2011-2012 Evaluation of the Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative - Final Report

2011-2012 Evaluation of the Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative - Final Report PDF Version (819 KB)

Table of contents

• Executive Summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Profile
  • 2.1 Background
  • 2.2 Context for the Evaluation
  • 2.3 Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative
  • .2.4 Resources
  • 2.5 Logic Model
• 3. About The Evaluation
  • 3.1 Objective
  • 3.2 Scope
  • 3.3 Methodology
  • 3.4 Limitations
  • 3.5 Protocols
• 4. Findings
  • 4.1 Relevance
  • 4.2 Performance--Effectiveness
  • 4.3 Performance--Efficiency and Economy
• 5. Conclusions
  • 5.1 Relevance
  • 5.2 Performance--Effectiveness
  • 5.3 Performance--Efficiency and Economy
• 6. Recommendations
• 7. Management Response and Action Plan
• Annex A: Documents Reviewed
• Annex B: The Federal Emergency Response Plan and Emergency Support Functions
• Annex C: Federal, Provincial, Territorial Emergency Management Fora
• Annex D: Financial Analysis
• Annex E: Examples of Measures Taken to Reduce Costs

Executive Summary

This is the 2011-2012 Evaluation of the Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative. Evaluation supports accountability to Parliament and Canadians by helping the Government of Canada to credibly report on the results achieved with resources invested in programs. Evaluation supports deputy heads in managing for results by informing them about whether their programs are producing the outcomes that they were designed to achieve, at an affordable cost; and supports policy and program improvements by helping to identify lessons learned and best practices.

What we examined

This evaluation was conducted in accordance with funding approval requirements that an evaluation be completed by March 31, 2012. The scope of the evaluation included a group of Public Safety Canada activities, referred to herein as the Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative, that received ongoing funding beginning on April 1, 2006. Initiative activities were delivered by two Public Safety Canada Branches as follows:

1) Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch^{Note 1}

• Emergency Management Policy Division
• Emergency Management Planning Unit
• National Exercises Division
• Strategic Coordination Division (reorganized as the Strategic Partnerships and Outreach Division in March 2012)

These divisions delivered activities that, together, represent an average of $5.4 million in annual spending over the past five years.

2) Communications Branch

• Communication Services Division

The Branch delivered emergency preparedness communication activities that represent an average of $2.5 million in annual spending over the past five years.

Why it is important

Emergency management is important to the safety and security of Canadians. In the current global environment, the speed at which emergencies can escalate in scope and severity is increasing. Recent events such as the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami underscore the need for a coordinated response. In Canada, a federal response is needed for emergencies that are beyond the capacity of provinces/territories. In this regard, Public Safety Canada has a central role to provide the leadership and coordination necessary to prepare for a whole-of-government (federal) emergency response.

What we found

There is a continuing need for Public Safety Canada's activities in the area of emergency prevention/mitigation and preparedness. Evidence shows that the frequency of human-induced and natural disasters is increasing. Coordination structures and arrangements for bringing together multiple stakeholders are becoming increasingly important. Public Safety Canada's programming has responded to the evolving emergency management context; however, gaps remain in the areas of mitigation and community resiliency.

The evaluation found that Initiative activities are aligned with federal government and departmental priorities. Although recent strategic documents have given prominence to economic recovery, the safety and security of Canadians remains a central theme. The continuing importance of emergency management is evidenced through the creation of the Emergency Management Act, in 2007, international commitments, and the Prime Minister's June 2011 announcements regarding mitigation programs.

Two central pieces of legislation define shared emergency management responsibilities in Canada. Under Canada's Constitution Act, 1867, provinces/territories have primary responsibility for emergency management within their respective jurisdictions. The Emergency Management Act indicates that Public Safety Canada is responsible to provide assistance to provinces/territories, as requested, and that the Department is responsible for coordinating the assistance provided by other federal institutions^{Note 2} to the provinces/territories. The Act also assigns responsibility to the Minister of Public Safety to "exercise leadership relating to emergency management in Canada by coordinating among government institutions and in cooperation with provinces and other entities, emergency management activities"^{Note 3}. Given the broad nature of this legislation, it is a challenge for Public Safety Canada to fulfill this mandate while recognizing areas of provincial/territorial jurisdiction.

The evaluation found that Public Safety Canada's mandated activities related to a whole-of-government approach are not duplicated by other organizations; however, federal and provincial/territorial organizations suggest that there are opportunities for improved synergy with federal regional offices and provinces/territories.

The Strategic Coordination Division provides the secretariat function for emergency management governance bodies. Established committees provide a solid foundation for leadership and coordination of emergency management; however, there is room for improvement. Attendance by Assistant Deputy Ministers at the Emergency Management Committee is often delegated downward and meetings have an information focus rather than providing a forum for strategic and timely decision-making. The Director General Emergency Management Policy Committee is under utilized. Changes are currently being made to the Assistant Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee, and a Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee is being established to provide further direction. The federal/provincial/territorial Standing Forum of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management and its working groups are deemed to be working effectively in producing policy frameworks. However, given available resources, there is a need to establish and weigh priorities in order to move issues forward.

Although mechanisms are currently being implemented to strengthen coordination within the Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch, internal coordination of emergency management policy, planning and exercises activities was identified as a weakness. In addition, requests to other federal institutions are not well coordinated; this makes it difficult for federal institutions to prioritize work and assign resources.

In terms of the achievement of outcomes, the Emergency Management Policy Division, Planning Unit and the National Exercises Division have made good progress against the 2009 Auditor General recommendations. Federal institutions, and to some extent, provinces/territories are engaged. This has generally set the foundation for Initiative activities to move to the "next level". More work is required to achieve a comprehensive policy framework; a coordinated approach to emergency management planning; and the implementation of lessons learned from exercises.

The Emergency Management Policy Division has launched several policy activities and implemented policy instruments through engagement of federal institutions and provinces/territories. Further engagement is required to solidify acceptance and establish a truly comprehensive policy framework in which all necessary pieces and organizations are present. Federal institutions suggest that the broad nature of the policy instruments makes it difficult to fully understand their roles and responsibilities; to implement and operationalize them at a practical level; and to connect the various emergency management components. In addition, gaps remain related to knowledge transfer, particularly in terms of international trends.

The Emergency Management Planning Unit has engaged other federal institutions in all-hazards risk assessment and emergency management planning activities; and has produced related guidance and tools. Federal institutions interviewed generally acknowledged engagement efforts and the usefulness of these resources. Progress has been made toward the establishment of a comprehensive and coordinated approach to emergency management planning at the federal level. This is evidenced by the fact that federal institutions are starting to submit their Strategic Emergency Management Plans to Public Safety Canada for review. By December 2011, four of 10 federal institutions evaluated had a passable rating, and five of 10 institutions had identified key risks. Given the low scores that federal institutions have obtained on their assessments, the Strategic Emergency Management Plan review process needs to continue.

The National Exercises Division has demonstrated leadership, but governance that would support the implementation of lessons learned could be strengthened. The Interdepartmental Exercises Coordination Committee was created to engage federal institutions in planning and conducting national exercises. From 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, 31 exercises were conducted. Interviewees point to the need for a more robust national exercise strategy that is based on risk assessments and that demonstrates better coordination between federal and provincial/territorial governments. The Capability Improvement Process was put in place within the last three years to support the implementation of lessons learned so that federal institutions are better prepared for future emergencies. However, it is difficult for Public Safety Canada to ensure that corrective actions and best practices are implemented because the Department does not have the authority to do so, and governance mechanisms, such as interdepartmental senior-level commitment and follow-up, are lacking.

The campaigns undertaken by the Communication Services Division have increased the level of awareness among Canadians by taking pro-active measures among communities, individuals and businesses. As the advertising portion of the awareness campaign has now ended, the campaign is sustained through partnerships, its web presence and evolving social media components.

In terms of overall preparedness, Initiative activities have provided a foundation for a whole-of-government framework and behaviour change among individual Canadians is within studied benchmarks. Canada is implementing all-hazards approaches and is taking steps to improve risk identification, assessment and prevention of disasters. Despite these positive actions, interviewees indicate that governments are not well prepared for a catastrophic event. Several factors have detracted from Canada's state of readiness. These include: a lack of long-term vision for emergency management; the slow culture change from response/recovery to a four-pillar approach; and capacity issues within the emergency management system.

Staff turnover and budget reallocations have caused resource management challenges. Despite this, measures have been taken to improve the efficiency of Initiative activities. The cost-efficiency of Policy, Planning and National Exercise outputs has increased over the past two years. Insufficient information was available to conclude on the trends in cost-efficiency related to outputs of the Strategic Coordination Division and the Communication Services Division.

Recommendations

The Evaluation Directorate recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch:

1. Build upon the terms of reference created for the newly established Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee to ensure that strategic-level decision-making is aligned at all levels including the Assistant Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee and sub-committees. Each committee should have a clear and separate mandate and should encourage and facilitate participation by representatives from the appropriate level.
2. Further engage stakeholders through the following actions:
   1. Consider the inclusion of emergency management planning and national exercises in the work of the Standing Forum for Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management.
   2. Pursue senior-level commitment from federal institutions through the newly established Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee, as well as through strategic emergency management plans for implementation of lessons learned from various assessments.
3. Place further emphasis on emerging policy areas, such as mitigation and community resiliency, and keep abreast of international trends to advance culture change within the emergency management community.

1. Introduction

This is the Public Safety Canada (PS) 2011-2012 Evaluation of the Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative. This evaluation provides Canadians, parliamentarians, Ministers, central agencies, and the Deputy Minister of Public Safety with an evidence-based, neutral assessment of the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of this federal government initiative. This evaluation is to be submitted to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat by March 31, 2012, as part of a requirement for funding provided to PS starting on April 1, 2006.

