Emergency Readiness and Homeland Security in Connecticut

Introduction

Biochemical terrorism, nuclear threats, and other forms of terrorism have been a source of widespread concern since the anthrax scares in Washington, D.C., in September 2001 and the Al-Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001. The purpose of this annotated bibliography is to document the effectiveness of emergency management and readiness in Connecticut. It has been more than five years since the TOPOFF 3 emergency exercises in 2006, and literature published since then warrants annotation and review for homeland security studies.

TOPOFF Exercises and the National Homeland Emergency Preparedness Program

Petersen, R.E., Lindsay, B.R., Kapp, L., Liu, E.C., & Peterman, D.R. Congressional Research Service, United States Congress. (2008). Homeland emergency preparedness and the national exercise program: Background, policy implications, and issues for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

In this Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, the series of ongoing TOPOFF exercises is documented in detail, including the 2006 exercise in Connecticut. The most important facet of the report is its treatment of the building of a National Homeland Emergency Preparedness program, along with background information, policy questions, and issues for Congress regarding emergency management and preparedness (Petersen, Lindsay, Kapp, Liu & Peterman, 2008, p. 8).

Once such a network is established, there is a need for development and implementation guidance for the exercises. This guidance is provided by the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). The HSEEP is based on Department of Defense exercise doctrines and has been modified for civilian use in emergency preparedness, providing a common exercise framework (ibid., p. 18).

Exercise evaluation is an important function in improving these programs. For this reason, a series of TOPOFF exercises has been carried out in different regions of the country. The TOPOFF 4 exercise highlighted the important role of local and state officials, including those in Connecticut state government. The report suggests that this state-level role is unlikely to diminish, and that carrying out the homeland security mission at the state level will remain critical (ibid., pp. 25–26).

Connecticut POD Worker Training Needs Assessment

Durante, A., Melchrei, R., Sullivan, K., & Degutis, L. (2010). Connecticut competency-based point of dispensing worker training needs assessment (pp. 1–17). New Haven, CT: University Center for Public Health Preparedness. DOI: www.asph.org/userfiles/Competencies-Resources/06_POD.doc.

This report was produced on behalf of the University Center for Public Health Preparedness in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Health. In April 2006, Connecticut conducted a readiness and emergency preparedness exercise that tested its ability to receive and dispense antibiotic supplies from the Strategic National Stockpile. Additionally, a competency-based assessment was conducted to determine the training needs of Point of Dispensing (POD) workers. POD core competencies were produced by adapting existing preparedness materials and were used to assess the training needs of more than 250 people who staffed a POD during the exercise. The assessment measured their ability to perform 17 competency-based tasks (Durante, Melchrei, Sullivan & Degutis, 2010, p. 3).

Most POD workers required training on five or fewer tasks, suggesting they were sufficiently prepared overall. Pharmacists, however, were less well trained, requiring remediation on at least five tasks, indicating a need for additional targeted training. Just under one-third of participants needed remedial training on at least one of three basic POD Incident Command System requirements. Remedial training was also needed in areas of POD security and safety, liability protections, and family preparedness. POD workers with unresolved concerns in these areas may have been less willing or able to report for duty.

Participants who completed training both before and on the day of the exercise were the best prepared to staff the POD, indicating that both forms of training hold significant value. When evaluated against core competencies, POD workers already possessed many of the necessary skills. However, targeted training in areas of identified weakness could improve both the crew's willingness to report for duty and overall job performance (ibid., pp. 3–6).