This study addressed gaps in research on understanding the preparedness status of emergency management programs within Florida College System (FCS) and State University System (SUS) institutions. The quantitative assessment involved 21 institutions (51% response rate). A survey instrument was developed from prior studies and measured programmatic factors. These questions explored the current preparedness level regarding emergency management programs within Florida's FCS and SUS institutions, the involvement of stakeholders in these programs, the perceived preparedness to respond to various hazards, the extent of institutional investment in emergency management efforts, and the organizational frameworks characterizing the emergency management departments or units within these institutions. Findings revealed that FCS institutions generally have needs, particularly in exercises and financial resources, suggesting foundational elements are present but highlighting opportunities to advance their preparedness. In contrast, SUS institutions report needs in planning and financial support, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive and updated emergency strategies and plans and sufficient funding as programs advance. Both systems displayed strong leadership commitment that supported their levels of preparedness. Stakeholder involvement varied, with substantial participation from internal stakeholders like Police/Public Safety, while others, such as International Student Services, were moderately engaged, showing opportunities for more expansive involvement. External stakeholders, including local, county, and state partners, were heavily involved, highlighting the importance of collaboration, relationships, and support. Institutions prioritized hazards based on likelihood and impact, especially in Florida, focusing on high-priority areas such as tropical cyclones, infectious diseases, and active threats. Organizational structures and frameworks differed, with SUS institutions generally having more formalized structures, including dedicated departments, than the less formalized structures in FCS. There were notable disparities in resources, staffing levels, budgets, and the use of digital platforms. Overall, the study identified a moderate degree of preparedness and strong foundational underpinnings to SUS and FCS emergency management programs, where strengths and areas for improvement are highlighted to enhance preparedness and resilience. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]