2. Profile

2.1 Background

Emergency management responsibilities in Canada are shared among federal, provincial/territorial governments and their partners, including individual citizens who have a responsibility to be prepared for disasters and contribute to community resiliency. Provincial/territorial governments have responsibility for emergency management within their respective jurisdictions. The federal government exercises leadership at the national level relating to emergency management responsibilities in its exclusive fields of jurisdictions and on lands and properties under federal responsibility. PS was established to provide leadership and coordination across all federal institutions^{Note 4} responsible for the safety of Canadians.

The Federal Policy for Emergency Management states that "the Government of Canada has adopted an all-hazards approach to emergency management, encompassing four interdependent, but integrated functions: mitigation/prevention, preparedness, response and recovery".^{Note 5} This is illustrated conceptually in Figure 1 below.

Prevention/mitigation activities aim to eliminate or reduce the risks of disasters in order to protect lives, property, the environment, and reduce economic disruption. Preparedness activities refer to being ready to respond to a disaster and manage its consequences through measures taken prior to an event (emergency plans, training, exercises, etc.). Emergency response encompasses activities during or immediately before or after a disaster to manage its consequences; and recovery refers to the repair or restoration of conditions to an acceptable level through measures taken after a disaster.

This evaluation focuses on the first two pillars of emergency management: prevention/mitigation and preparedness.

2.2 Context for the Evaluation

Starting on April 1, 2006, PS received ongoing funding known as Core I capacity to maintain and strengthen the Department's core emergency management activities. On April 1, 2008, a further three years of time-limited funding was also received, known as Core II funding. Associated emergency management activities were originally managed by the Emergency Management and National Security Branch. In the summer of 2011, the Emergency Management and National Security Branch was divided into the National Security Branch and the Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch. Thus, accountability for emergency management currently falls under the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of the Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch.

Through discussions with PS senior management and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Centre for Excellence in Evaluation, it was decided that this evaluation would be based on the PS Program Activity Architecture, rather than centered on incremental funding allocated under Core I and II. Focusing the evaluation in this way allowed a logical connection to be made between the Core I and II activities and the achievement of outcomes connected to the Program Activity Architecture. Thus, in accordance with the Program Activity Architecture, a division was made between prevention/mitigation and preparedness activities, which are addressed in this evaluation. Response and recovery activities will be evaluated in future years^{Note 7}.

2.3 Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative

The Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative assessed in this evaluation refers to a group of activities delivered by two Branches and several organizational units at PS as follows:

2.3.1 Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch

Emergency Management Policy Division: The Policy Division develops and implements national emergency management policy and research activities and contributes to the development of domestic legislation, policies and programs. The Division also conducts and supports international emergency management policy activities.^{Note 8}

Emergency Management Planning Unit: The purpose of the Unit is to identify emerging risks and planning gaps. The Unit is responsible for developing and implementing a coordinated approach to all-hazards risk assessment and emergency management planning, and promotes best practices. It has conducted assessments of federal institutions' Strategic Emergency Management Plans and coordinated all-hazards risk assessments. It also serves as federal lead for a coordinated federal and North American approach to pandemic planning.

National Exercises Division: This Division leads the coordination of whole-of-government response exercises that include governments, first responders and military officials. These stakeholders work together to simulate emergency scenarios such as natural disasters, health threats and terrorist attacks.^{Note 9} The Division manages the Capability Improvement Process, which identifies potential corrective actions and best practices to be implemented by federal institutions.^{Note 10}

Strategic Coordination Division (reorganized as the Strategic Partnerships and Outreach Division in March 2012): This Division provides secretariat functions for the ADM Emergency Management Committee and the Federal, Provincial, Territorial Emergency Management Fora.^{Note 11}

2.3.2 Communications Branch

Communication Services Division: This division is responsible for public awareness campaigns that provide Canadians with safety-related information to help build a more resilient society.^{Note 12} The Division manages the "72 Hours, Is Your Family Prepared" campaign.

2.4 Resources

Table 1 illustrates the average annual year-end budget for each of the organizational units that delivered Initiative activities beginning on April 1, 2006. An average was used since Core I resources were generally not tracked under individual cost centers or as internal orders.

Notes:
* Budget amounts for Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch represent salaries and operations and maintenance budgets taken at year-end since this was the most accurate information available. Budget figures do not include amounts for Employee Benefits Plan, Public Works and Government Services Canada accommodation amount or internal services.

** The figure shown in Table 1 represents a budget estimate since no separate budget figures were available for the Communication Services Division related to preparedness campaigns. The campaigns received funding from several sources that included Core I as well as separate, fenced funding over a four-year period from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010. Resources under the separate, time-limited funding were $3.0 million for the first three years and $0.41 million in 2009-2010. This funding was specifically intended for the advertising portion of the emergency preparedness campaign.

2.5 Logic Model

The logic model presented at Figure 2 is a visual representation that links what the PS Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative is funded to do (activities) with what the activities are intended to produce (outputs) and what they intend to achieve (outcomes). It also provides the basis for developing the evaluation matrix, which gave the evaluation team a roadmap for conducting this evaluation.

3. About The Evaluation

3.1 Objective

This evaluation supports:

• accountability to Parliament and Canadians by helping the Government to credibly report on the results achieved with resources invested in this program;
• the Deputy Minister of Public Safety in managing for results by informing him about whether this program is producing the outcomes that it was designed to produce, at an affordable cost; and
• policy and program improvements.

3.2 Scope

The evaluation covers the period from April 1, 2006, to the present fiscal year and includes the emergency prevention/mitigation and preparedness activities within the organizational units noted above.

Other activities that were funded under Core I and II have been excluded from the scope of this evaluation even though they are considered to be prevention/mitigation and preparedness activities. These are: National Training Programs (Canadian Emergency Management College) because they are in the midst of a renewal exercise; and Continuity of Government activities since funding documents were only recently developed to establish objectives and expectations.

Activities that fall into the category of emergency response and recovery such as the Government Operations Centre will be evaluated in future years as per the Departmental Evaluation Plan.

In addition, emergency management planning activities at a more "operational" level, such as the Federal Emergency Response Plan, were not included since these functions were located, organizationally, within the area of emergency response and recovery.

3.3 Methodology

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, the Directive on the Evaluation Function and the Standard on Evaluation for the Government of Canada, as well as the PS Evaluation Policy. Evaluators took into account the following factors in order to determine the evaluation effort, including the approach, scope, design, and methods, required for this evaluation:

• risks,
• quality of past evaluations,
• soundness of program theory,
• longevity of program, and
• contextual stability.

The evaluation methodology and associated level of effort were calibrated taking into consideration specific characteristics of the Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative activities.

• In terms of performance against outcomes, the evaluation focused mainly on the immediate outcomes, i.e. reach of outputs and engagement of target audiences, and on the achievement of intermediate outcomes.
• The Initiative is considered medium risk: a number of PS divisions participate and stakeholder involvement occurs at a number of levels in a complex environment with the majority of these stakeholders at the federal level. Therefore, a high number of interviews (29) was conducted and the proportion of interviewees in each group was assigned according to their level of involvement.
• The evaluation was able to rely on key documents that assessed PS performance such as the Report by the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (2008) and the 2009 Report of the Auditor General (Chapter 7, Emergency Management--Public Safety Canada). Key research reports from international institutions were also available, e.g. from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
• Public opinion research studies relating to the preparedness of Canadians were conducted by PS in the last five years. To that effect, the evaluation efforts were reduced for this component.

3.3.1 Evaluation Cores Issues and Questions

As required by the Directive on the Evaluation Function, the following issue areas and evaluation questions were addressed in the evaluation:

Relevance

• 1.
  1. Is there a demonstrable need for the PS Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative?
  2. How have Initiative activities responded to this need and the evolving emergency management context?
• 2. Is there alignment between the objectives of the Initiative and (i) federal government priorities and (ii) the PS departmental strategic priorities?
• 3.
  1. To what extent is the Initiative aligned with federal roles and responsibilities?
  2. To what extent do Initiative activities duplicate or complement other federal or provincial/territorial activities?

Performance--Effectiveness

• 4. To what extent have:
  1. Strategic Coordination Division activities and associated committees provided sound governance for the emergency prevention/mitigation and preparedness activities;
  2. Emergency Management Policy Division activities led to engagement of federal institutions and provinces/territories supporting a comprehensive emergency management framework;
  3. Emergency Management Planning Unit activities led to engagement of federal institutions supporting a comprehensive and coordinated approach to emergency management planning;
  4. National Exercises Division activities led to engagement of federal institutions and provincial/territorial emergency management personnel supporting the implementation of corrective actions and institutionalization of best practices; and
  5. Communications Services Division activities led to Canadians being aware and informed of what to do in an emergency.
• 5. To what extent are federal institutions, provincial/territorial governments and Canadians prepared for major emergency incidents?

Performance--Efficiency and Economy

• 6. Is there evidence that the efficiency of Initiative activities has improved?
• 7. What steps have Initiative managers taken to minimize the use of resources in realizing outputs and outcomes?

3.3.2 Lines of Evidence

The evaluation team used the following lines of evidence to assess the Initiative: document review, interviews, and a review of performance and financial data. Each of these methods is described in more detail below.

