UCF Emergency Operations Center Design Jennifer Fleischman ...

UCF Emergency Operations Center Design
Jennifer Fleischman
Graduate Student in the Masters of Public Administration Program
A paper submitted as part of the Service Learning requirements for PAD 6062
Advanced concepts and Application in Public Administration
University of Central Florida
Spring 2011

Abstract
The research contained in the following report surveys institutions of higher
education that subscribed to the DRU Listserv. They were questioned regarding
their Emergency Operations Centers on campus, specifically in the areas of size,
design, Emergency Support Functions, and technology. The results of the survey
were used to create recommendations for the University of Central Florida Office of
Emergency Management who is currently designing their own fully dedicated
Emergency Operations Center on campus. A literature review on the variables
included within the study are is also included, however, as the topic is still new,
much of the existing research and best practices may not be applicable to
institutions of higher education.

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………...3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4
Literature Review ....................................................................................................................... 5
Emergency Operations Centers ............................................................................................................ 6
Design - Layout ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Design – Personnel ................................................................................................................................. 8
Emergency Support Functions ........................................................................................................... 11
Technology ............................................................................................................................................ 12
Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 18
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 21
References .................................................................................................................................. 23
Appendix A – EOC Layouts .................................................................................................. 25
Appendix B - Survey ............................................................................................................... 27
Appendix C – Survey Response Charts .............................................................................. 30

Introduction
Emergency Management is an increasingly growing field among institutions of
higher education. What used to be solely police and fire-managed incidents on campuses
are now becoming more commonly coordinated through an Office of Emergency
Management. However, as Emergency Management is still in its infancy, having a
dedication Emergency Operations Center (EOC) on campus, where this coordination
usually takes place, is an extremely uncommon practice in institutions of higher
education. Most universities have only designated a conference room to serve as an EOC
during any large-scale emergency or disaster, ranging from severe weather events such as
hurricanes, to man-made emergencies, such as an active shooter situation. Conference
rooms may assist in providing a working space for the personnel tasked with coordinating
the emergency, yet these rooms are typically too small to accommodate the needed staff
and take a great deal of time to become fully equipped with the needed resources to
manage the emergency.
The University of Central Florida Office of Emergency Management is currently
in the process of designing a designated, fully operational Emergency Operations Center
for the University to be used during times of disasters and emergencies, as well as
support for special events on campus. The EOC will be built as a renovation project,
utilizing a pre-existing building on the main campus. The focus of this project will be on

the design elements of the EOC, consisting of space requirements, equipment
requirements, and the organization of the Emergency Support Functions (ESF) within the
EOC.
In order to draft a design of the EOC, an evaluation of best practices was obtained
from colleges and universities across the United States with EOCs on campus. A survey
was created to measure how these universities are utilizing their EOCs so that
recommendations could be made to UCF based on their successes. This research has
identified the following independent and dependent variables, as they relate to the
literature reviewed and the developed survey: the dependent variable in the study is
identified as Emergency Operations Centers, with independent variables consisting of
Design of both personnel and layout, Emergency Support Functions, and Technology.
The research questions this author is attempting to answer are: what should a campus
EOC look like How should the personnel be positioned within a campus EOC Which
design strategy works best for university campuses What ESF roles should be utilized
within a campus EOC What types of technology should be utilized within an EOC
Literature Review
One of the challenges faced during the course of this research was the lack of preexisting
articles on campus EOCs. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), as well as additional subject matter experts in emergency management, has
developed a variety of best practices for EOC design. These recommendations are geared
towards local, state, and federal EOCs, whose needs are likely to deviate from those of a
university EOC. The literature review in this study focuses on these best practices and

