1 / 31

Project Management Committee Meeting Washington, D.C. September 21, 2004

Independent Study to Assess Future Savings from Mitigation, Track B Telephone Interview Data Preliminary Analysis. Project Management Committee Meeting Washington, D.C. September 21, 2004. Track B Progress to Date. [2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.

amber-petty
Download Presentation

Project Management Committee Meeting Washington, D.C. September 21, 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Independent Study to Assess Future Savings from Mitigation, Track B Telephone Interview Data Preliminary Analysis Project Management Committee Meeting Washington, D.C. September 21, 2004

  2. Track BProgress to Date [2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.

  3. Track B Progress - I [2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.

  4. Track B Progress - II [2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.

  5. Track BProcess Data [2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.

  6. Informant Participation Status

  7. Informant Participation Status by Community # Individuals

  8. Reasons Informants WereNot Approached (n=21) • Likely bias (e.g., State Hazard Mitigation Officer, Federal Hazard Mitigation Officer) • Insufficient/inaccurate contact information • Individual working outside of the country/moved/retired • Interviews already completed for community • Job title/role suggests minimal contribution to study • Approved by Track B team leader

  9. Informant Referrals by Community FAKE DATA

  10. Total Number of Contacts Needed to Complete Interviews(Includes Telephone, Mail, Fax, Email)

  11. Index Informants • Key individuals with knowledge of mitigation activities within the community • Identified based on: • FEMA recommendation • Preliminary data analysis • Provided research staff with names and contact information of potential informants • Provided local “endorsement” of study

  12. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Hayward City Manager, Originally agreed Then REFUSED 1/30/04 1 Division Head of Water Facility INTERVIEWED 2/19/04 Assistant Director of Public Works INTERVIEWED 1/27/04 1 Dir. Public Works INTERVIEWED 2/9/04 Emergency Operations REFUSED 2/9/04 Fire Chief REFUSED 2/5/04 Acting Assistant City Manager REFUSED 2/3/04 FEMA Senior Planner REFUSED 2/5/04 HAZMAT Program Coordinator INTERVIEWED 2/18/04 Chief Building Inspector REFUSED 2/5/04 Director, Community & Economic Development INTERVIEWED 3/12/04 2 Deputy Publicity Dir. for Utilities Not Approached Associate Civil Engineer INTERVIEWED 2/11/04 Public Information Officer INTERVIEWED 3/12/04 2 Cal State Hayward Not Approached 1 Index Informant 2 Independent Network

  13. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Jefferson Co. Director, Land Development Interviewed 3/4/04 County GIS Manager Not Approached Fire Chief, City of Tarrant Not Approached County Commissioner Interviewed 1 3/4/04 Land Development e Interviewed 2/24/04 Dir., Local Land Trust Interviewed 3/4/04 Auburn University Not Approached County Commissioner Refused 3/8/04 Land Development pr Interviewed 2/17/04 USGS Not Approached County EMA Not Approached President, Local Engineering Company Interviewed 3/10/04 FEMA Former City Planner, Consultant Interviewed 2/23/04 Director, County EMA Interviewed 1 3/1/04 Hydrologist, Local Engineering Company Interviewed 3/10/04 County EMA Not Approached Admin. Assistant, County EMA Interviewed 2/24/04 Dir. of County Inspection Services Not Approached City NFIP Not Approached State Hazard Mitigation Officer Not Approached Director, Inspection Services Not Approached 1 Index Informant

  14. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Horry Co. Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Clemson University Interviewed 2/23/04 Head Building Official, City of Conway Not Approached Public Safety Director, County EMD Interviewed 2/25/04 FEMA National Weather Service Not Approached Meteorologist, Local Television Station Interviewed 3/1/04 Emergency Planner, County EMD Interviewed 1 2/18/04 Property Manager, County EMD Interviewed 3/2/04 Director, County Storm Water Management Not Approached Fire Chief, County Fire Department Refused 3/8/04 Director, Emergency Services County Red Cross Chapter Interviewed 3/19/04 1 Index Informant