Document Review

The document review included program inception and renewal documents, legislative and policy documents, corporate documents, e.g. Reports on Plans and Priorities and Department Performance Reports, departmental publications, international research, Speeches from the Throne and Budgets, and program-specific documents. A list of documents reviewed is presented at Annex A.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted using interview guides developed for each of the interview groups, shown in Table 2. The largest interview group was other federal institutions with a focus on those institutions that have responsibility for primary Emergency Support Functions as defined in the Federal Emergency Response Plan. See Annex B for a list of federal Emergency Support Function institutions.

Performance and Financial Data Review

An analysis of performance data included the examination of program outputs and documents such as presentations, assessments, public opinion research (previously conducted) and reach/engagement information that was supplied by the Initiative managers.

The financial analysis focused on budget and expenditure information. Financial data was collected using a template and was vetted through financial management advisors of each organizational unit. A calculation of the total cost to government for each initiative was also prepared.

3.4 Limitations

In conducting the analysis for the evaluation, the following limitations were noted:

• Although qualitative information from interviews was analyzed using a systematic approach, results are not statistically significant due to sample size. Evaluators exercised judgment in creating themes from interviewee responses.
• For communications campaigns, no Public Opinion Research was conducted by the evaluation team; findings are based on Public Opinion Research previously conducted by the PS Communications Branch. It is noted that the most recent Public Opinion Research was completed in 2010.
• Performance data was gathered using a template for each division. In some cases, no performance data had been collected on an ongoing basis because no Performance Measurement Strategy was in place. Thus, the template was completed based on estimates from program staff.
• Financial information was difficult to obtain due to funding and organizational shifts in the associated branches; financial coding did not align with Initiative activities. Thus, in some cases, level of effort and associated budgets/expenditures was estimated. In addition, period 9 (third quarter) budget information was not available for all years of the analysis; thus, a valid budgets versus expenditures ratio could not be calculated.

3.5 Protocols

During the conduct of the evaluation, PS Initiative managers assisted in the identification of key stakeholders and provided documentation and data to support the evaluation. Collaborative participation greatly enriched the evaluation process.

An evaluation working group was created to support the evaluation. It included staff from each of the organizational units involved in the evaluation.

This report was submitted to program representatives and to the ADM, Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch for review and acceptance. A management response and action plan was provided in response to the evaluation recommendations. These documents were presented to the PS Departmental Evaluation Committee for consideration and for final approval by the Deputy Minister of Public Safety.

4. Findings

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 Continuing Need for the Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative

In order to determine if there is a continuing need for the Initiative, the evaluation examined trends in threats and emergency events nationally and globally. The evaluation team then studied whether Initiative activities have ensured their continuing relevance by aligning with the evolving emergency management context. In order to do so, the evaluation team studied alignment with current practices in other countries and alignment with changes to the emergency management context in Canada.

Trends in Emergency Threats and Events

Documented evidence shows that the frequency of human-induced and natural disasters is increasing and that these trends are set to continue. There are a number of factors, threats and risks that include:

• environment and climate change (extreme weather events);
• demographic and socioeconomic structures (larger high-risk populations);
• technology (complex innovative systems);
• rapid spread of disease (risk of global pandemics); and
• terrorist acts.

Global trade, international travel and cyber capabilities mean that emergencies can now quickly escalate in scope, severity and complexity^{Note 13}. Pre-planning, coordination structures, and arrangements for bringing together governments, voluntary organizations, and the private sector are extremely important for prevention and response.

There is also a need to take pro-active measures to increase public awareness of risks and to heighten peoples' sense of urgency to prepare, mitigate and purchase their own insurance against the hazards they face. These types of measures are considered important for governments to address.^{Note 14}

Evolving Emergency Management Context

Research shows that disasters are becoming more costly. According to the Centre for Research in the Epidemiology of Disasters the cost of natural disasters has risen 14-fold since the 1950s^{Note 15}.

In Canada, only three disasters had exceeded $500 million in damages before 1990 (trended to 2010 dollars). However, in the last decade, there have been nine disasters which have exceeded $500 million in damages, combining to cost Canada ~$1.1 billion per year. Since its inception in 1970, the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Program has paid out $2.1 billion; 88% of the $2.1 billion has been paid since 1996.^{Note 16}

As catastrophes are becoming more prominent and costly, governments are looking for ways to reduce costs associated with emergencies. One approach is a focus on prevention/mitigation, since it's proving to be cost effective. A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development makes a strong linkage between risk management and mitigation. The report describes the high cost-benefit ratio that often results from having invested in mitigation activities^{Note 17}. International studies demonstrate the cost-benefit ratios of mitigation, e.g. $10:1, World Bank; £5:1 United Kingdom; $4:1, United States; $3:1, Australia. In fact, about 80% of countries have undertaken mitigation initiatives, e.g. the national platform, legislation and programs. Prevention and mitigation actions are being promulgated and have become priorities within international non-government organizations, e.g. OXFAM and the Red Cross.

Finance departments are also becoming interested in the issue of cost reduction, e.g. the World Bank has an initiative to help countries reduce vulnerabilities and adapt to climate change. In the interest of transferring risk and reducing costs to governments, community resiliency is an emerging theme globally. The United Nations notes that there is a growing recognition by governments and organizations that building resilient communities and reducing disaster risk is a core initiative. The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction was established to support and coordinate this movement.^{Note 18} The Hyogo Framework for Action is a 10-year plan to make the world safer from natural hazards. Its goal is to substantially reduce disaster losses by 2015 by building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters.^{Note 19} To this end, subject matter experts also stated that the insurance industry is becoming more involved and collaborating with governments in certain countries.

Within Canada, a number of factors have influenced the emergency management domain in the last several years and have acted as catalysts for program changes. There have been shifts in organizational accountability within the Canadian government with respect to emergency management. The Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness was created in 2001 within the Department of National Defence. It was subsequently annexed to Solicitor General Canada as part of the creation of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, in 2003. Key legislative changes were made through the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act and the Emergency Management Act. Key Government of Canada reports on the state of emergency management initiatives were published (i.e. Standing Committee on National Security and Defence report in 2008 and the Office of the Auditor General reports in 2005 and 2009). Finally, the general emergency management context has changed from a response-based approach to an all-hazards risk-based approach that takes into consideration all four pillars of emergency management, i.e. prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.

Responding to the Evolving Context

The evaluation team found that during the past five years, PS has made programming changes to adapt to the changing context:

• The Emergency Management Policy Division has developed policies and frameworks aligned with new legislation and emerging policy directions such as mitigation. The Canada's Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction was developed in 2010 to work with all partners to reduce disaster risks in Canada. However, interviewees noted that Canada is lagging behind other countries with regard to mitigation investments and that community resiliency efforts in Canada tend to be limited. Nonetheless, the District of North Vancouver received the United Nations Sasakawa Award for Disaster Reduction in 2011, becoming the first community in Canada to ever win this award and a model among Canadian communities at engaging municipal and federal governments and the private sector in the promotion of a resilient approach to disaster risk reduction. Through a working group of the National Platform, other communities in Canada are being encouraged to increase their resiliency.
• The Emergency Management Planning Unit was created in 2006 and began with a focus on pandemic planning through the Government of Canada Pandemic Secretariat, which it coordinates. In 2008-2009, the Unit launched work on developing a methodology for an all-hazards risk assessment and a coordinated approach to emergency management planning. Beginning in April 2009, the work of this Unit was diverted for approximately nine months in order to lead the whole-of-government response to the 2009 H1N1, in support of the Public Health Agency of Canada. In the last two years, work has evolved to include assessment of emergent risks, using an all-hazards risk assessment approach; development of risk assessment and emergency management planning guidance and tools for other federal institutions; and assessment of Strategic Emergency Management Plans.
• The National Exercises Division has moved to a lifecycle approach, which includes a lessons learned process (known as the capability improvement process) designed to track implementation of corrective actions and the institutionalization of best practices.
• The Strategic Coordination Division provides support functions related to committee membership that generally includes 30+ primary and supporting federal Emergency Support Function institutions and the Federal, Provincial, Territorial Emergency Management Fora. PS has enhanced governance and interaction with partners through these committees.
• As part of its preparedness activities, the Communication Services Division is moving toward web-based information and social media in order to reduce costs associated with public awareness.

4.1.2 Alignment with Federal and Departmental Priorities

The evaluation sought to determine if the Initiative was aligned with federal priorities and PS strategic priorities, mainly through document review.

Alignment with Federal Priorities

A review of key strategic federal government documents, e.g. Speeches from the Throne and Federal Budgets, since 2006-2007 shows a shift in terms of planning and preparedness priorities. Whereas Budget 2006 invested in foundational activities related to emergency preparedness, recent strategic documents have given prominence to economic recovery and national security initiatives, e.g. cyber security, critical infrastructure and border security. The safety and security of Canadians remains a central theme, and planning and preparing for incidents that might compromise safety and security continues to be a priority.

From a legislative perspective, the Emergency Management Act was enacted by Parliament in 2007 to clearly set out federal roles and responsibilities and to ensure that Canada can mitigate and be prepared to respond and recover from incidents affecting the safety and security of Canadians. Internationally, the Government's commitment to emergency prevention/mitigation and preparedness between 2006 and 2008 was evidenced by international agreements, e.g. the Canada/Mexico/United States Emergency Management Council^{Note 20} and the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, and by its participation in international summits, e.g. the 2007 North American Leaders Summit, where Canada, Mexico and the United States agreed that "preparation and planning can mitigate the impact of major events on people and our economies".^{Note 21}

In 2008, PS published the National Disaster Mitigation Strategy. It states that "mitigation is a key element of emergency management which to date has received relatively little emphasis in spite of increasing disaster costs"^{Note 22}. Since then, increased attention is being paid to prevention/mitigation activities given the potential savings in recovery costs. As acknowledged by the Prime Minister following floods in Manitoba in 2009, "it's much cheaper for the federal government to contribute to some of these mitigation measures... than to contribute to all the various disaster relief actions every single year".^{Note 23} Following flooding in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec in 2011, the Prime Minister agreed to: "discuss a mitigation strategy that would apply to all provinces and territories to help enhance infrastructure to better withstand future floods".^{Note 24}

Alignment with Departmental Priorities

In terms of alignment with departmental priorities, a review of Reports on Plans and Priorities shows that PS efforts between 2006 and 2008 were focused on building a strong foundation in the areas of mitigation, planning, preparedness and response, and recognized the importance of stakeholder engagement. More recent reports give prominence to national security issues and emergency management response (Government Operations Center and implementing the Federal Emergency Response Plan); however, they also highlight the importance of emergency management planning through development of an all-hazards risk assessment process, preparedness of Canadians through communications campaigns, and improvement of relationships with regional stakeholders.

