development and maintenance of an animal response and management program bygovernmentandnon‐governmentalentitiesatalljurisdictionallevels.Therecommendationscovernotonlytheprovisionofguidancedocuments,butalsosupport forcoordinationactivitiesamongthekeystakeholders.Infact,therecommendeddocumentsareonlyasgoodastheprocessesusedtodevelopthemandtheinteractionamongthosewithidentifiedrolesandresponsibilities.

Tothatend,itisrecommendedthatfacilitatedregionalprogramdevelopmentworkshopsbeheldthroughoutthestate. ThepurposeoftheworkshopsistosustaininterestinCARESgeneratedbythis assessment process; educate participants on the current CARES program; provide anopportunity forcross‐jurisdictionalandcross‐functional interactionat a regional level; leveragedthe capabilities of the concerned and responsible and, very importantly, to receive feedback andinputfromparticipantsonthefutureofCARESanditsproductsandactivities.

cares program assessment report 053113 · cares assessment report executive summary 2 address small...

Documents