Attachment L Version_1 1

Curriculum Management

System Guidebook

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Protection and National Preparedness

National Preparedness Directorate

National Training and Education

Emergency Management Institute

Version 1.1 (June 2011)

CMS Version History

VERSION HISTORY

Table of Contents

1ection 1: Executive Summary 1-S

11.1 Purpose 1-

11.2 Organization 1-

11.3 Strategy 1-

31.4 Authority 1-

31.5 Overview 1-

41.6 Scope 1-

51.7 Analyzing, Designing, Developing, Implementing, and Evaluation (ADDIE) 1-

51.7.1 Analysis 1-

51.7.2 Design 1-

51.7.3 Development 1-

61.7.4 Implementation 1-

61.7.5 Evaluation 1-

71.8 Development Teams and Partnerships 1-

81.9 Staff Roles 1-

1Section 2: Curriculum Management and Course Development Process 2-

12.1 Project and Curriculum Planning 2-

22.1.1 Curricula Management 2-

32.1.2 Stakeholders 2-

42.1.3 Curricula Staff Responsibilities 2-

112.2 Needs Analysis 2-

122.2.1 Analysis Phase 2-

172.2.2 Typical Responsibilities 2-

232.3 Course Design 2-

332.4 Course Development 2-

452.5 Course Implementation (Delivery) 2-

572.6 Evaluation 2-

2.7 Accreditations and Credits for EMI Courses 2-65 712.8 Curriculum Maintenance 2-

2.9 Toolbox 2-75 1Appendix A: Formats for Selected Training and Education Materials A-

Obtaining the Electronic Course Development Template A-1

POI Standards A-3

IG Standards A-3

SM Standards A-5

1Appendix B: Stafford Act on Training B-

1Appendix C: EMAP Standards C-

1Appendix D: NFPA 1600 Training Standard D-

1Appendix E: DHS Grants Guidance on Training and Exercises FY07 E-

1Appendix F: EMI Section 508 Requirements F-

Appendix G: NETC 1500.2 Standardized Reporting Definitions and Work Measurements G-1 Appendix H: Format and Example of a Glossary H-1

Appendix I: CMS Guidebook Version 1.1 (list of changes by page number) I-1 “Deleted History of EMI, Version 1.1.”

Section 1

Executive Summary

Section 1: Executive Summary

1.1 Purpose

This document provides direction for supervisors and course managers about the Emergency Management Institute’s (EMI) curriculum and course development processes. This document also defines staff and stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities in each stage of training development processes, and describes the coordination mechanisms used to create, manage, and continuously improve EMI’s training and education programs. This document should be viewed as a “living” guideline to procedures with ongoing review and clarifications.

1.2 Organization

This document provides an outline for training management organized into three sections:

· Section 1 – An Executive Summary which provides an overview and understanding of the course and curriculum development process at EMI.

· Section 2 – A Course Development and Training Program Management Process section which articulates the processes which are used to guide training development, curriculum, and program management at EMI. Included in this section are the roles and responsibilities incorporated into the EMI course and training program management.

· Section 3 – Appendices with documents for standards, methodologies, and model course materials, as well as legislation and guidelines.

This Guidebook will be updated as EMI adopts new procedures, technologies, or tools to ensure that its customers’ needs are met in the best manner possible.

1.3 Strategy

This section sets forth the progress for a curriculum and course development system for EMI consistent with the Curriculum Management System Work Group charter “to develop a process for course development and coordination to be consistent academically, fundamentally sound, and a reliable process. It will also prevent redundancy to EMI courses, as well as other courses and curricula in the field of emergency management.” This document includes an Executive Summary, document system, process overview, and charts of key procedural stages. It uses a simple, resource-effective system of course development that applies Analyzing, Designing, Developing, Implementing, and Evaluation (the ADDIE model) to EMI training courses.

EMI uses the following methods to deliver its curriculum to the widest possible audience:

· Resident Courses – Courses held at EMI that are 24 to 40 hours in length. Students attend training at EMI’s campus located in Emmitsburg, Maryland. These courses may also be held at other training centers, such as the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) and the Noble Training Center. EMI certificates of completion of training are awarded.

· Field Courses – Courses developed in the EMI course curriculum for and in conjunction with stakeholders for implementation by State Emergency Management Agencies Training Programs. State certificates of completion of training are awarded. Audiences in the field may include State, local, Tribal, nongovernmental and other officials, and private citizens.

· Mobile Courses – Courses within the EMI curriculum conducted by EMI staff or instructors, delivered at a location not normally associated with one of EMI’s training facilities. These include Joint Field Offices (JFO) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regional offices. EMI certificates of completion of training are awarded.