Initiative activities are a key component of the departmental Program Activity Architecture and generally align with 1.4.1, Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness.

4.1.3 Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

Alignment of the Initiative with federal roles and responsibilities was determined through a review of legislative documents. Discussions regarding duplication and synergy were undertaken during interviews.

The Federal Role

A key function of the Government of Canada is to protect the safety and security of Canadians. Past emergencies in Canada demonstrate the challenges inherent in protecting the lives, critical infrastructure, property, environment, economy, and the national security of Canada. As noted in the 2009 Auditor General report: "A federal response is needed for emergencies that are beyond the capacities of other players--emergencies that may have a low probability of occurrence but a high potential impact".^{Note 25}

Emergency management in Canada is a shared responsibility. Federal and provincial/territorial governments have complementary roles in emergency management, and each jurisdiction has emergency management legislation articulating its responsibilities. Under Canada's Constitution Act, 1867, provinces and territories have primary responsibility for emergency management within their respective jurisdictions. Some emergencies in Canada, e.g. fires and floods, can be local in nature and be managed locally by municipalities or provinces. The federal government will assist when requested, when the emergency transcends jurisdictional boundaries, or when its assistance is in the national interest.

The overarching legislative umbrella in emergency management is the Emergency Management Act (2007), which establishes the federal role in emergency management and the role of the Minister of Public Safety. Under the Act, PS is responsible to provide assistance to provinces and territories, as requested, and coordinate federal assistance. The federal government is responsible for emergency management at the national level in its exclusive fields of jurisdictions and on lands and properties under federal responsibility. The Act assigns to the Minister of Public Safety the responsibility to "exercise leadership relating to emergency management in Canada by coordinating among government institutions and in cooperation with provinces and other entities, emergency management activities".^{Note 26} As Canada faces change in the current risk environment, the federal government must have the ability to continue operating during emergencies. This requires ongoing federal leadership, effective coordination of activities, sound legislative and policy foundation, and efficient collaboration among all levels of government, the private and not-for-profit sectors, and individuals.

Under the Emergency Management Act, each Minister accountable to Parliament is responsible to "identify the risks that are within or related to his or her area of responsibility and to--in accordance with the policies, programs and other measures established by the Minister [of PS]--prepare emergency management plans in respect of those risks; maintain, test, and implement these plans; and conduct exercises and training in relation to these plans. PS does not assume control over other departments. Each department remains responsible to its own Minister and for acting as required under its own legislation. However, PS exercises leadership by establishing policies, programs, and other measures respecting the preparation, maintenance, testing, and implementation of emergency management plans of other federal government institutions.

Under the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, the Minister is responsible for exercising leadership at the national level relating to public safety and emergency preparedness. This includes establishing policies and programs relating to emergency preparedness and cooperating with any province, foreign state, international organization or any other entity.

Additionally, in exercising its mandated leadership at the national level, PS faces the challenge of effectively fulfilling its responsibilities under the Emergency Management Act, while recognizing areas of provincial and territorial jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867. This is particularly evident within provincial/territorial jurisdictions where it is the responsibility of PS under the Emergency Management Act to "cooperate with the provinces and territories"^{Note 27} and "to coordinate emergency management activities of federal government institutions with those of the provinces"^{Note 28}. Since PS has no authority in these jurisdictions, communication and common understanding are important. Interviewees indicate that significant progress has been made among stakeholders in clarifying the PS role since the 2009 Auditor General report; but that the Emergency Management Act expects a high degree of organizational maturity on the part of departments and agencies. It is evident that the Act takes federal institutions, as well as key partners such as provinces and territories, out of their comfort zone and requires a culture change that will take some time.

Finally, interviewees expressed a lack of clarity of roles between PS and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade when engaging in international activities, particularly cross-border activities and agreements with the United States.

Duplication and Synergy

Document review indicates that the PS-mandated activities related to a whole-of-government approach are not duplicated by other federal or provincial organizations. Interviewees indicated that there is little to no duplication between the activities of PS, federal institutions and provinces/territories. They highlighted many activities and mechanisms that have been implemented to avoid duplication, e.g. the Emergency Management Act, the Federal, Provincial, Territorial Emergency Management Fora, the Interdepartmental Exercises Coordination Committee, as well as consultations, education and training activities.

Interviewees also suggested some areas where there is opportunity for synergies. They suggested that federal coordination seems "Ottawa-centric" and is not "knitting the federal family together in the regions"; from their perspective, awareness of the roles and responsibilities of PS is not filtering down to the regional level of federal institutions, and provinces expressed concern about this lack of awareness. The evaluation notes that although PS regional offices have to exercise leadership in the regions, federal institutions are also responsible to educate their regional counterparts as to their respective roles and responsibilities. In terms of policy and planning activities, interviewees noted an opportunity for further engagement and involvement of PS regional offices to reach the Department's full potential.

Interviewees also raised the possibility of increased synergy with provinces and territories, e.g. through coordination of exercises and federal knowledge transfer such as sharing best practices associated with risk assessments.

4.2 Performance--Effectiveness

4.2.1 Governance

Governance structures are important foundational elements of leadership, coordination and engagement. In consideration of this, the evaluation examined the functioning of the two main emergency management committees led by Public Safety Canada: the ADM Emergency Management Committee and the standing forum of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management, which is a central committee of the Federal, Provincial, Territorial Emergency Management Fora. The Strategic Coordination Division provides the secretariat function for these committees.

Assistant Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee

The ADM Emergency Management Committee was established in 2005. According to its terms of reference, the mandate of the Committee is "to coordinate the federal response to an emergency as well as to provide a coordinated exchange of information and advice at the senior level before, during and after an emergency... and to provide leadership in the development of emergency management policy and preparedness strategies for the Government of Canada".^{Note 29} Membership includes "ADMs of implicated departments/agencies with key emergency management responsibilities or related emergency activities"^{Note 30}; in essence, the more than 30 primary and secondary federal Emergency Support Function institutions are represented.

The Committee is co-chaired by the ADM Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch and the Commander, Canada Command, Department of National Defence. Although the Department of National Defence is seen as an "organization of last resort" with respect to emergency management, its role on the committee remains important due to its history with the emergency management function and because of the potential capabilities and assets that the Department of National Defence brings to bear when required. However, it is noted that the perspective of the Department of National Defence is weighted toward response/recovery rather than emergency prevention/mitigation and preparedness.

The Committee meets monthly and, since early 2009, has had a dedicated secretariat function. In August 2011, accountability for the secretariat function was formalized within the Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch through the creation of the Strategic Coordination Division, which also performs other duties on behalf of the Branch (reorganized as the Strategic Partnerships and Outreach Division in March 2012).

When asked about the functioning of the ADM Emergency Management Committee, close to half of interviewees offered positive comments. They indicated that the governance mechanism is well established and provides a common sense of purpose for the federal emergency management community. They cited benefits such as: the Committee is effective in keeping members informed, it offers a good communication and networking mechanism, and its composition and level are appropriate.

More than half of interviewees cited challenges with respect to the Committee. They indicated that attendance by ADMs is often delegated downward and this contributes to a lack of strategic direction. Due to this fact, the meetings often have an information focus rather than being a good forum for timely decision-making. The lack of attendance by ADMs means that decisions do not always have the benefit of senior involvement or sound risk assessment, and that the timing for approvals by the ADM Emergency Management Committee is not always synchronized with the required business cycle, e.g. approval of the National Exercises Calendar.

Some federal institution interviewees also commented on the work of the Director General Emergency Management Policy Committee led by the Emergency Management Policy and Planning Directorate, which was established recently (September 2010). Interviewees noted that the committee is underutilized and is not as effective or strategically as it could be. They suggested that the committee should act as a forum for analysis and discussion of issues to be brought forward to ADM Emergency Management Committee for decision. Program interviewees stated that there have been some instances where the committee has performed this supporting role. Despite this, a review of the terms of reference for the ADM and DG-level committees reveals lack of clear delineation between the mandates of each committee. Lines between the separate roles of the committees are further blurred because, due to downward delegation, many of the same representatives attend both the ADM and director general-level committee.

Correspondence from December 2011 outlines the intention of the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada to establish a Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee that will "adopt an all-hazards approach and formalize the interdepartmental collaboration that is required to build community resilience through the four interdependent components in emergency management".^{Note 31} A draft terms of reference, dated February 2, 2012, for this committee has been prepared and the Strategic Coordination Division is now working on aligning the terms of reference for the ADM Emergency Management Committee with that of the intended Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee. Additional updates to the ADM Emergency Management Committee terms of reference are being considered following the release of the H1N1 report to the Committee, the recent Table Top Exercise in preparation for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization CMX 11, and the 2011 Japan earthquake.