attempts to highlight some of the potential challenges facing a university, should they
adopt these recommendations.
FEMA (2003) has highlighted six traditional EOC design features that should be
taken into consideration when building an EOC. Due to financial and other pre-existing
requirements, many of these features have already been established for UCF’s EOC.
Therefore, this study focuses solely on the “facility features”, which this author has
identified as design, emergency support functions, and technology.
Emergency Operations Centers
The Emergency Management Institute defines an Emergency Operations Center
as “the central location from which all off-scene activities are coordinated” (FEMA,
2011). FEMA (2010) highlights a variety of responsibilities designated to the EOC,
including, and not limited to, “establishing policy or resolving conflicting policies,
providing communications/messaging support, providing and prioritizing resources” (p 2-
29).
Romagnoli (2007) outlines two general types of EOCs, full-time, and part-time.
These centers are both used for the same function, yet a full-time EOC is fully stocked
with technology in a dedicated facility. A part-time EOC has a different function on a
daily basis, like a conference room, and becomes an EOC during an emergency situation.
EOCs may also be classified as hot, warm, or cold, depending on their start-up time. A
hot EOC is fully functional and most commonly overlaps with full time EOCs
(Rasmussen, 2009). UCF’s EOC is currently a part-time, cold center in a conference
room that serves as an EOC when needed. The disadvantage to a part-time, cold EOC is

that these centers are not typically equipped with the technology required to run an EOC
and therefore take time to become operational. UCF’s EOC takes four hours to bring in
the required equipment in order to become fully functional (UCF, 2010). When
responding to an incident, time is one of the most important aspects, and part-time EOCs
have the potential to delay important actions and decisions.
Design - Layout
The design of an EOC, as it relates to this research, includes the positioning of the
workstations, as well as the grouping of the workers around these stations. The design of
the EOC is critical, as it can have a direct effect on the efficiency and effectiveness of the
work that takes place within the center. The organization of the ESFs designates who
primarily communicates with who and additional interactions among those inside the
EOC.
Five traditional styles of EOC set-up include Boardroom, Mission Control,
Marketplace, Bulls-Eye, and Virtual (Botterell, 2010). Examples of the layouts can be
seen on Appendix A. Bottrell (2010) highlights the pros and cons to each layout option
as follows: Boardroom style allows all members to work at a single table, which allows
better communication flow among personnel. This style may work best when used in
EOCs with a limited amount of personnel. UCF currently uses this style in their EOC
due to size constraints on the existing EOC. Mission Control style seats personnel side
by side in rows, all facing the front of the room. One challenge to this set up is that
individuals are limited in who they can work with to those on either side or directly
behind them. Any other interaction would require movement through rows, which can be
distracting and uncomfortable to those working in the center. Marketplace style, one of

the most common EOC set-ups, seats individuals around numerous tables in the center.
This set-up works well when using an Incident Command or Organization by Major
Management Activity style in an EOC, both of which will later be explained in detail. A
Bulls-Eye is similar to a Boardroom set-up, yet contains rings of tables surrounding a
center table. Usually key decision makers are seated in the center of the ring. Finally, a
Virtual EOC allows individuals responding to the EOC the opportunity to respond via
computer connection or video conferencing, rather that physically responding to a central
location. This style is only recommended to support a pre-existing EOC if there are
members who cannot make it to the designated location, not take the place of a psychical
location (Bottrell, 2010).
Design – Personnel
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has outlined four
organizational structures that serve as best practice recommendations when designing an
EOC. Of these structures, three are applicable to the needs of a university: Incident
Command Structure (ICS), Emergency Support Functions (ESF), and Major Management
Activities (FEMA, 2010).
An Incident Command Structure (ICS) utilizes five areas, one Command area and
four functional areas: Operations, Planning, Logistics, and Finance/Administration
(FEMA, 2010). These areas are applicable to any incident regardless of its size, by
dividing responsibilities and designating specific roles for all of those involved in
responding to the incident (Anderson, Compton, Mason, 2004). These five areas align
with the positions that responders on the scene of the incident utilize (FEMA, 2010).
Advantages of an ICS structure include clarity of the roles within the EOC, and clear