· Independent Study – Web-based courses offered at www.training.fema.gov are by EMI. EMI certificates of completion of training are awarded.

Courses within the EMI curriculum (usually resident) are sometimes offered at the Noble Training Center in Anniston, Alabama. Instructors are provided by EMI, and EMI certificates of completion of training are provided. Resident courses held by EMI at CDP and Noble are considered Noble courses.

This system is compatible with the Instructional System Design (ISD) process which is fundamental to the EMI curriculum management system. ISD should be applied consistently by EMI staff according to established procedures and standards, coordination mechanisms, and tools.

Instructional System Design Model:

The starting point for EMI’s Course Development System is the ISD model used in EMI’s Master Trainer Program. EMI databases, standard operating procedures, and other tools are utilized in this system.

Implementing the system will require an extensive commitment of in-house and contracted resources and will include the following:

· Input from external technical experts and stakeholders.

· Continual update and improvement of the processes in living documents and in practice.

· Training of all staffs involved in the EMI Course Development System.

· Random sampling by an advisory team for quality assurance, product integrity, and adherence to process.

· Concurrence from EMI management.

· Development of an EMI Course Development model (both existing and proposed elements).

· Job aids to facilitate the use of models, including paper, Web and/or disk-based (CD-ROM, DVD) or any combination.

· Scheduled follow-up sessions, such as discussions including EMI, Regional, National Integration Center (NIC), Higher Education, and management on issues and concerns regarding curriculum development and management.

1.4 Authority

EMI is enabled to provide training by The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended, quoted verbatim as follows.

“Title VI, Emergency Preparedness, subtitle A—Powers and Duties, is (f) Training Programs states that:

(1) The Superintendent may—

(A) Conduct or arrange, by contract or otherwise, the training programs for the instruction of emergency preparedness officials and other persons in the organization, operation, and techniques of emergency preparedness;

(B) Conduct or operate schools or including the payment of travel expenses, in accordance with subchapter 1 of chapter 57 of Title 5, and the Standard Government Travel Regulations, and per diem allowances, in lieu of subsistence for trainees in attendance of the furnishing of subsistence and quarters for trainees and instructors on terms prescribed by the Director.

(C) Provide instructors and training aids as necessary.

1.5 Overview

This Course Development System supports the Vision for New FEMA and EMI goals by providing:

· Residential training and education not otherwise available from existing State, Tribal, and local training/education venues to emergency management professionals.

· Residential training and education to FEMA employees and the disaster workforce as well as officials from other agencies, Voluntary Agencies Active in Disasters (VOAD), and the private sector.

· Courses, course materials, and other support through State and field programs to State, Tribal, and local jurisdiction training systems to enhance their training of emergency management professionals.

· Distance learning and self-instructional training and higher educational opportunities for emergency management personnel who, because of work schedules and location, have insufficient access to existing and traditional Federal, State, Tribal, and local training opportunities.

· Higher education opportunities that advance the profession of emergency management.

· Ensures coordination of training efforts and unity of effort.

1.6 Scope

The span of EMI’s emergency management and disaster training and education responsibilities is very broad through all phases of prevention, preparedness, mitigation, response; and recovery. Target audiences include FEMA employees and the disaster workforce; other Federal, State, Tribal, and local emergency managers; voluntary organizations; and the general public. Individual program areas are often technically complex or specialized, and there are many courses, programs, and training development activities occurring simultaneously. As a result, participation in the curriculum development process requires close coordination and detailed management of diverse input from many differing stakeholders, instructors, and program offices. Course managers are critical in facilitating and supporting these efforts in order to ensure smooth operation in accomplishment of training and educational goals.

EMI employs a training development system that includes ongoing needs assessment and evaluation, organized curriculum and program planning, traditional instructional design phases and methods for courses under development and revision, and specialized curriculum management approaches for course delivery. A blended learning approach encouraged and directed as appropriate is available to students with delivery formats that include resident, field, and alternative delivery platforms. Because of the number and complexity of projects and courses active in EMI’s curriculum, the system also includes a comprehensive EMI Master Course List that is available in the Toolbox in this document. The components and phases of the system are depicted and summarized briefly below, and then articulated in detail in the subsequent body of this document.

EMI uses the ADDIE training development and implementation model for its Instructional System Design (ISD). This model serves as a conceptual, management, and communication tool. This model was developed by the military for instructional design, implementation, and evaluation.

This model will be discussed in detail in Section 3, Training Development, and also in Appendix F, Disaster Field Training Operations (DFTO) Instructional System Design.