Standing Forum of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management

The Standing Forum of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management "is responsible for coordinating an emergency management strategy in Canada, and for providing guidance and advice on how to enhance emergency management in Canada".^{Note 32} The Forum's mandate is to: provide advice, support, guidance, and recommendations to the federal/provincial/territorial Deputy Minister level and, through them, to federal/provincial/territorial Ministers responsible for emergency management; and to provide direction, advice, and support to committees, working groups and non-governmental organizations dealing with crisis and consequence management issues at a national level.

The Forum's members are provincial/territorial heads of emergency management organizations. It is co-chaired by the ADM of the Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch and the chair of the Canadian Council of Emergency Management Organizations. The Standing Forum of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management is supported by a number of working groups as illustrated in Annex C.

Interviewees indicated that the Forum and its working groups have been effective in producing good policy frameworks and have helped establish good working relationships. They indicated that representation, size and level are appropriate. However, they also stated that the mandate is too broad for available resources and that priorities need to be weighed and established.

PS Internal Coordination

In order to achieve an emergency management continuum, the work of emergency management policy, planning and exercises should ideally inform the work of one another. In this regard, interviewees indicated the work of these groups could be better coordinated. For example, connections between risk assessments and priority-setting are not being made, and policy could be more involved in the Capability Improvement Process so that lessons learned could be translated into policy direction. It was stated that actions between exercises and planning are beginning to "close the loop", but this is in early stages. For example, the Capability Improvement Process includes recommendations for the implementation of corrective actions and institutionalization of best practices in other federal institutions; in turn, the Strategic Emergency Management Plan assessment process examines whether the lessons learned were implemented. The need for increased coordination among the Initiative activities was also expressed by other federal institutions. Interviewees indicated that a "roadmap" of all emergency management activities/requests would help organizations understand the broader agenda and enable them to prioritize and plan their workload.

PS regional interviewees noted that there is no formal mechanism in place to engage regions for policy, planning and exercises. They indicated that communication to and from PS regions is weak leading to gaps in regional understanding and insufficient input from regions. It was expressed that regional input into nationally-developed policies and programs would lead to better-informed policy development and more efficient program implementation.

Program interviewees indicated that several challenges hamper efforts to "close the loop", e.g. work within tight timelines and limited capacity. It was also noted that mechanisms are currently being implemented to improve coordination within the Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch: weekly emergency management regional operations meetings, extended branch management meetings that include the director level, and a governance framework for the Branch.

4.2.2 Emergency Management Policy

The evaluation examined the extent to which the activities of the Emergency Management Policy Division have led to engagement of federal institutions and provinces/territories. The evaluation team then sought to determine how well the level of leadership and engagement has supported the creation of a comprehensive emergency management framework, in which all necessary pieces and players are present.

Leadership and Engagement

In response to the Auditor General 2009 report recommendations calling for the development of policies and programs, PS implemented several policy instruments:

• The Federal Policy for Emergency Management was announced in March 2010. The Policy promotes an integrated and resilient whole-of-government approach to emergency management planning.
• The Emergency Management Framework for Canada was updated in January 2011 to include federal/provincial/territorial governance mechanisms and coordination instruments. The framework establishes a common approach for the various federal/provincial/territorial emergency management initiatives and aims to achieve more coherent, complementary actions among these initiatives.
• The Canada's Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction was launched in October 2010 in response to international commitments^{Note 33}. The Platform aims to build multi-stakeholder coordinated leadership in disaster risk reduction to better protect Canadians in the event of a disaster.
• PS launched the National Disaster Mitigation Strategy in cooperation with provincial/territorial governments in January 2008, and is now examining options for a long-term National Disaster Mitigation Program.

The Policy Division also continued its international work through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization civil emergency preparedness fora, the United Nation's Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation fora.

In developing the above-mentioned policies, the Policy Division engaged numerous stakeholder groups, including other levels of government, non-governmental organizations, academia and the private sector. Engagement was also evidenced through the Standing Forum of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management Prevention/Mitigation Working Group. The policies and tools were shared with relevant stakeholders, including federal institutions, provinces/territories, academia, private sector, non-governmental organizations, international organizations and other countries, as appropriate, and posted on the PS website for broader dissemination.

The majority of interviewees agreed that PS had engaged their organization in the development of policy instruments, citing the Canada's Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Federal Policy for Emergency Management as examples. Despite acknowledging this engagement, interviewees indicated that further leadership and engagement would help solidify acceptance of these policy instruments by federal institutions, PS regions and provinces/territories. Some mentioned a need for increased communication to federal institutions and provinces/territories in order to raise awareness of policy issues being discussed and developed. Some also cited a lack of capacity as limiting their ability to participate in policy activities.

Comprehensiveness of Emergency Management Policy Framework

Most interviewees agreed that PS activities and outputs developed by the Policy Division have been useful in the work of their federal institutions and provinces/territories. Half of interviewees agreed that PS activities and engagement efforts have helped create a comprehensive policy framework. The key policy instruments listed above were mentioned by interviewees as setting the foundation for a comprehensive policy framework. The general sentiment of those interviewees was that the foundation has been laid to move on to the next level. Federal institutions suggested that the broad nature of the policy instruments made it difficult to fully understand their roles and responsibilities; to implement and operationalize them at a practical level; and to connect the various emergency management components. The evaluation recognizes the challenge, inherent in policy making, of providing overall direction and guidance without being overly prescriptive.

Interviewees cautioned that efforts need to be prioritized going forward and noted some gaps. They indicated that other groups need to be further engaged in policy development, e.g. PS regions, the private sector, the not-for-profit sector, insurance companies, academia, non-governmental organizations and volunteer search and rescue organizations. In addition, policy activities related to the development and dissemination of an emergency management body of knowledge and a reduced level of participation in international fora were noted as weaknesses. Program management acknowledged that international work has been reduced in recent years due to lack of capacity and competing priorities.

4.2.3 Emergency Management Planning

The evaluation examined the extent to which the activities of the Emergency Management Planning Unit have led to engagement of federal institutions. The evaluation team then sought to determine how well the level of leadership and engagement has supported the creation of a comprehensive and coordinated approach to emergency management planning among federal institutions.

Leadership and Engagement

Quantitative information indicates that the Planning Unit has delivered numerous engagement activities related to all-hazards risk assessments and emergency management planning. The majority of activities reported were undertaken over the last three years. Prior to this, the Planning Unit was heavily involved in pandemic planning and the management of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. The North American Plan for Pandemic and Avian Influenza was developed in cooperation with seven federal institutions. More than 60 meetings were held at various levels.

The Planning Unit produced a number of tools related to All-Hazards Risk Assessments such as: the Federal All-Hazards Risk Assessment Methodology Guidelines and the Workbook and Scoring Tool User Guide, and involved up to 25 federal institutions in their development. PS conducted approximately 50 interdepartmental workshops and meetings on the All-Hazards Risk Assessment process covering about 25 federal institutions. Many interdepartmental All-Hazards Risk Assessment working groups were created and are active, and approximately 18 meetings have been held.

In cooperation with the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Federal Standard for Emergency Management Planning was developed with participation by 14 federal institutions. However, the separate authorities under the Emergency Management Act and the Policy on Government Security made a joint standard challenging; thus, PS and the Treasury Board Secretariat made a joint decision that an alternative approach would be taken. This approach was the Strategic Emergency Management Plan assessments. The Emergency Management Planning Guide and Self-Assessment Tool were developed in cooperation with 12 federal institutions and made available to all federal institutions via the PS website. The Deputy Minister also sent it directly to all Emergency Support Function institutions in preparation for the Strategic Emergency Management Plan assessments. Approximately 75 meetings, presentations, workshops and courses were held that brought together participants from over 80 federal institutions. More than 35 bilateral meetings were also held with other federal departments on emergency management planning responsibilities. At least 10 meetings were held with federal institutions to present Strategic Emergency Management Plan assessment results.

More than 50 interdepartmental meetings involving up to 25 federal institutions were conducted with senior management personnel or governance bodies, e.g. ADM Emergency Management Committee, to discuss the All-Hazards Risk Assessments and/or emergency management planning process. Approximately 130 queries were received from federal institutions on the All-Hazards Risk Assessments or emergency management planning process and 129 responses were provided.

Almost all federal institutions interviewed agreed that the Planning Unit had engaged departments and is moving in the right direction. Most agreed that the Emergency Management Planning Guide and tools have been useful. Some interviewees suggested that PS broaden its awareness activities related to the Strategic Emergency Management Plan review cycle and offer more workshops for federal institutions.

Since provinces/territories are responsible for their emergency management activities, the Planning Unit has limited engagement activities to the federal level. Thus, provincial/territorial engagement in planning activities was not assessed during the evaluation. The Emergency Management Act states that "the emergency management responsibilities of each minister accountable to Parliament for a government institution are to identify the risks that are within or related to his or her area of responsibility", and that "each Minister shall include in an emergency management plan,... any federal-provincial regional plan".^{Note 34} Thus, federal institutions have the opportunity to engage provinces/territories through the Strategic Emergency Management Planning process in their particular area of responsibility, e.g. transportation, health.

Comprehensive and Coordinated Approach to Emergency Management Planning

About half of interviewees indicated that All-Hazards Risk Assessment workshops have advanced a whole-of-government approach. However, some disagreed with the type of methodology used indicating that it was very complex and time consuming for departments to implement, and that the methodology may not be appropriate for all types of risk assessments. Program interviewees noted that stakeholders in federal institutions had asked for a quantitative approach in order to ensure rigour and credibility as well as their participation and, to this end, the Emergency Management Planning Unit responded to their preferences by developing such a methodology.