lines of contact between those on-scene and those within the EOC. However, since the
same titles are used on-scene and in the EOC, there is potential for confusion regarding
command authority (FEMA, 2010). If there are two “Commanders” or two individuals
serving as “Operations Section Chief”, personnel may be unsure whose authority to
follow, the individual in the EOC, or the one on the scene of the incident.
An ICS structure may work in a university EOC due to the hierarchical structures
pre-existing in a university setting. Within universities, there is a very rigid chain-ofcommand
that must be followed when decisions are made. For example, at UCF,
Coordinators report to Directors, who report to Assistant Vice Presidents, who report to
Associate Vice Presidents, who report to Vice Presidents, etc. An ICS structure utilizes
delegations of authority to make working in a chain-of-command system simpler. This
allows an individual to make decisions on behalf of another in their absence. Delegations
of authority “grant authority to carry out specific functions is issued by chief elected
official, chief executive officer, or agency administrator in writing or verbally; allows the
Incident Commander to assume command; and does not relieve the granting authority of
ultimate responsibility for the incident” (FEMA, 2010). Within UCF, a delegation of
authority could be used within the EOC to allow Coordinators to make decisions that
normally a Director would be charged with. Since the ICS structure aligns closely with
the hierarchies in a university, this style may work well within a university setting.
The ESF organization model is similar to an ICS structure, yet personnel within
the EOC are broken into “ESFs” and are organized into pre-determined groups that align
with ICS titles (FEMA, 2010). For example, the Operations Section includes Public
Works, Firefighting, Public Health, Urban Search and Rescue, and Public Safety. Each

function is assigned an ESF number with which to identify themselves. The ESF
numbers may differ slightly between jurisdictions, yet they tend to follow a similar
pattern. This set-up works well when using the Marketplace seating arrangement, as the
groups are typically seated around the same workstations (FEMA, 2010). The ICS
structure outlines which agencies should be placed at which table to better coordinate
communication and information sharing. When using the unique ESFs required for
campuses, an ESF structure result in communication confusion across jurisdictions
(FEMA, 2010). For example, UCF has identified The Office of Student Disability
Services as ESF 20 for the university. If UCF’s ESF 20 were to call Orange County’s
EOC to request additional resources, typically they would work with Orange County’s
ESF 20. Orange County’s EOC does not currently have an ESF 20, which could create
potential communication problems.
Organizing by Major Management Activities may be the most appropriate set-up
for a University. In this model, personnel are broken down into four areas: Policy,
Coordination, Operations, and Resources to carry out their assigned tasks (FEMA, 2010).
Within each group, there is additional staff to help support the activities. One challenge
to this is coordinating those on scene with their counterpart within the EOC.
At UCF, there are 11 Vice Presidents, each responsible for a different mission of
the University. The Office of Emergency Management is located in Facilities and Safety,
which is under the Division of Administration and Finance, as well as the UCF Police
Department and Environmental Health and Safety (UCF, 2011). These departments and
offices already frequently work together on a daily basis. An Organization by Major
Management Activities Structure may align well with UCF requirements where, during

an EOC activation, all personnel who report to the Vice President of the Division of
Administration and Finance would be seated in the same area. This would create better
coordination, as all of the decisions being made in that area already follow the same
chain-of-command.
Emergency Support Functions
UCF currently utilizes the ESF model within their EOC; therefore an examination
of who fills these seats is necessary. The Florida Division of Emergency Management
(FDEM) defines ESFs as “a mechanism that consolidates multiple agencies that perform
similar or like functions into a single, cohesive unit to allow for the better management of
emergency response functions” (FDEM, 2010). For example, ESF 1 is Transportation,
meaning that this ESF would coordinate all transportation requirements during the
incident. At UCF, the UCF Parking and Transportation Services man ESF 1 during an
EOC activation (UCF Office of Emergency Management, 2010). In the State system,
ESF 1- Transportation is manned by the Florida Department of Transportation.
The individuals filling the positions of the ESFs hold a great responsibility. They
must be subject matter experts in their field and additionally hold a position where they
have been delegated the authority to make decisions on behalf of their agency or
department. It is imperative that these individuals have access to the resources needed
during a disaster. During non-emergency times, these individuals fulfill their normal
responsibilities within the university.
The UCF Emergency Operations Center Plan (2010) outlines operations of the
EOC, the set-up of the EOC, and the requirements and responsibilities of the ESFs during
activation. Chapter 5 of the plan deals directly with the ESFs, and describes in-depth the