1.7 Analyzing, Designing, Developing, Implementing, and Evaluation (ADDIE)

1.7.1 Analysis

In the Analysis phase, a Performance and Needs Analysis (PNA) is conducted to validate the need for a training activity, curriculum, or a training program. This analysis phase forms the foundation for making decisions and justifying needed resources for the remainder of the phases within the instructional system design in instances where training is assumed to be the appropriate solution or intervention.

This phase encompasses a process of partnering with customers (stakeholders) to help them identify, define, and achieve their training goals. The PNA involves research and investigation on a specific situation, and proposes an appropriate solution. The situation can be a performance problem; introduction of a new system, technology, procedures, plans, or policies; or the need for staff development. When someone or an organization is not operating at optimal performance, the Analysis phase can help in identifying the gaps or discrepancies between what actually is and what ought to be.

1.7.2 Design

An effective training design is the blueprint used to guide the development of training. Failure to thoroughly plan out the design of a course could result in loss or waste of valuable resources (i.e., time, personnel, and materials) spent on development that fails to achieve the desired results. It is during the Design phase that the specific course learning objectives are identified and a Plan of Instruction (POI) is developed and approved. The POI provides an outline of the training content and project to best meet the needs identified during the Analysis phase. This project planning includes the selection of training methods and media to best meet the needs of the targeted audience and achieve the course objectives. EMI collaborates with key stakeholders and provides multiple resources and tools during this phase to assist in the creation of a thorough POI. Once the objectives have been identified, the Course Manager (also referred to as Training Specialist) may consult with EMI staff in the Distance Learning (DL) Branch on various options for the use of alternative delivery formats and to gain technical assistance.

1.7.3 Development

One result of thorough Analysis and Design phases is a shorter and much more productive Development phase. During the Development phase, existing training materials are updated and new materials developed based upon the training POI created during the Design phase. Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) are consulted and involved in the development of various training materials such as the Student Manual or Participant Guide, Instructor Guide, job aids, and multimedia products. A persistent pattern of review should continuously occur to ensure the materials match the intended design and enable the learners to achieve the learning objectives. Review of story boards, drafts, and the continual reference to the POI is critical at this phase of ISD.

Critical to the Development phase is a pilot test of the draft training material, analysis of the pilot test results, and final revision of the materials based upon the results of that pilot test. If alternative delivery methods are used, there will be consultation with the Distance Learning Branch staff to ensure that technical and usability requirements are met by the developers.

1.7.4 Implementation

Effective training delivery is the key to designing quality training programs. The Implementation phase includes thorough planning to provide for effective delivery.

This phase includes addressing marketing and communications including the recruitment of students: registration process; instructor selection and preparation; and logistics, such as site, equipment, and materials.

Implementation tracks within a course may vary depending upon the delivery platform. These tracks may apply to courses delivered on campus or resident training, via distance learning, or at field and other locations such as JFOs. An offshoot of distance learning is alternative delivery courses which give options based on expanding technology and creative ways to reach audiences. An additional pilot offering may be required prior to full implementation for testing and applying technical aspects of alternative delivery. Courses delivered off campus take two paths: resident courses delivered at another location (mobile training) and those courses developed at EMI handed off to the State Training Officers (STOs) [field training] to deliver. This latter category aims to serve State, Tribal, and local audiences across the country with state-of-the-art emergency management courses for their roles in the integrated emergency management systems.

1.7.5 Evaluation

The purpose of the EMI Evaluation Plan is to determine the effectiveness of FEMA’s training program in training the Nation’s emergency management community which includes FEMA employees, the FEMA Disaster Workforce, and other Federal agencies; State, Tribal, and local government officials; and other audiences, such as voluntary agency and private sector representatives. EMI’s intent is to design and implement a training evaluation system to:

· Improve the design and delivery of training.

· Assess the reaction, learning, and transfer of training to the job.

· Justify training as a viable and effective mechanism that supports FEMA’s mission to support Integrated Emergency Management at all levels of government.

EMI follows Donald Kirkpatrick’s model (Kirkpatrick, Donald L., Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1996) as its method for evaluating training. This framework follows a goal-based approach and is built upon four levels of training evaluation:

· Level One – EMI currently applies Kirkpatrick’s Level I by administering the EMI Course Evaluation Form (FEMA 95-41) to document students’ overall impression (reaction) which generates the EMI Course Evaluation Report archived in TIAS (Training Information Access System) located at http://netctraindl.fema.net/.

· Level Two – criterion-based written test addressing at least one objective from each instructional unit.

· Level Three – self and supervisory report of performance on specific benchmark actions.

· Level Four – report prepared by external observers (typically supervisors and managers), using a standard checklist evaluating such characteristics as behavioral changes, increased production, quality, improvement, proficiency impart on the individual’s performance in the organization.