Progress has been made against the 2009 Auditor General Report recommendations that: policies and programs be established for federal institutions, emergency management plans should assessed and risks identified. Most federal institutions interviewed agreed that PS efforts have supported a comprehensive and coordinated approach and progress is being made. As of December 2011, PS had evaluated Strategic Emergency Management Plans submitted by 10 departments, and a second group of Strategic Emergency Management Plans were due in December 2011. Only four of 10 federal institutions evaluated had a passable rating on their Strategic Emergency Management Plan, and five of 10 institutions had identified key risks. Progress is being made, but the Strategic Emergency Management Plan review process needs to continue given the low scores that federal institutions have obtained on their assessments.

4.2.4 National Exercises

The evaluation examined the extent to which the activities of the National Exercises Division have led to engagement of federal institutions and provincial/territorial emergency management personnel. The evaluation team then sought to determine how well the level of leadership and engagement has supported the implementation of lessons learned.

Leadership and Engagement

The National Exercises Division engages federal institutions through the Interdepartmental Exercises Coordination Committee. More than 30 departments are involved and participate in the development of the five-year exercise calendar. From 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, 31 exercises were conducted. The institutions involved in each exercise were determined by the type, scope and scale of each exercise. After-action reports were completed and distributed to all participating organizations, and then presented at the ADM Emergency Management Committee, where appropriate. A draft Capability Improvement Process was developed and distributed for adoption and implementation by appropriate departments. The Division also monitors and tracks progress, and results inform development of objectives for future exercises.

In this evaluation, half of the interviewees stated the National Exercises Division has engaged their organization and has done a good job of putting structures in place. The majority of federal interviewees stated that there is an improved understanding of the Capability Improvement Process. About half stated that it seems to be a good process and it helps instill a new culture although it was noted that it is just beginning and is slowly becoming accepted. Interviewees indicated that there is a need for a national exercise strategy with specific goals and that greater risk-based coordination between federal and provincial/territorial governments is essential. Additionally, some interviewees specified a need for a higher level of commitment of all the partners. This indicates that some work remains in order to address the 2009 Auditor General observations that exercises were designed to meet the training objectives of departments rather than to test overall government readiness for a national emergency against identified risks.

Implementing Lessons Learned

Interviewees stressed a need to improve governance and leadership, particularly with respect to senior level engagement, in order to put lessons learned into action. Program interviewees noted that some of the gaps with regard to the implementation of lessons learned are related to the authorities in the exercise program. PS does not have the authority to implement corrective actions or the institutionalization of best practices in other federal institutions. There are also security and jurisdictional issues when dealing with provinces/territories.

To date, three Capability Improvement Process matrices have been developed. Monitoring and tracking the progress towards implementation of lessons learned is embedded in each matrix. Program interviewees noted that implementation of lessons learned from a whole-of-government perspective is just beginning within federal institutions. A review of Capability Improvement Process matrices for exercises/events that took place between 2008 and 2010 showed that most corrective actions have not yet been completed. Implementation within PS tends to be more easily carried out than in other federal institutions.

Interviewees also noted the lack of resources to participate in exercises and/or exercise fatigue within federal institutions, and the need to provide lessons learned in a timely manner.

4.2.5 Communications

The evaluation examined to what extent the preparedness communication activities, delivered by the Communication Services Division, have led to Canadians being aware and informed of what to do in an emergency.

Reach of the Campaign

In 2006, PS was funded to launch a public awareness campaign to raise awareness of emergency preparedness among Canadians. The campaign entitled "Is Your Family Prepared?" focused on three main areas: knowing the risks in your community, making an emergency plan for the family, and having an emergency kit. The campaign was delivered in partnership with provinces/territories and non-governmental organizations.

In the first three years of the campaign, printed publications, radio and television advertisements, billboard signs, posters, and exhibits were used to advertise the campaign and related website. Funding for the media advertising campaign, which included television and radio advertisements, ended in 2010-2011. The campaign is now sustained through a web presence, the use of social media as well as partnerships/networks in order to maximize campaign reach in lieu of a mass media advertising campaign. PS is now using social media such as a Twitter account with 3,000 to 4,000 followers, e.g. like the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance.

Emergency Preparedness Week is an annual event that takes place each year during the first full week of May. This national event is coordinated by PS, in close collaboration with the provinces/territories and partners. Activities are organized across Canada to raise awareness of emergency preparedness.

Since the beginning of the public awareness campaign in 2006, more than 6.7 million publications have been distributed. In 2010-2011, the number of emergency preparedness products distributed, downloaded or reviewed online which was 20% over the established target at 1,219,935.^{Note 35}

Level of Awareness among Canadians

Document review reveals there has been a change in the mindset of Canadians with regard to emergency preparedness over the last few years. The percentage of Canadians who have looked for information on what to do in case of an emergency has increased from 30% in 2005 to 42% in 2010.^{Note 36} The perceived importance of having an emergency plan and emergency kit went from 67% in 2005 to 85% in 2011.^{Note 37}

The 2009 study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development remarks that each of the countries under study, including Canada, have taken pro-active measures to increase awareness of risks among communities, individuals and businesses, and to heighten the sense of urgency to prepare, mitigate and ensure against such hazards at their own expense.^{Note 38}

4.2.6 Readiness of Governments and Canadians

The evaluation examined to what extent the efforts made under the Emergency Prevention/Mitigation and Preparedness Initiative have supported governments and Canadians in being prepared for a major emergency.

Governments

Previous reports such as a PS Evaluation (2007), the report by the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (2008) and the Auditor General report (2009) reveal that PS needed to exercise more leadership, coordination and set clear direction. However, from an international perspective, in its 2009 report Innovation in Country Risk Management, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development compared innovative risk management practices and initiatives from six leading countries^{Note 39}, including Canada. The report concluded that all six governments had "set course to implement all-hazards approaches to manage the risks facing their respective territories and populations"^{Note 40}. The report stated that, although clearly in early stages, governments were taking the necessary steps to improve risk identification, assessment and prevention from disasters. These steps included establishing legal and policy frameworks, coordinating the work of various government actors, setting up networks to identify and assess country risks, and implementing mitigation policies. The report also noted that countries continued to face challenges in the areas of governance, risk assessment, disaster mitigation and financial management of large-scale disasters.

During this evaluation, interviewees noted that much progress has been made in the last two years. PS overall activities and outputs have contributed to implementing a common approach and helped lay the foundation for the whole-of-government framework. Interviewees felt that progress has been made toward alignment across government, and that governments are ready to "move to the next level". They indicated that, although Canadian federal/provincial/territorial governments are well prepared for minor/local disasters, they need to be better prepared for a catastrophic event.

Canadians

The advertising campaigns have made Canadians more aware of what to do in case of an emergency and of the importance of being prepared. In terms of actual behaviour change, the percentage of Canadians who have prepared a family emergency plan and who have purchased or prepared an emergency kit has slightly increased over time (approximately 8%), as shown in Figure 4. According to an academic at the University of Ottawa, "evidence shows that: in general, [behaviour] changes are difficult to achieve and remain of small magnitude (most campaigns achieve 5-10% at best)".^{Note 41}

One in five Canadians who recalled Emergency Preparedness Week in 2010 indicated that they had taken action.^{Note 43} The program notes that this compares favourably to other Government of Canada campaigns. According to the 2006 overall Government of Canada advertising statistics, only one in ten Canadians took action following a Government of Canada advertisement.^{Note 44} These statistics indicate that the advertising campaign has achieved success in alignment with the above-noted benchmarks.

Influencing Factors

Interviewees noted that several factors have detracted Canada's state of readiness:

• Long-term Vision: Canada lacks a long-term vision for emergency management. There is a need for a roadmap or overarching strategy to help organizations understand how individual activities fit within the broader emergency management agenda.
• Focus: There is a need for culture change to shift the focus from response/recovery only to include prevention/mitigation. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that Canada lacks a systematic approach to guide its mitigation investments based on the available capabilities.^{Note 45} There is also a perceived asymmetry of focus between malicious/human-induced incidents versus natural disasters. In 2010, a Canadian study entitled Canadians at Risk states that "Canadians are more vulnerable to natural disasters than they could or should be".^{Note 46}
• Capacity: There are federal/provincial/territorial capacity issues within the emergency management system. At the federal level, these capacity issues make it challenging to implement the Emergency Management Act and keep up with the 2009 Auditor General Report requirements. Some noted that the additional funding related to the Emergency Management Act in 2006-2007 did not account for the additional work that would be required in other federal institutions. Additionally, PS goal and priorities towards a whole-of-government approach sometimes diverge from those of other federal institutions and provincial/territorial governments. Program interviewees state that Canada has diminished its participation in international emergency management fora in the last year, due to capacity and resource shortfalls.

4.3 Performance--Efficiency and Economy

4.3.1 Use of Resources

In order to assess whether activities are being delivered efficiently, the evaluation team conducted a document review; conducted financial analyses; and summarized program interviewee information regarding challenges and measures taken to improve efficiency over the past five years.

Resource Management

The 2009 Auditor General report notes several challenges related to resource management at PS in the area of emergency management including difficulty in attracting and retaining senior managers to provide the direction needed to implement emergency management activities and turnover and change of staff. The report states that in 2008-2009, the rate of employee movement was 71% in emergency management. In addition, in 2008-2009, PS had not spent one third of its budget for emergency management in each of the previous two years.