ESFs utilized and their position specific responsibilities during a disaster occurring at the
university. Though these had been pre-determined prior to the study, UCF is open to
changing their set-up if recommendations show that it would improve their disaster and
event response.
Technology
One of the most valuable resources within the EOC is its communication devices
and technology, as the ability to communicate from the EOC to those with the required
resources on the outside and with incident command is one of the main purposes for an
EOC’s existence. It is therefore recommended that redundant systems of communication
be in place within an EOC, meaning that there are a variety of communication methods
within the center (FEMA, 2010, Harowitz, 2005). These could consist of telephones,
radios, an instant messaging program, etc.
It is also important to ensure that communication systems are interoperable,
meaning that they have the ability to “communicate with staff from other responding
agencies and to exchange voice and/or data communications on demand and in real time”
(FEMA, 2010, p 4-6). Interoperability is especially important for universities due to their
relationship with their County and State Emergency Management. If there were needs
that could not be met on campus, the University would look to their surrounding agencies
for assistance. It is imperative that these agencies be able to communicate with one
another to ensure safety of all responders. For example, the UCF Police Department may
be responding to an incident that requires the response of a fire department. If Orange
County Fire/Rescue were to respond to the scene, the UCF Police Department should be
able to speak with them on the same radio frequency to share information.

FEMA (2010) recommends that all key personnel within the EOC have
access to e-mail, phone, radio, and any data necessary to fulfill their function within the
EOC. Traditionally, EOCs are pre-stocked with these types of equipment. As previously
stated, the UCF Office of Emergency Management’s EOC currently requires technology
to be brought in before the EOC is operational. Even then, the EOC may be lacking
enough telephones and computers to accommodate for each individual that arrives. This
can potentially be an issue for EOC responders and may require them to supply their own
resources.
EOC Management software is utilized to provide the EOC with information on
weather, support coordination with outside agencies, and track resources. DHS (2010)
outlines a variety of software available for EOCs including WebEOC, “a crisis
information management software that delivers real-time data to emergency managers
and responders” (p 84). WebEOC is one of the most common communication tools used
in EOCs and allows cross communication within the EOC and with external
organizations. Additional popular systems also include Area Locations of Hazardous
Atmospheres (ALOHA) and HURREVAC, both weather-tracking systems, and
Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO), an EOC
management system (Commander Navy Instillations Command, 2005). Although much
of this technology is useful, financial issues tend arise when trying to obtain it. However,
the importance of the technology, access to it, and information gained from it may make
it a larger priority (FEMA, 2010).
Survey

The survey was developed to analyze how other universities across the United
States are using EOCs on their campuses in order to make recommendations for UCF.
The survey was developed as a “Google Document” and was then e-mailed to institutions
of higher education that have subscribed as members to the Disaster Resilient University
Listserve, a communication resource created by The University of Oregon which allows
emergency management professionals from institutions of higher education to network
with one-another (University of Oregon, 2011).
The questions contained in the survey were designed to evaluate the variables
outlined in the study. Additional questions were asked pertaining to student enrollment
size and geographic location of the campuses to greater increase the validity of the
recommendations drafted for UCF. The survey included both multiple choice questions
and short answer questions with the opportunity for respondents to explain their answers
in greater detail. A copy of the survey can be found on Appendix B.
32 responses were collected. At the request of the survey respondents, the
identity of the Universities who participated in the survey will remain anonymous.
Instead of University names, they will be identified by the size of the student population
within the university. “Small” will include 1- 20,000 students, “medium” will include
20,001-40,000 students, and “large” will include 40,001 or more students.
Findings
The findings from the survey outline the importance of the research, as many of
the EOC designs from the schools surveyed do not match the best practices shown in the
literature review. Further analysis of the survey responses is as follows:

UCF’s student population for the 2010-2011 academic year was over 56,000,
making it the second largest university in the United States (Lewis, 2010). Therefore, it
was important to determine the size of the responding schools to establish whether their
EOC sizes and design were comparable to UCF’s. Responders to the survey represented
universities from a variety of geographic locations and sizes. The majority held student
populations between 20,001-30,000, and only two were within the population size of
UCF (see Appendix C-1).
Having a dedicated EOC on campus can minimize the time delay associated with
bringing in the necessary equipment to make the EOC functional. It is surprisingly then
that only nine respondents indicated that they have a full-time dedicated EOC. This may
be due to space or funding requirements needed establish a dedicated EOC. 22
respondents indicated that although they do not have a dedicated EOC, their campus does
have a space designated as an EOC if needed during an emergency. One large school
indicated that they have three EOCs they can utilize if necessary (see Appendix C-2 and
Appendix C-3).
Sizing of the EOC may vary depending on the population of the jurisdiction and
the personnel staffing the EOC. Unfortunately, the sizes of the respondent’s EOCs do not
coincide with the size of the student populations of the universities. UCF’s EOC is
currently 1,600, to accommodate 40 people. Their current conference room cannot
comfortably seat the required personnel, nor does it provide adequate space for their
equipment. Surprisingly, their EOC is one of the larger EOCs compared to others in the
study. The sizes of the actual operations room of the respondent’s EOCs, not including
adjacent facilities, range from between 200 square feet to 3,000 square feet with the

average size around 1,400 square feet. These spaces range from classrooms, to
conference rooms, to fully functional Emergency Operations Centers within a building
entirely dedicated to being an EOC.
From the literature reviewed, it appeared that the Marketplace style may fit a
university EOC’s needs most accurately due to the chain-of command structure that
exists within a university system. However, none of the survey respondents currently use
this form of seating arrangement for their EOCs. This may be due to the size constraints
of the EOCs, as the Marketplace style would require a room that can accommodate
multiple tables and area for movement. Sixteen of the respondents indicated the use of a
Boardroom seating style, while six use Mission Control, and one use Bulls-Eye. None of
the responders utilize the Virtual EOC style (see Appendix C-4).
The literature review revealed that the Incident Command Structure would work
well within a university and the survey results coincide with these findings, and many
have created a combination model. 14 schools indicated the use of an ICS structure, four
use an ESF structure, and nine use a combination of both ICS and ESF structures. Six
responders indicated that they do not use either model (See Appendix C-5). Most of
these have indicated that they have designed an “Annex structure” rather than operating
under ESFs. One large school defines this breakdown as a method using an Alphabet
rather than numbers, where they identify these seat requirements with their own key
players, rather than the traditional ESF breakdown. These responders indicated that they
feel this breakdown is better aligned with university requirements.
For those that utilize the ESF structure, the most frequent ESFs used by the
schools are 1-Transportation, 14-Public Information, and 16-Law Enforcement (See

Appendix C-4). UCF currently has seats established for these positions. The respondents
indicated that the individuals who fill the seats of the ESFs are made up of police, fire,
and other first responding agencies, directors of their departments, deans of departments,
and additional outside agencies should they be needed. One unique aspect of the survey
respondents was the amount of deans and vice presidents that are fill ESFs in the EOCs.
UCF has identified individuals with decision-making power to fills those roles, but does
not currently have they higher tiered personnel in the center.
A number of schools identified unique ESFs that they have created to fit within
their EOC. UCF has currently expanded their ESFs to include Special Needs, Counseling
Services, and Human Resources. One large school within the study has extended their
ESFs to include a research facility and Office of Internal Affairs. Additional ESF seats
include Student Affairs, Risk Services, Continuity and Recovery, Registrar’s Office,
Athletics, and Business.
As the literature review showed, redundant forms of technology and
communication methods should be utilized in an EOC. All of the responders indicated
that they have multiple methods of communication and various types of technology
within their EOCs. The most common types of technology used are televisions, laptops,
and “other” (see Appendix C-7). Respondents indicated that “other” encompassed
projectors, copy-machines, large screen monitors, laminated wallboards, grease-boards,
and cameras. Communication technology consists mostly of Internet and radio; however,
additional unique technology includes UHF radios, video conferencing, HAM radios, and
video conferencing (see Appendix C-8).