Although the Kirkpatrick Model includes these four levels of evaluation, EMI currently only implements levels one through three. Level four evaluations are resource-intensive to implement. EMI is exploring the development of level four applications.

1.8 Development Teams and Partnerships

Stakeholder input into curriculum planning, development, and implementation is recognized as critical to the effectiveness of EMI’s programs. EMI maintains strong partnerships with Federal, State, Tribal, local, and voluntary organizations in their training by identifying programs that complement their organizational and operational training but do not duplicate their efforts. These partnerships through the years have produced programs such as field delivery by STOs and through Train-the-Trainer (TTT) Courses for subject matter experts.

Information, feedback, and cues from a variety of internal and external sources are used in curriculum planning and in developing and revising courses. Established EMI sources include:

· Regional Training Managers (RTMs) assigned to the Federal Preparedness Coordinators (FPCs) under the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) are a national partner in the FEMA training process. They are a primary link between FEMA regions, EMI and State, Tribal, and local partners in the curriculum development process.

· State Training Officers (STOs) have lead responsibility for courses in State delivery. They are responsible for ensuring that stakeholders’ interests, perspectives, and needs within their States are well articulated and represented in curriculum planning, and are reflected properly in training policy and program implementation. In addition, their input is critical in maintaining a flow of communication on the relevance and accuracy of policy and procedural material in the courses particularly as it relates to operational issues in the field. EMI hosts the Master Trainer Program (MTP) for these stakeholders to provide development of necessary skills to perform this role.

· Exercise Training Officers (ETOs) play a critical role in supporting the applications of the comprehensive planning, training, and exercising (PT&E) process improvement functions of adult education. EMI hosts the Master Exercise Practitioner Program (MEPP) for these stakeholders to develop necessary skills for this role. ETOs are critical to the implementation of the NPD National Exercise Program and Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP).

· Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM)

· American Public Works Association (APWA)

· National Association of Emergency Managers (NEMA)

· International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM)

· Others

1.9 Staff Roles

Key to EMI’s curriculum management approach is staff expertise and responsibility. EMI relies on the training specialist for managing course development, course delivery, and course handoff to other partners. Besides the training specialist, a typical EMI Development Team might include a variety of expert contract course designers, production specialists, content experts, and expert instructors. The primary participants involved in course development and delivery include EMI management; FEMA Program Managers; Training Specialists who may serve as the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR); Regional Training Managers (RTMs); and Distance Learning Branch staff.

The EMI Curriculum Management System requires coordinated work and contributions from every participant group.

EMI Management is responsible for overall coordination of the curriculum, including coordination of the curriculum planning process; setting short- and long-range institutional goals and priorities; establishing budgets, and approval of all project plans; Statements of Work (SOWs); and timelines.

EMI provides review and approval of all projects at inception and at the project commitment phase. It represents curriculum plans and programs to national constituencies and receives and incorporates input and feedback from FEMA program offices, other Federal, State, Tribal, local, national organizations, and major metropolitan training organizations, as well as from other members and representatives of the Nation’s emergency response community. Further, management is responsible for implementing this curriculum management and course development process and ensuring that all forms of evaluation are conducted.

FEMA Program Managers have lead responsibility for identifying training needs for delivery of their respective programs, are responsible for ensuring that their stakeholders’ interests, perspectives, and needs are well articulated and represented in EMI curriculum planning, and that stakeholders’ interests are properly reflected in relevant policy and program implementation.

Training Specialists typically have lead responsibility for one or more particular curriculum/content and are ultimately responsible for ensuring policy consistency and application for their assigned area. They directly oversee resident and non-resident instruction; prepare and present staff curriculum proposals; evaluate materials; and assure policy, content, and expert subject matter leadership during course development, implementation, and maintenance. In addition, they have content authority over (in conjunction with the specific FEMA Headquarters program office and under directions from the Branch Chief and the Office of the Superintendent) blended format including resident, mobile, State (field), and alternative delivery/distance learning courses and programs.

They may serve as COTR for course development and revision contracts. They coordinate course development efforts with national officials and facilitate the EMI course development process. As COTRs, they are accountable for contractual approval of final project deliverables. They have lead responsibility for instructional design of course materials during the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) phases of EMI’s instructional design process.

Regional Training Managers (RTMs) are responsible for facilitating FEMA/EMI training, and employee development training for Cadre of On-Call Response Employees (COREs), Disaster Reservists, and Permanent Full-Time (PFT) employees in assigned Region. RTMs coordinate with the State Training Officers (STOs) on regional and national emergency management training issues. RTMs mentor new employees and ensure proper delivery of EMI Resident courses, local offerings of Resident courses, G (field) courses, and distance learning courses. They analyze FEMA training guidance, policies, and procedures for regional management and also serve as regional cadre managers for the Disaster Field Training Operations (DFTO) Cadre. As such, they oversee training in FEMA Joint Field Offices (JFOs) during presidentially declared disasters.