In terms of changes to the resource base, there have been shifts over the past five years. During this time, the Policy Division, the Planning Unit and the National Exercises Division, taken together, have expended, on average, $4.6 million^{Note 47} annually. It is noted that Ministers agreed to ongoing incremental funding for these activities of $6.2 million annually in addition to the pre-core funding level of $3.3 million for a total of $9.5 million. The difference in the intended funding level and the actual expenditure is mainly due to the reallocation of funding to other Departmental priorities. Program interviewees in the Policy Division, the Planning Unit and the National Exercises Division noted challenges in terms of resource management; they stated that funds have been reallocated from their budgets each year making it difficult to manage resources and achieve sustainability.

Interviews revealed that managers have used various approaches to achieve cost reduction or resource savings over the past five years. These approaches included: partnerships; prioritization of tasks to meet funding levels; creation of standardized templates for repeat tasks; and increased use of technology for program delivery. Specific examples are included in Annex E.

4.3.2 Cost to Government

The following figures illustrate the trend in the cost to government^{Note 48} of Initiative activities. Annex D provides the cost breakdown associated with the figures presented below. The evaluation team examined these trends in relation to the performance (output levels) of the Initiative.

In general, interviewees described the performance level for the Policy, Planning and National Exercises activities as having increased in the two years after the release of the 2009 OAG Report.

For Emergency Management Policy, performance information was only available for 2008-2009 to 2010-2011. Figure 5, shows a slight increase in the cost to government over the past three years. Figure 6 shows that the weighted level of effort associated with policy outputs has increased more rapidly than the costs over these same years. This suggests that policy activities are becoming more efficient. It is noted that only partial output information was available to the evaluation, and more systematic tracking of performance information would provide more conclusive results. The information corroborates interviewee perceptions that the Emergency Management Policy Division has been very active over the last two years.

For Emergency Management Planning, quantitative performance information was available for the full five year period. Figure 7 shows that, for the first three years, the cost has trended upward while output production trended downward, as show in figure 8. This is likely due to the fact that resources were diverted to work on the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and outputs associated with that work are not illustrated in Figure 8 since they were not tracked. During the last year, the output production has trended upward at a rate that exceeds the cost curve. This suggests that the planning activities are becoming more efficient. The information corroborates interviewee perceptions that the Emergency Management Planning Unit has produced more outputs over the last two years.

As shown in Figure 9, National Exercises costs rose rapidly for the first three years, then began to level off in the last two years. Figure 10 shows that the weighted level of effort associated with delivery of the exercises has generally increased over the past five years with a spike in 2008-2009, during preparation for the Vancouver Olympic Games. Comparing the shape of the two graphs suggests that efficiency varies from year to year with a high level of efficiency in 2008-2009 and in 2010-2011 as outputs continued to rise as costs leveled off.

For Strategic Coordination activities, costs were available for a three year period. Costs were $1.2M in 2008-2009, then rose in 2009-2010 to $1.5M, and decreased in 2010-2011 to $1.4M. In terms of output information, program representatives indicate that, in addition to the regular activities required to administer the secretariat function, costs were affected by events such as: H1N1, 2011 spring floods, the Vancouver Olympic Games, the G8/G20 summits, earthquakes in Haiti and Japan, and international exercises. Each of these activities and their concurrent requirement for meetings resulted in additional costs.

For the Communication Services Division, costs were high during the first three years at the height of the advertising campaign from 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, ranging from $4.8M to $6.2M. During this period, the number of emergency preparedness products distributed, downloaded or reviewed online was 1,219,935, which was 20% over the established target for this campaign. Costs decreased significantly starting in 2009-2010 to $1.5M. Costs were approximately $0.6M in 2010-2011. The campaign raised the awareness level among Canadians by 12%. Benchmarks combining cost and performance were not available for comparison to these results.

As a final note, in order to provide a baseline for future activities, Table 3 illustrates the average annual cost to the federal government for each of the Initiative activities over the last five years^{Note 49}.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Relevance

There is a continuing need for PS activities in the area of emergency prevention/mitigation and preparedness. Evidence shows that the frequency of human-induced and natural disasters is increasing. Coordination structures and arrangements for bringing together multiple stakeholders are becoming increasingly important. PS programming has responded to the evolving emergency management context; however, gaps remain in the areas of mitigation and community resiliency.

The evaluation found that Initiative activities are aligned with federal government and departmental priorities. Although recent strategic documents have given prominence to economic recovery, the safety and security of Canadians remains a central theme. The continuing importance of emergency management is evidenced through the creation of the Emergency Management Act, in 2007, international commitments, and the Prime Minister's June 2011 announcements regarding mitigation programs.

Two central pieces of legislation define shared emergency management responsibilities in Canada. Under Canada's Constitution Act, 1867, provinces/territories have primary responsibility for emergency management within their respective jurisdictions. The Emergency Management Act indicates that PS is responsible to provide assistance to provinces/territories, as requested, and that the Department is responsible for coordinating the assistance provided by other federal institutions^{Note 50} to the provinces/territories. The Act also assigns responsibility to the Minister of Public Safety to "exercise leadership relating to emergency management in Canada by coordinating among government institutions and in cooperation with provinces and other entities, emergency management activities"^{Note 51}. Given the broad nature of this legislation, it is a challenge for PS to fulfill this mandate while recognizing areas of provincial/territorial jurisdiction.

The evaluation found that PS mandated activities related to a whole-of-government approach are not duplicated by other organizations; however, federal and provincial/territorial organizations suggest that there are opportunities for improved synergy with federal regional offices and provinces/territories.

5.2 Performance--Effectiveness

The Strategic Coordination Division provides the secretariat function for emergency management governance bodies. Established committees provide a solid foundation for leadership and coordination of emergency management; however, there is room for improvement. Attendance by ADMs at the Emergency Management Committee is often delegated downward and meetings have an information focus rather than providing a forum for strategic and timely decision-making. The Director General Emergency Management Policy Committee is underutilized. Changes are currently being made to the ADM Emergency Management Committee, and a Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee is being established to provide further direction. The federal/provincial/territorial Standing Forum of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management and its working groups are deemed to be working effectively in producing policy frameworks. However, given available resources, there is a need to establish and weigh priorities in order to move issues forward.

Although mechanisms are currently being implemented to strengthen coordination within the Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch, internal coordination of emergency management policy, planning and exercises activities was identified as a weakness. In addition, requests to other federal institutions are not well coordinated; this makes it difficult for federal institutions to prioritize work and assign resources.

In terms of the achievement of outcomes, the Emergency Management Policy Division, Planning Unit and the National Exercises Division have made good progress against the 2009 Auditor General recommendations. Federal institutions, and to some extent, provinces/territories are engaged. This has generally set the foundation for Initiative activities to move to the "next level". More work is required to achieve a comprehensive policy framework; a coordinated approach to emergency management planning; and the implementation of lessons learned from exercises.

The Emergency Management Policy Division has launched several policy activities and implemented policy instruments through engagement of federal institutions and provinces/territories. Further engagement is required to solidify acceptance and establish a truly comprehensive policy framework in which all necessary pieces and organizations are present. Federal institutions suggest that the broad nature of the policy instruments makes it difficult to fully understand their roles and responsibilities; to implement and operationalize them at a practical level; and to connect the various emergency management components. In addition, gaps remain related to knowledge transfer, particularly in terms of international trends.

The Emergency Management Planning Unit has engaged other federal institutions in all-hazards risk assessment and emergency management planning activities; and has produced related guidance and tools. Federal institutions interviewed generally acknowledged engagement efforts and the usefulness of these resources. Progress has been made toward the establishment of a comprehensive and coordinated approach to emergency management planning at the federal level. This is evidenced by the fact that federal institutions are starting to submit their Strategic Emergency Management Plans to PS for review. By December 2011, four of 10 federal institutions evaluated had a passable rating, and five of 10 institutions had identified key risks. Given the low scores that federal institutions have obtained on their assessments, the Strategic Emergency Management Plan review process needs to continue.

The National Exercises Division has demonstrated leadership, but governance that would support the implementation of lessons learned could be strengthened. The Interdepartmental Exercises Coordination Committee was created to engage federal institutions in planning and conducting national exercises. From 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, 31 exercises were conducted. Interviewees point to the need for a more robust national exercise strategy that is based on risk assessments and that demonstrates better coordination between federal and provincial/territorial governments. The Capability Improvement Process was put in place within the last three years to support the implementation of lessons learned so that federal institutions are better prepared for future emergencies. However, it is difficult for PS to ensure that corrective actions and best practices are implemented because the Department does not have the authority to do so, and governance mechanisms, such as interdepartmental senior-level commitment and follow-up, are lacking.

The campaigns undertaken by the Communication Services Division have increased the level of awareness among Canadians by taking pro-active measures among communities, individuals and businesses. As the advertising portion of the awareness campaign has now ended, the campaign is sustained through partnerships, its web presence and evolving social media components.

In terms of overall preparedness, Initiative activities have provided a foundation for a whole-of-government framework and behaviour change among individual Canadians is within studied benchmarks. Canada is implementing all-hazards approaches and is taking steps to improve risk identification, assessment and prevention of disasters. Despite these positive actions, interviewees indicate that governments are not well prepared for a catastrophic event. Several factors have detracted from Canada's state of readiness. These include: a lack of long-term vision for emergency management; the slow culture change from response/recovery to a four-pillar approach; and capacity issues within the emergency management system.

5.3 Performance--Efficiency and Economy

Staff turnover and budget reallocations have caused resource management challenges. Despite this, measures have been taken to improve the efficiency of Initiative activities. The cost-efficiency of Policy, Planning and National Exercise outputs has increased over the past two years. Insufficient information was available to conclude on the trends in cost-efficiency related to outputs of the Strategic Coordination Division and the Communication Services Division.