  15. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Freeport Manager, Public Works Interviewed 3/16/04 Business Owner, Local Restaurant Refused 5/27/04 FEMA Floodplain Manager, Superintendent of Buildings, Mitigation Coordinator Interviewed 3/18/04 Coordinator, Emergency Management Team Interviewed 5/25/04 Grant Administrator, Public Works Interviewed 1 3/23/04 Village Engineer, Department of Public Works Not Approached Village Trustee; Owner, Local Insurance Agency Interviewed 3/23/04 Director, Emergency Management Interviewed 4/21/04 Business Owner, Local Marine Storage Interviewed 4/14/04 Village Trustee Refused 5/21/04 1 Index Informant

  16. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Tuscola Engineer, Local Eng. Group Refused 4/6/04 FEMA Prog. Admin., Intercounty Drains Interviewed 5/25/04 County Drain Commissioner Interviewed 1 4/5/04 Lieutenant, State Police Dept. Interviewed 4/5/04 Preliminary Research Engineer, Local Eng. Group Interviewed 4/1/04 Local Construction Co. Interviewed 1 3/22/04 Township Mgr., Tittabawassee Interviewed 4/1/04 Manager, City of Vassar Interviewed 1 3/25/04 Engineer, Local Company Interviewed 3/25/04 Environmental Engineer, State Dept. Environmental Quality Interviewed 5/24/04 Director, Public Works City of Frankenmuth Interviewed 1 4/2/04 Flood Specialist, City of Vassar Interviewed 4/2/04 State Hazard Mitigation Officer Not Approached Engineer, Canadian Company Not Approached President, Local Business Not Approached 1 Index Informant

  17. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Jamestown City Engineer Interviewed 6/4/04 State Department of Emergency Management Not Approached Director, State Dept. of Emergency Mgmt. Refused 7/6/04 Consultant Interviewed 6/7/04 City Administrator Interviewed 7/1/04 Local Red Cross Chapter Interviewed 6/18/04 FEMA County Emergency Manager Interviewed 6/21/04 Asst. City Engineer Refused 7/6/04 Mayor Interviewed 1 6/1/04 Parks and Recreation Interviewed 6/30/04 State House of Reps. Interviewed 7/9/04 President, Amateur Radio Association Interviewed 6/17/04 Weather Spotter Refused 6/4/04 Training Office, Fire Dept. Refused 6/8/04 City Fire Chief Interviewed 6/8/04 Police Chief Not Approached Local Cable Services Interviewed ??/??/04 1 Index Informant

  18. Interview Informant Job Titles (N=52)

  19. Track BPreliminary Findings [2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.

  20. Informant Perceptions of Community Risk Very High Very Low (n=47, n=48, n=49)

  21. Percent of Informants who Believe the Community Has a Natural Hazard Mitigation Program % Yes In your opinion, does the community have a natural hazard mitigation program? (N=47)

  22. Informants’ Knowledge of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program Average Knowledge How much do you know about the community’s natural hazard mitigation program? (N=39)

  23. Informants’ Assessment of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program? (Community Officials) • Insert Sample quotes. What is your assessment of the community’s natural hazard mitigation program?

  24. Informants’ Assessment of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program? (CBO/Community Partners) • Insert Sample quotes. What is your assessment of the community’s natural hazard mitigation program?

  25. Informants’ Assessment of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program?(Local Informants) • Insert Sample quotes. What is your assessment of the community’s natural hazard mitigation program?

  26. Informants’ Assessment of the Appropriateness and Effectiveness of Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs How appropriate/effective do you consider these [natural hazard mitigation] efforts? (N=40)

  27. Informants’ Perceptions of how the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program Compares to Others Much Better About the Same MEAN Much Worse In your opinion, how does the community’s natural hazard mitigation program compare to natural hazard mitigation programs in other communities? (N=38)

  28. Informants’ Perceptions of Benefits Provided by Mitigation Activities Which of the following benefits were provided by [this mitigation activity]? (N=?)

  29. Informants’ Perceptions of Primary Objectives/Benefits of Mitigation Activities What was the major objective of this activity? (N=?)

  30. Informants’ Perceptions of Success Meeting Major Objectives with VS. without Mitigation Activities How would you rate the community’s success in meeting this [major] objective with/without this activity? (N=?)

  31. Total Number of Spin-Offs: Mentioned Vs. Confirmed # Spin-Offs

More Related