Distance Learning (DL) Branch Staff are responsible for consulting with EMI Development Teams to ensure appropriate use of alternative delivery systems when considered in course development efforts. The Distance Learning staff also provides input and feedback to the Project Officer concerning Statements of Work (SOWs) that involve the use of technology. DL staff also has internal meetings with course managers, participate in contract process when necessary, and participate in course development, kick-off meetings, and the review and pilot process.

Section 508 Reviewers are responsible for ensuring products that involve electronic information technology (EIT) adhere to the laws, regulations, policies, and guidance including accessibility and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794d) of 1973 (as amended in 1998). In addition, the reviewer is responsible for assisting in the development of exception requests when and where appropriate. Electronic information technology includes information technology and any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment that is used in the creation, conversion, or duplication of data or information. The term electronic and information technology includes, but is not limited to, telecommunications products, information kiosks and transaction machines, World Wide Web sites, multimedia, and office equipment such as copiers and fax machines.

Stakeholder/Customer, Program and Policy Officials, SMEs, Instructors, and Practitioners are an invaluable element in the curriculum management process. These participants in the process identify training needs, serve on focus groups and roundtables, assist in curriculum development, serve as instructors, participate in pilot applications, and evaluate training that they receive. Critical stakeholder organizations include

· American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

· Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM)

· International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM)

· National Emergency Managers Association (NEMA)

· Higher Education Colleges and Universities

· Regional Training Managers (RTMs)

· State Training Officers (STOs)

· Exercise Training Officers (ETOs)

· State Directors (SDs)

· Cadre Managers (CMs)

· Disaster Assistance Employees (DAEs)

· Emergency Managers (EMs)

· Professionals from related disciplines including but not limited to: public health, public works, public safety, law enforcement, fire/EMS, and voluntary organizations.

In the EMI course development and deployment process, training materials are constantly reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure course objectives and stakeholder needs (as referenced above) are being met. To ensure the best training possible, all parties to the EMI training process, including stakeholders, customers, program and policy officials, subject matter experts, instructors, and course managers, must be actively engaged in all phases of the ISD process.

Section 2

Curriculum Management and Course Development Process

Section 2.1 Project and Curriculum Planning

Section 2: Curriculum Management and Course Development Process

2.1 Project and Curriculum Planning

As a Federal institution whose mission is training for all hazards in all phases of emergency management for various audiences (including Federal, State, Tribal, local, voluntary organizations, nongovernmental, private citizens, and others), EMI has multiple challenges in curriculum planning. Supporting performance improvement nationwide within the framework of an annual Federal budget cycle, EMI has developed a unique blend of traditional needs assessment curriculum planning protocols with traditional Federal operational planning requirements, in order to plan for and conduct its training activities effectively.

The core of this approach to planning is the Priorities Review, an annual curriculum and course planning meeting between EMI management, Branch Chiefs, and course managers. During this annual planning event, EMI reviews and assesses training data, course development proposals, current and upcoming Federal program priorities, and resource projections. EMI uses a variety of team decision making techniques with management and staff to balance these different requirements and to optimize program and curriculum strategies and planning. The team refers to the FEMA Strategic Plan, National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) goals, and EMI’s mission and strategic objectives and sets the current and/or upcoming year’s priorities for funding.

FEMA program objectives also serves as a principal operational framework for EMI management and staff to coordinate the current year’s work and maintain seamless production and service activities for multi-year projects and programs. Additionally, State National Training Working Group priorities and ideas for course revision and new development are solicited and factored into the process to represent the needs of the State and local emergency management organizations nationwide, principally for field and distance learning courses.

The project planning process also includes the budget, anticipated product, and general timeline for all new course development efforts. Decisions made in the priorities review process constitute management approval for initiation of all new course development efforts. Significant work is necessary before priorities review to maximize the effectiveness of the planning process. In preparation for annual curriculum planning, information is collected about proposed new courses or course revisions. In order to collect this information, a central repository and intelligence center is required. This is the function of the EMI Curriculum Team, which maintains the master list of existing and proposed courses, latest revision dates, and evaluation data.