6. Recommendations

The Evaluation Directorate recommends that the ADM, Emergency Management and Regional Operations Branch:

1. Build upon the terms of reference created for the newly established Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee to ensure that strategic-level decision-making is aligned at all levels including the ADM Emergency Management Committee and sub-committees. Each committee should have a clear and separate mandate and should encourage and facilitate participation by representatives from the appropriate level.
2. Further engage stakeholders through the following actions:
   1. Consider the inclusion of emergency management planning and national exercises in the work of the Standing Forum for Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management.
   2. Pursue senior-level commitment from federal institutions through the newly established Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee, as well as through strategic emergency management plans for implementation of lessons learned from various assessments.
3. Place further emphasis on emerging policy areas, such as mitigation and community resiliency, and keep abreast of international trends to advance culture change within the emergency management community.

7. Management Response and Action Plan

Annex A: Documents Reviewed

Brooking Institution - London School of Economics (2010). A year of living dangerously: a review of natural disasters in 2010

Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (2002). Benefits of Flood Mitigation in Australia.

Department of Finance Canada. Federal budgets (2006 to present).

Department of Justice Canada. Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act (S.C. 2005, c. 10).

Department of Justice Canada, Emergency Management Act (S.C. 2007, c. 15).

Ekos Research Associates (2007). Final Report - Emergency Preparedness Week Evaluation

Ekos Research Associates (2009). Final Report - Emergency Preparedness Week Evaluation

Government of Canada (2011). Federal Emergency Response Plan

Government of Canada. Speeches from the Throne (2006 to present).

GPC Public Affairs (2005). Are Canadians Prepared For An Emergency? An Analysis Of Canadians' Preparedness For Emergency Situations And Attitudes Toward Preparing For Them

Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (2010). Canadians at Risk: Our exposure to natural Hazards.

International risk governance council (2008). An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework

Ipsos Reid (2006-2007). Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada Advertising Evaluation and Baseline Study, Volumes 1-2-3

Lemyre, Louise (2006). Guiding Principles and Practices Promoting Behavioral Preparedness in the General Public, (p.1)

Multihazard Mitigation Council (2005). Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves Lives: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities, Volume 1.

North American Leaders Summit (Canada, Mexico, United States). 2011 North American Plan for Animal and Pandemic Influenza.

Office of the Auditor General of Canada (April 2005). Chapter 2--National Security in Canada.

Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (Fall 2009). Chapter 7- Emergency Management - Public Safety Canada.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003), Emerging Systemic Risks in the 21^st Century.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009), Innovation in Country Risk Management.

Ottawa Citizen, News Release on Surviving Disasters. (July 4, 2011).

Parliament of Canada (2008). Report of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, Emergency Preparedness in Canada.

Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. (2010). Final Report - Emergency Preparedness Week Evaluation.

Public Safety Canada (2005). Formative (mid-term) Evaluation of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

Prime Minister of Canada (April 14, 2009)
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2009/04/14/mb-flood-harper-funding.html

Prime Minister of Canada (2007). Joint Statement Prime Minister Harper, President Bush and President Calderón, North American Leaders' Summit, 2007, Montebello, Québec

Prime Minister of Canada. Media release, PM visits flood affected region of Quebec, June 6, 2011.

Public Safety Canada (2008). Government of Canada Advertising Campaign Evaluations.

Public Safety Canada (2006). National Exercise Division, Draft - Integrated Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework, and Risk-Based Audit Framework, For National Exercise Program.

Public Safety Canada (2008). Canada's National Disaster Mitigation Strategy.

Public Safety Canada (2009). Final Report - '72 Hours' Advertising Post-campaign 2009 Evaluation.

Public Safety Canada (2009). Emerging Risks with Emergency Management Implication.

Public Safety Canada (2009). Federal Policy for Emergency Management.

Public Safety Canada (2009). Canada's Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction.

Public Safety Canada (2010). 72 Hours Campaign... Is your family prepared? Backgrounder

Public Safety Canada (2010). A Transforming Security Environment: Drivers of change that may affect the safety and security of Canadians.

Public Safety Canada (2010). Emergency Management Planning Guide 2010-2011.

Public Safety Canada (2010), Final Report - Advisory Committee on the Public Safety Departmental Presence in the Regions

Public Safety Canada (2010). Standing Forum of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management Terms of Reference.

Public Safety Canada (2011). 72 Hours... Is your family prepared? Campaign Overview.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Draft presentation: Discussion on the Disaster Mitigation Program.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Emergency Management Framework for Canada.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Emergency Management Policy Priorities and Resource.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Developing and Implementing the Emergency Management Planning Guide 2010-2011.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Terms of Reference - Assistant Deputy Minister Emergency Management Committee.

Public Safety Canada, National Exercise Program - Whole-of-Government Strategic Framework.

Public Safety Canada, News Release on Emergency Response Preparedness, (October 25, 2011).

Public Safety Canada, News Release on Exercises and Shakeout in B.C. (October 19, 2011).

Public Safety Canada, News Release - Government of Canada to participate in annual NATO exercise, (October 19, 2011).

Public Safety Canada, News Release - Government Unveils Emergency Management Online Tools at Disaster Risk Meeting, (October 18, 2011).

Public Safety Canada, News Release - United Nations Award on Disaster Reduction, (May 16, 2011).

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. 2006-2007 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. 2007-2008 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Public Safety Canada. 2008-2009 Emergency Management and National Security Branch End-of-year Status Report.

Public Safety Canada. 2009-2010 Departmental Performance Report.

Public Safety Canada. 2009-2010 Emergency Management and National Security Branch Business Plan.

Public Safety Canada. 2009-2010 Emergency Management and National Security Branch End-of-year Status Report.

Public Safety Canada. 2010-2011 Departmental Performance Report.

Public Safety Canada. 2010-2011 Emergency Management and National Security Branch Business Plan.

Public Safety Canada. 2010-2011 Emergency Management and National Security Branch End-of-year Status Report.

Public Safety Canada. 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Public Safety Canada. 2011-2012 Branch Business Plan, Communications Directorate.

Public Safety Canada. 2011-2012 Emergency Management and National Security Branch Business Plan.

Public Safety Canada. 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Public Safety Canada (October 28, 2011). Memo for the DM - Update on measures to address EMRO Branch Financial Management Challenges.

Public Safety Canada (October 4, 2011). Memo for the DM - Quarterly Update on the implementation of the management action plan: Auditor General 2009 Report on Emergency Management.

Public Safety Canada website: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/index-eng.aspx

Stratos Incorporated (2007). Summative Evaluation of the PSAT Critical Infrastructure Protection / Emergency Preparedness Initiative

Swiss Reinsurance Company (2011). Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2010: a year of devastating and costly events

The Strategic Counsel (2008). Final Report - 72 Hours Advertising Post-campaign Evaluation

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2009). Policy on Government Security.

United Nations. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, 2007

United Nations website: http://www.unisdr.org/who-we-are/history

World Bank and United Nations (2011). Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention, Washington, DC.

Annex B: The Federal Emergency Response Plan and Emergency Support Functions

The Federal Emergency Response Plan is the Government of Canada's "all-hazards" response plan. It outlines the processes and mechanisms to facilitate an integrated Government of Canada response to an emergency and to eliminate the need for federal government institutions to coordinate a wider Government of Canada response.^{Note 52}

Emergency support functions provide the mechanisms for grouping functions most frequently used in response to a request for assistance during an emergency. They are categorized as primary or supporting departments in accordance with federal mandated areas of responsibilities. A primary department is a federal government institution with a mandate directly related to a key element of an emergency. A supporting department is a federal government institution that provides general or specialized assistance to a primary department in response to an emergency.^{Note 53}

Support to Primary Emergency Support Function Institution

• Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
• Canada Air Transport Security Authority
• Citizenship and Immigration Canada
• Canadian International Development Agency
• Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board
• Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
• Canadian Pacific Railway
• Canada Revenue Agency
• Correctional Service of Canada
• Communications Security Establishment Canada
• Canadian Security and Intelligence Service
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada/ Canadian Coast Guard
• Department of National Defence/Canadian Forces
• Defence Research and Development Canada
• Finance Canada
• Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
• Justice Canada
• Nav Canada
• National Energy Board
• Parks Canada
• Privy Council Office
• Canadian Space Agency
• Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
• Transportation Safety Board

Annex D: Financial Analysis

* Note: Figures were not provided to the evaluation.

Notes: Financial information was not available for 2006-07 and 2007-08 since expenses were tracked together with Regional Operations which is where the Secretariat function was located organizationally during this period.

Annex E: Examples of Measures Taken to Reduce Costs

• The Policy Division has leveraged resources through partnerships. For example, when developing the National Disaster Database, PS Information Technology was engaged and for several events, facilitators from the Department of National Defence agreed to assist.
• The Planning Unit has prioritized its tasking to meet available funding levels, leveraged Information Technology resources to automate reporting, created templates for repeat tasks, and is doing more work in-house.
• The National Exercises Division indicated that they are using partnerships and funding to complete work using smaller consulting contracts as needed, rather than running a Transfer Payment Program. In addition, they have run exercises that achieved an 80% solution at a cost of $2 million rather than a full-scale exercise similar to one run in the United States at a cost of $16-20 million.
• The Strategic Coordination Division indicated that they have increased the use of teleconferencing to reduce the costs of in-person meetings, and distributed meeting material through an online portal and migrated contents to a Microsoft Share Point Platform reducing reliance on hard copy material.
• The Communication Services Division is using new ways of doing business to reduce costs such as: electronic distribution such as social media (Twitter) and distributing materials through partnerships with provinces/territories, non-governmental organizations and the private sector.

Date modified:

2022-07-26