WedEOC was the most commonly used EOC management software, followed by
“other” consisting of MS Communicator, Blackboard, and a few respondents indicated
that they are tied into their county’s system (see Appendix C-9). Support EOC software
was most commonly HURREVAC and “other” consisting mostly of online mapping such
as Google or Bing, Weathertap, and National Weather Service chat features (see
Appendix C-10).
Additional questions were posed to respondents as an opportunity for UCF to
evaluate training requirements and EOC activations so as to better improve their EOC
functions. The results indicated that ESF training is done through training on the
National Incident Management System (NIMS) courses, which are offered online or inclass
through FEMA. Position specific training for ESF personnel also takes place on
campuses annually. Most schools indicated that they are still in the process of
developing a training plan for their personnel. University EOCs are also used for
command post for football games, a back-up facility for city/county police and fire
departments, community events, graduation commencements, move-in days, dignitary
visits, and additional special events.
Recommendations
Research should be done on EOC design, specific to institutions of higher education.
One of the most significant recommendations obtained from this research is a
requirement for further research to be conducted on institutions of higher education
EOCs. Emergency Management within colleges and universities is still in its infancy.

As the field continues to grow, best practice recommendations will need to be
established, specific to this field.
UCF Office of Emergency Management should include Academics and Research in their
EOC to create easier communication flow
The University of Central Florida should look into the inclusion of academics in
their EOC. Although communication with the Deans may be available during a disaster,
it might be easier to communicate needs and outcomes to them and make
recommendations for actions if they were represented within the EOC. The deans may
not have the same technology available to them outside the EOC, and should
communications fail, they could still articulate their recommendations. This would also
allow them to form decisions needing their approval based on the actions being taken by
the other personnel within the EOC. Inclusion of a representative from research should
be looked at as well. Research is one of the most important missions of a university. An
enormous amount of funding is dedicated to research, yet it also brings in money to the
university. Having a representative of the researchers in the EOC may help to resolve
issues of analyzing the hazards faced if specific research is threatened during a disaster or
emergency.
UCF Office of Emergency Management should activate their EOC for special events to
increase exercise opportunities.
Activating the EOC to assist with coordination of special events should be
considered an option to adopt. Pre-staging of potentially required personnel that may be

needed if an event were to occur can only help should a situation happen. This will also
provide practice for what these ESFs will need to do during a disaster, since UCF only
exercises their EOC annually.
UCF Office of Emergency Management should adopt an Organization by Major
Management Activity Structure in their EOC.
Utilizing an Organization by Major Management Activity structure may benefit
the UCF EOC as well. As shown in the literature review, adoption of this style would
allow better coordination of information to the higher personnel. This style may also
work well with adoption of Annexes in order to institute the additional personnel within
the EOC.
UCF should obtain an EOC Software program
In terms of technology, increasing the amount of technology within the EOC will
provide UCF with redundant forms of communication should anything arise causing gaps
in communication. Looking into the adoption of an EOC Software management system
will allow easier coordination with county partners. Research into what types of systems
these counties utilize should be done before adopting one of these systems. Additional
support software should be looked into as well to increase intelligence availability within
the EOC. All of these require funding that UCF may not have access to at the moment,
therefore, it is recommended that research be done into partnering with the County, or
dedicating time to researching grant opportunities to support the purchase of these
important resources.

Conclusion
In summation, the University of Central Florida’s Emergency Operations Center
will certainly be an important improvement to their current EOC. Considerations should
be taken into including both researchers and deans within the EOC, re-evaluating the setup
of the EOC, and utilizing annexes to increase their personnel. Emergency
management in institutions of higher education will continue to be a growing field. As
the field matures, additional research will most likely be conducted on Emergency
Operations Centers and how these requirements differ from local, state, and federal
requirements due to the uniqueness of college campuses.