The Office of the Superintendent interprets major national and programmatic goals and communicates them to the Branch Chiefs of EMI. Each EMI Branch initially works separately to define its priorities for new or revised training requirements supported by different funding streams. For example, the Disaster Operations and Recovery Branch prioritize projects for Disaster Support Account training funds using core competencies as guidelines. Written course and project proposals are prepared by EMI Course Managers and submitted to Branch management for consideration. After the Branches have reviewed their priorities and listed their requirements, the annual Needs Assessment Report is prepared and distributed by the Center to EMI staff and management. Project proposal presentations are prepared by staff for delivery during Priorities Review. All Branches come together in the Priorities Review to compare their projects, eliminate duplication, validate course suitability, and look for efficiencies in design and delivery for any proposed, new, changing, or dropped EMI courses in any delivery format and for any audience. Budget projections for current year and out years are determined by FEMA Headquarters program management and the Office of the Superintendent staff, who meet to coordinate budget and staffing resources based on Branch project proposals. Projections of relevant changes in FEMA goals and EMI strategic objectives, policies, and priorities are gathered, interpreted, and incorporated by EMI Course Managers in concert with EMI Senior Staff.

Each EMI Work Unit is referred to as a Branch and each is organized to manage one or more major curriculum areas, which aligns with the FEMA Headquarters Program Office. Input from stakeholder groups, in particular FEMA Headquarters program officials, is the primary determinant for changes to much of the curricula.

2.1.1 Curricula Management

The following is generally how the curricula are assigned.

Disaster Operations and Recovery Branch manages curricula for:

· Disaster Reserve Workforce Division (DRWD)

· The Disaster Reserve Workforce Cadres

· The Disaster Field Training Operations Offices through the Joint Field Offices

· Public Assistance

· Individual Assistance

· Other Federal Agency Emergency Management Training

· Federal Coordinating Officer, Principal Federal Official (PFO), Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMAT), and National Response Coordination Center (NRCC)

· Cadre-Specific/Position-Specific

Integrated Emergency Management Branch manages curricula for:

· The Integrated Emergency Management Courses

· Master Exercise Practitioner Program (MEPP)

· Master Trainer Program (MTP)

· HSEEP integration

Mitigation Branch manages curricula for:

· Mitigation Directorate

· Natural Hazards

· Floodplain Management

· Geographical Information Systems (GIS)

· Building Design

· Schools, Colleges, Universities/Hazards Planning

· Dam Safety Program

· Natural Disaster

Preparedness Branch manages curricula for:

· Emergency Management Professional Development

· Emergency Management Advanced Professional Development

· Higher Education

· Tribal Courses

· Field Courses for State and Local Emergency Managers

· Continuity of Operations (COOP)

Distance Learning Branch supports and administers:

· Technical support to Course Managers in alternative delivery formats

· Independent Study Programs (Independent Study courses themselves are managed by Training Specialists from other Branches)

· FEMA Employee Knowledge Center (FEKC)

2.1.2 Stakeholders

Stakeholders in the Curriculum Development Process include but are not limited to:

· EMI Managers

· EMI Course Managers (Training Specialists)

· FEMA Headquarters Program Office Representatives

· Regional Training Managers

· FEMA National and Regional Cadre Managers

· State Training Officers

· State Exercise Training Officers

· Local Emergency Managers

· Representatives from Emergency Management Organizations including the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) and the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), Association of State Floodplain Managers

· National Training Working Group Members (composed of State, Trust Territories, Local, Tribal, and FEMA regional training/exercise Officials)

· State Emergency Management Officials

· Local Emergency Management Officials

· Officials from:

· Allied professions

· Non-profit/not for profit organizations

· Aligned private sector organizations

· State Administrative Agency Officials

· Private Sector

· Tribal Representatives

· Federal Partners

2.1.3 Curricula Staff Responsibilities

Typical Staff Responsibilities in Curriculum Planning:

Evaluation Center

· Collects, reviews, and analyzes data and prepares annual Needs Assessment Reports for staff and management.

· Supports the priorities review and planning process as needed in data dissemination.

Course Manager/Training Specialist

· Ensures process fidelity.

· Coordinates “blended efforts” to include Higher Education technical aspects and Distance Learning.

· Uses curriculum needs assessment data and original approaches, and independently performs reviews and analyses to determine the need for educational systems and/or course development or review.

· Coordinates with external and internal sources to eliminate duplication of effort.

· Serves as the advocate and spokesperson for new course concept internally and externally (with training audience) as identified in the analysis phase.

· Disseminates trends, changes in standards and laws, and politically sensitive areas of curriculum needs planning.

· Provides rationale for the assessment of the training need.

· Prepares and submits a project design and implementation plan for management approval.

· Independently carries out assigned projects and analysis, interpreting policy and regulations in accordance with established objectives, resolving most conflicts, and coordinating with others.

· Conducts research on availability of existing training products that may meet the needs identified.

· Makes use of technology and software applications such as Geographic Information Systems.

