(1) While performance standards for emergency management are gaining broader acceptance, the absence of a single standard applied consistently across the nation makes it difficult to define baseline capabilities or assess current levels of preparedness. (2) EM capabilities at the local level often do not meet basic needs of local jurisdictions.30 30 of the jurisdictions surveyed in this study, those with full-time emergency management directors or managers, rate overall preparedness higher than those whose directors or managers are not full-time. Overall preparedness is significantly lower in jurisdictions with directors or managers who are only able to devote less than 20 percent of their time to these responsibilities. Small cities in particular struggle to maintain readiness for a disaster. Cities with a population less than 5,000 that are responsible for their own emergency management consistently report (3) While most state and local laws are sufficient to support local emergency management efforts, a lack of procedural compliance and limited enforcement contribute to a patchwork of capable and less-than-capable emergency management programs as well as inconsistencies in disaster preparedness.31 (4) Disparities in resources for local programs have led to significant inconsistencies in State capability and preparedness.32 (5) A lack of adequate dedicated support resources available at the state level contributes to lower levels of overall local preparedness, specifically inadequate capability levels in mitigation and planning, and insufficient training and exercises, regional collaboration, and local outreach.33 (6) There is a lack of routine communication within and among local jurisdictions regarding emergency management requirements, roles, responsibilities, and resources.34 (7) A lack of consistent emergency management?education programs for local elected officials has created uncertainty among those officials concerning their statutory and inadequate capability to mitigate, plan for, respond to, and recover from an emergency or disaster. Such cities commonly delegate emergency management responsibilities to a director who is not full-time and who also occupies another significant position, such as city mayor, administrator, police, or fire official. (p. 19) 31 Existing state law requires each political subdivision to establish a local emergency management organization, or to be a member of a joint local organization. The law also directs political subdivisions to appoint a director, develop a comprehensive emergency management plan, and submit an annual emergency management program paper. It further encourages local programs to develop hazard mitigation plans, and to use a uniform incident command system for disaster response operations. Existing state law does little, however, to measure the quality of local programs or the commitment of emergency management directors. It does not compel cities and counties to meet these requirements, nor does it give the Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) the authority to compel local jurisdictions to comply. State law does not establish a mechanism to enforce the law, nor does it clarify such terms as "local organization," or "director". Many jurisdictions currently comply with this law by delegating emergency management responsibilities to a sheriff, police chief or fire chief as additional duties. The result is a mix of capable and less-than-capable emergency management programs across the state. This wide range of response capability, from very capable to inadequate, compromises overall preparedness, especially in multi-jurisdictional emergencies and disasters. (p. 18) 32 "....survey findings and research results of this study demonstrate that inconsistencies across local emergency management programs compromise overall statewide disaster preparedness". (p. 15) 33 The short turn-around time and tremendous administrative requirements of homeland security grants have subsumed other activities at the Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD), according to both EMD staff and local directors. As a result, mitigation activities, local planning assistance, and outreach efforts are not being performed at previous levels and are inadequate to effectively support local emergency management programs. Many local programs, struggling to maintain even a minimum of preparedness, report that a state liaison that is able to provide assistance, guidance and technical expertise could make the most significantimpact on local preparedness and capabilities. (p. 19) 34 Many of these small cities, as well as other jurisdictions participating in this study, identify a lack of planning assistance, training and exercise support, sample documents, guidelines, and other technical resources. Many of these resources, however, are available to varying degrees from the Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD), the Washington State Emergency Management Association (WSEMA), Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) and other sources. While many local programs use this resource sharing, many others are unaware that such resources exist. (pp. 19-20) operational [EM] responsibilities. Such ambiguities contribute to statewide inconsistencies in funding, resources, and prioritizing of emergency management.35 (8) Though increasing, the still limited collection of local public education programs has left the general public largely unaware of its role in emergency preparedness and its responsibilities when a disaster occurs.36 (9) Reliance on funding sources that are sometimes insufficient, inaccessible, or restricted is increasing the administrative requirements for grants management and limiting local programs' ability to effectively maintain adequate disaster preparedness.37 (Derived from WA State EM Council, A Study of EM at the Local Program Level, 2004, pp. x-xi)