References
Anderson, A. I., Compton, D., and Mason, T. (2004). Managing in a dangerous world-
The national incident management system. Engineering Management Journal.
16(4)3-9.
Botterell, A. (2010). A design language for EOC facilities (PDF Format). Retrieved on
April 12, 2011from http://www.flghc.org/ppt/09-10/TS%20EM7.pdf.
Commander Navy Instillations Command. (2005). Navy instillations emergency
management program. Volume 2: Appendices.
Department of Homeland Security. (2010). Considerations for fusion center and
emergency operations center coordination: comprehensive preparedness guide
(CPG) 502. Retrieved on April 13, 2011 from
www.fema.gov/pdf/about/divisions/npd/cpg_502_eocfusion_final_7_20_2010.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2003). Hardened First Responder Facility:
911 Communication and Emergency Operations Center, Smith County Texas.
Retrieved on April 12, 2011 from
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.doid=1782.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2010). IS-200: Incident Command System
for Single Resources and Initial Access Incidents. Retrieved on April 14, 2011
from http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/is/is200b.asp.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2010). IS-775: EOC Management and
Operations. Retrieved on April 13, 2011 from emilms.fema.gov/IS775
Florida Division of Emergency Management. (2010). Emergency Support Functions.
Retrieved on March 31, 2010 from www.floridadisaster.org/emtools/esf.html
Harowitz, S. L. (2005). Emergency operations centers. Security Management.
49(11)62.
Lewis, K.J. (Nov. 3, 2010). Quality Growth: UCF is Nation’s Second Largest. UCF
Today. Retrieved on April 12, 2011 from http://today.ucf.edu/quality-growth-ucfis-nations-second-largest/#more-17537
Rasmussen, C. (2009). Emergency operations center operations and management (PDF
format). Retrieved on April 12, 2011 from
http://www.slideshare.net/curtrasmussen/eoc-operations-and-managementtraining-mod-1.
Romagnoli, J., A. (2007, October). Ready for Anything. Security Technology Executive.

17(10)26-28.
University of Central Florida. (2010). Emergency Operations Center Plan.
University of Central Florida. (2011). UCF Finance and Accounting. Retrieved on
April 12, 2011 from http://www.fa.ucf.edu/
University of Oregon. (2011). DRU Listserv Policies. Retrieved on March 31, 2010
from http://em.uoregon.edu/info/prepare10/

Appendix A – EOC Layouts
Boardroom
Mission Control
Marketplace

Bulls-Eye
Virtual
All images in Appendix A are from Botterell (2010).

Appendix B - Survey
UCF Emergency Management - EOC Survey
What College or University are you representing with your responses *
Please explain.
How many students attend your College or University *
Please choose one.
1-10,000
10,001-20,000
20,001-30,000
30,001-40,000
40,001-50,000
50,001-60,000
60,000 or more
Do you have a full time dedicated EOC on campus *
Please choose one, or explain.
Yes
No
Other:
If not, do you have a space designated as an EOC for use during an emergency
Please choose one, or explain.
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Other:
How many square feet is your EOC space
Please explain.
What ESFs fill your seats during a time of disaster
Please choose all that apply.
ESF 1 - Transportation
ESF 2 - Communications/IT
ESF 3 - Public Works
ESF 4 - Fire
ESF 5 - Information and Planning
ESF 6 - Mass Care
ESF 7 - Resource Support

ESF 8 - Health & Medical
ESF 9 - Search & Rescue
ESF 10 - Hazardous Materials
ESF 11 - Food & Water
ESF 12 - Utilities/Energy
ESF 13 - Military Support
ESF 14 - Public Information
ESF 15 - Volunteers
ESF 16 - Law Enforcement
ESF 17 - Animal Services
ESF 18 - Business & Industry
What campus departments or outside agencies fill these seats when activated
Please identify the ESF number and the department that fills that role.
Did you create other ESFs to fill unique roles for your institution If so, what are
they
Please explain.
What style do you utilize to seat your ESFs
Please choose one, or explain.
Incident Command Structure
ESF Structure
Combination
Other:
What style of EOC do you use
Please choose one, or explain.
Marketplace
Board Room
Mission Control
Virtual
Bulls Eye
Other:
What types of technology are used within the EOC
Please choose all that apply.
Smart Boards
Televsions
Desk-Top Computers
Lap-Top Computers
Other:

What types of communication technology do you use in your EOC
Please choose all that apply.
Satellite
Internet
Radios
Voice-Over IP
Other:
What types of EOC management software do you use in your EOC
Please choose all that apply.
WebEOC
E-Team
SharePoint
Other:
What types of support EOC software do you use in your EOC
Please choose all that apply.
HURREVAC
Aloha
Cameo
Weathertap
Other:
How do you train your ESF members and how often
Please explain.
How often do you exercise your EOC team
Please explain.
What other events does your EOC support
Please explain.

Appendix C – Survey Response Charts
1. Student Populations
2. Full-Time EOC
3. Part-Time EOC

4. EOC Style
5. Seating Style
6. ESFs

7. Technology

8. Communication Technology
9. EOC Management Software
10. Support Software