Distance Learning Program Manager (Specific Responsibilities)

· Advises Senior Management on technology funding issues related to alternative deliveries.

· Consults with EMI Development Teams considering the use of alternative delivery systems.

· Assists EMI Development Teams in determining costs and benefits associated with using distance learning formats in their proposed projects.

· Advises Superintendent and Senior Management on technology and systems/processes that affect or could be part of EMI processes.

Components of the EMI Training Development Model ADDIE

Section 2.2 Needs Analysis

2.2 Needs Analysis

While in the Curriculum Planning stage, EMI examined and set direction for the entire menu of training requirements, allocating resources across curricula. EMI uses the Needs Analysis stage to reconfirm the need for and scope of a particular course as a building block of a training program approved and planned by EMI management for development and delivery. Decisions on who must be trained, what must be presented, when training will occur, and where the training will take place for that specific course are accomplished in this phase. These decisions ensure full understanding of what the desired performance is before training products are developed. Steps of the needs analysis include:

· Identify how State, Tribal, and local training can be enhanced through the proposed delivery process.

· Consult with national experts in the content field and experts in the needs of the proposed training audiences concerning training analysis requirements (Start Course Process).

· Identify national trends, philosophies, and technologies unique to the subject area.

· Identify target audience(s) and develop a desirable contemporary skill set for the target audience(s).

· Reconfirm the delivery process for which the course was approved and budgeted (i.e., special/unique constraints and/or outcomes anticipated).

· Identify relevant course materials, persons, organizations, and/or literature that would assist in this effort.

· Identify partners to assist with development, administration, and/or evaluation of the program.

· Integrate with EMI Program Activity/Policy Guidance and FEMA-related projects.

· Evaluate the use of alternative delivery formats (e-learning, synchronous, asynchronous).

All of the above typically are conducted in a focus group called a Performance Needs Analysis (PNA) meeting. EMI invites a variety of content, delivery, and instructional design specialists, as well as representatives from key organizations, including the program office, whose interests in various aspects of the project will enhance EMI’s activity with the program. The description of the proposed target audience is refined and a list of job skills to be trained is identified. Staff members, representing the delivery system for which the course is to be taught, provide an overview and direction of the delivery requirements and processes, including when, where, and how the training will occur. For programs other than resident, mechanisms are discussed to establish working relationships with partners from State and local training organizations during the development and delivery process.

The panel of experts invited to the PNA meeting recommends a variety of sources, materials, and organizations that may assist in later stages of design, development, and delivery. EMI Training Specialists are invited to assure proper ties to other programmatic and organizational issues. When appropriate to the program, FEMA program office personnel also are asked to participate in this stage. The Training Specialist is the advocate for resident delivery issues, course needs, target audience, and content. Regional Training Managers are the advisors/advocates for needs of the delivery systems other than resident with intent toward establishing deliveries with the local and State training systems and TRADE network. The Training Specialist assures that sound instructional design approaches are used in the analysis work and, as COTR for the development, manages a variety of contracts, including final submission of the annual needs analysis report to all EMI Development Team participants and EMI management.

A review after this phase normally is not necessary when final recommendations follow the foundations on which the course was scheduled, budgeted, developed, and delivered. EMI Development Team members have a responsibility both to inform management and to seek approval for a renewed set of foundations when personnel, budget, alternative delivery strategies, the level of emergency management partnership involvement, or EMI’s ability to perform effectively will be affected as a result of proceeding with the recommendations of the needs analysis panel.

2.2.1 Analysis Phase

When embarking on meeting a customer’s need, the training professional must analyze the information and its conditions (context) before committing resources to the solution. It takes a relationship between the Training Specialist, the customer, the organizational leadership, and required “staff.”

EMI uses the Performance and Needs Analysis (PNA) phase of the ADDIE model to confirm and validate the need for a training activity, curriculum, or a training program. This phase of ADDIE forms the foundation for making decisions and justifying needed resources for the remainder of the phases within ADDIE. In many instances, training is assumed to be the appropriate solution or intervention.

PNA is defined as a process of partnering with customers to help them define and achieve goals. PNA involves research and investigation on a situation, determining any and all initiators toward a successful performance, and proposing a solution. In essence, identifying the gaps or discrepancies between what actually is and what ought to be.

NOTE: Training may be mandated and a limited analysis may be all that is possible.

There are generally four initiators for training: 1) a performance problem or issue; 2) introduction of a new system, technology, procedure, or policy; 3) automatic or mandatory training; or 4) professional development such as enhancing staff’s skills. When someone identifies training as the appropriate solution to one of these, it is imperative that the Course Manager (Training Specialist) or Instructional Designer validate or confirm (using available resources) that this solution or intervention is appropriate. Through the conduct of a performance and needs analysis, resources can be optimized.

