This report presents findings from the state, local, and territorial components of the Emergency Management Organizational Structures, Staffing, and Capacity Study. The tribal nation component is still ongoing. This report will be updated to include the tribal data in the fall/winter of 2025.

Executive Summary
The Emergency Management Organizational Structures, Staffing, and Capacity Study (the EM Study) represents the most comprehensive effort to capture foundational data about public sector emergency management (EM) agencies to date. It includes quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis examining what EM agencies look like nationwide, the challenges they face, their directors’ strategic and tactical aspirations, and the relationship between agency characteristics and successful outcomes.
The EM Study identified several key findings:

• Many local EM agencies are small, with more than half having one or fewer permanent full-time employees. Agencies in rural jurisdictions, small population jurisdictions, municipalities, and/or in jurisdictions with few hazard events have the smallest staff sizes on average. Although most local EM director positions are paid, a notable percentage are volunteer. In addition to often working alone and in a part-time capacity, many local EM directors are dual-hatted or have additional professional responsibilities that limit the amount of time they can spend on EM activities. Staff sizes vary substantially among territorial and state agencies, but on average, they are larger than local agencies.
• Structure also varies considerably from agency to agency. Most local and territorial EM agencies, as well as a notable portion of state EM agencies, are independent. When housed within another agency or department, most EM agencies are part of a first responder entity or public safety organization. Local jurisdictions with independent/freestanding agencies are more likely to report being able to meet community needs than agencies housed under other departments.
• Study participants reported many challenges to delivering EM services effectively. In addition to funding and staffing challenges, many respondents also indicated that it is a struggle to obtain sufficient resources within their jurisdiction and set clear mission boundaries. These difficulties are exacerbated when there were competing priorities, stakeholder and elected official confusion about the role of EM, and when EM directors lacked authority to set their agencies’ priorities.
• Across all jurisdictional levels, EM agencies spend the largest share of their time on preparedness for response operations and a much smaller share on preparedness for recovery activities. Analysis shows, however, that for local jurisdictions, preparedness for recovery has a significant positive relationship with their ability to meet community needs and to meet local, state, and federal requirements cumulatively.
• EM staff face a wide variety of human resources challenges, including low pay at the local level, high staff turnover at the state level, and difficulty recruiting and retaining staff in territorial offices. Respondents also linked small staff sizes to burnout.
• The variation of EM agency models, stakeholder confusion about the role of EM, and staffing and human resources challenges all highlight the need for greater standardization and professionalization for the future of EM practice.

See full report bellow.