The most commonly suggested solution to performance problems is to “train-em” or “teach-em,” and the problem will go away. Training is not always the answer to a performance problem. The prudent training professional will have to look carefully at the problem or system before committing resources to training as the answer to the problem. PNA activities help us to find the answers needed before solutions are determined.

The PNA can be broken into three parts: 1) performance analysis; 2) cause analysis; and

3) needs analysis. As part of the analysis phase, data and information is collected that will enable the Course Manager or Training Professional to make better decisions regarding the following:

· who and what should be involved in the conduct of the ADDIE phases

· who must be trained (the audience)

· what are the desired performance requirements

· what is currently happening on the job (in the situation or circumstances)

· why is there a performance gap or need or deficiency

· what resources will be needed for solving or correcting the need

· what are possible solutions to the need

· when the solution is expected to be implemented (i.e., training conducted)

· how receptive is the audience to the solution or intervention

During the performance analysis, the Course Manager or the team—usually the Course Manager, instructional designer, members of the audience, and or subject matter experts—begin the Analysis phase by researching the request for training. There are some basic questions that need to be addressed before embarking on this quest. The following are examples of the questions (this will form the foundation of who and what should be involved in the process):

· Why I am examining this problem?

· What are all the possible purposes for my inquiry?

· What do I know in which I am confident?

· What do I know that I can support with data?

· What do I know that represents opinions and hard data from many sources?

· What remains to be discovered?

The process begins by determining “what is the need” versus “what is wanted or demanded of” by the customer. With limited resources, it is imperative that the customer’s true need be determined in order to maximize your time, their time, and other resources.

Definitions of some key terms:

· Normative needs can be described as discrepancies between an actual condition or state and a desired standard. A failure on a performance test is an example of a normative need.

· Perceived needs are simply what people consider their needs to be. People may believe that they “need” to know how to use a computer based on what they have read or heard on TV.

· Relative needs are concerns about equity of services. If others receive a particular training class, people may believe that they “need” it too.

· Prescriptive needs are differences between present affairs and publicly prescribed goals. If the administrator announces that all employees will receive 10 hours of customer service training, you have a “prescriptive” need for the training, or a law or regulation dictates a specific training such as NIMS or ICS.

However, standards used to define needs vary so much that the need is not always obvious. A performance analysis clarifies the standards as well as the actual condition. A cause analysis can identify or verify the possible causes for discrepancies or gaps in performance. A needs analysis clarifies, validates, and defines the needs or gap and also identifies the best interventions or solutions.

Once the type of need is identified, then the Course Manager (Training Specialist) can begin the research process of performance analysis. There are generally three techniques for this research:

· Documentation Analysis – researching existing or extant data about the results or accomplishments of a performance. These documents can include items such as communication logs, after-action reports, exercise critiques, performance appraisal forms, etc. This information is building a case for what is actually happening.

· Subject Matter Analysis – researching information about what the audience needs to know about a task or job. In many instances, this research can be found in documents that include information about the performance standards of a job such as position task books, position descriptions, laws, regulations, existing standards, etc. In other instances, interviewing or observing an SME can provide information about the knowledge required to perform a task or job.

· Task or Job Analysis – researching or investigating how the “audience” is performing by observing or interviewing or surveying practitioners in the field. This information or data can form the basis for the skills required to apply the knowledge of the job. The combined knowledge and skills is the performance required to accomplish a task or job. The deficiency or gap is the difference between the desired performance standard and what is actually happening. This is the first stage in determining the cause for the gap or need.

Once the job or performance has been researched and investigated and a need (preferably normative) has been determined, then the course manager can begin gathering information or data about the potential causes. Generally, the cause analysis can be done simultaneously with the performance analysis. Some of these questions can lead the training professional to the appropriate cause:

· Could they do it in the past?

· Is the skill or knowledge used often?

· Is there a simpler solution than training?

· Do performers have what it takes?

· Is the consequence of performance punishing?

· Is it rewarding to do it another way?

· What do they get out of doing it their way?

· Are there deterrents to performing as desired?

Some of the most apparent causes are lack of: knowledge and skills; motivation or attitude; incentives; equipment and other resources; policies and procedures; and poor working environment. Training is not the appropriate solution for many of the causes such as lack of policies and procedures.

If the data gathered is insufficient or requires more research (in order to make informed decisions about resources and the appropriate solution), additional validation of the need may be warranted. The need analysis part of PNA is a validation of the performance and cause analyses. The more information or data that is empirically based will provide a higher level of confidence in the decisions making process.