Project management committee meeting washington d c september 21 2004
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 34

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


  • 56 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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

Track BProgress to Date

[2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.


Track b progress i

Track B Progress - I

[2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.


Track b progress ii

Track B Progress - II

[2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.


Track b process data

Track BProcess Data

[2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.


Overview of telephone interviews

Overview of Telephone Interviews

  • Tape recorded with participant consent

  • Key informants were identified through snowball and network sampling

  • Items were developed based on:

    • Previous research (Project Impact)

    • Objectives of present study

    • Pilot study (Tulsa)

    • Pre-testing results (from non-selected communities)

  • Length ranged from 10 to 160 minutes (Mean=67.0 minutes)


Informant participation status

Informant Participation Status


Informant participation status by community

Informant Participation Status by Community

# Individuals


Reasons informants were not approached n 21

Reasons Informants WereNot Approached (n=21)

  • Likely bias (e.g., SHMO, FHMO)

  • Insufficient/inaccurate contact information

  • Working outside of the country

  • Minimal contribution to study anticipated based on statements by informant providing referral and job title/role

    • Track B team leader contacted by interview staff for final determination


Informant referrals by community

Informant Referrals by Community


Total number of contacts needed to complete interviews includes telephone mail fax email

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


Index informants

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


Project management committee meeting washington d c september 21 2004

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


Project management committee meeting washington d c september 21 2004

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


Project management committee meeting washington d c september 21 2004

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


Project management committee meeting washington d c september 21 2004

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


Project management committee meeting washington d c september 21 2004

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


Project management committee meeting washington d c september 21 2004

Flow Chart of Interview

Network in Jamestown

City Engineer Interviewed 6/4/04

State Department of Emergency Management

Interviewed 7/20/04

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

Refused 7/12/04

1 Index Informant


Interview informant job titles n 52

Interview Informant Job Titles (N=52)


Track b preliminary findings

Track BPreliminary Findings

[2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.


Informant perceptions of community risk

Informant Perceptions of Community Risk

Very

High

Very

Low

Don’t Know:

n=3, n=3, n=2 for Quake, Wind, Flood

(n=49, n=49, n=50)


Percent of informants who believe the community has a natural hazard mitigation program

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=48; Don’t Know, n=4)


Informants knowledge of the community s natural hazard mitigation program

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=36 of those who think there is one)


Informants assessment of the community s natural hazard mitigation program community officials

Informants’ Assessment of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program? (Community Officials)

“It’s good in that we've gotten a lot of state and federal grants, and we’ve been proactive with the retrofit of public as well as emergency response buildings.

“I’m not that familiar with it. The government required them to have a plan, but I don’t know what’s in it. They have earmarked $2 million dollars per year to reduce flood damage over next 10 yrs, $37 million total…They are probably better than average overall, but not by much.”

“The flood programs have accomplished a lot, but more still needs to be done. A lot of people are still in the floodplain. They are doing a lot to further the program. [The County] is putting their own money toward addressing that need.”

“It’s pretty good, we’re further along than most—top in the state. We have had several presidential declarations of disasters which opened up HMGP grants, and we’ve spent lots of money on mitigation. The HMGP money was used to implement grant mitigation projects—$5 or $6 million.”

“I don't think they have a defined program for natural hazards. We used to have floods, but now we have two dams. That changed the flooding problems. Now it’s not every year, only when there’s major rain.”

What is your assessment of the community’s natural hazard mitigation program?


Informants assessment of the community s natural hazard mitigation program cbo community partners

Informants’ Assessment of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program? (CBO/Community Partners)

“It’s pretty well thought out. We’ve spent a lot of time and effort preparing for a large earthquake.”

“We are pretty well prepared for natural disasters. We have a strong team, a weather watch group, up-to-date weather reports, and well-trained police force. If we are weak, it’s on incident shelters. We have one that’s centrally located, but it’s not sufficient for a huge disaster.”

“We don’t really have one as such. Our number one disaster issue is weather-related stuff, and how prepared can you be for that?”

“The county has an Emergency Management Department and full-time Director, which allows for pre-planning and mitigation activities. It helps with coordination and allows us to be proactive.”

“People are becoming more aware of flooding, and are being as proactive as they can. If they can’t make improvements on their own, they have to petition local government. It works well to keep people and farmers dry.”

What is your assessment of the community’s natural hazard mitigation program?


Informants assessment of the community s natural hazard mitigation program local informants

Informants’ Assessment of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program?(Local Informants)

“The state has a multi-hazard mitigation program. There are 10 programs in the state, addressing all types of hazards, including terrorism. The cities and counties do a good job of carrying out the programs at the local level. For example, each city and county has a floodplain manager.”

“It has been very successful and helpful. There are only 55,000 people in the county. Because we have such a small population, we wouldn't be able to complete projects if not for the hazard mitigation process.”

“They are very acclimated in the understanding of flood contexts and have geared much of the planning to flood events and responses and less to mitigation. Mitigation is something [we have] fought over tremendously. Many people don't want the government telling them what they can build.”

“We are very proactive in mitigation efforts. The Mayor and Board of Trustees comprise the political body that controls mitigation—our goal is to be flood free. We do education; we’re part of CRS and should be moving to a 7 soon.”

What is your assessment of the community’s natural hazard mitigation program?


Project management committee meeting washington d c september 21 2004

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; Don’t Know, n=12)


Informants perceptions of how the community s natural hazard mitigation program compares to others

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; Don’t Know, n=14)


Percent of informants who mentioned primary mitigation objectives benefits i

Percent of Informants Who Mentioned Primary Mitigation Objectives/Benefits-I

100%

Reducing Death, Injury, Illness

Reducing Stress and Trauma

Reducing Property Damage

Reducing Infrastructure Damage

Red. Emerg. Response/Mgmt. Costs

Red. Residents’ Disruption/Displcmt.

Reducing Business Disruption

Reducing Government Disruption

Reducing Environmental Damage

Reducing Damage to Historic Sites

Which of the following benefits were provided by [this mitigation activity]? (n=?)


Percent of informants who mentioned primary mitigation objectives benefits ii

Percent of Informants Who Mentioned Primary Mitigation Objectives/Benefits-II

100%

Reducing Insurance Premiums

Improving Emerg. Response Capacity

Improving Disaster Mitig. Capacity

Stimulating Private Sector Mitigations

New Knowlg. about Hazards, Impacts

Pub. Ed. abt Risks, Risk Red. Options

Increase in Property Values

Environmental Benefits

Other

Which of the following benefits were provided by [this mitigation activity]? (n=?)


Number of times benefits mentioned as primary mitigation objective i

Number of Times Benefits Mentioned as Primary Mitigation Objective-I

What was the major objective of this activity? (n=?)


Number of times benefits mentioned as primary mitigation objective ii

Number of Times Benefits Mentioned as Primary Mitigation Objective-II

What was the major objective of this activity? (n=?)


Informants perceptions of success meeting major objectives with v without mitigation activities

Informants’ Perceptions of Success Meeting Major Objectives with V. without Mitigation Activities

How would you rate the community’s success in meeting this [major] objective with/ without this activity? (n=?)


Total number of spin offs mentioned vs confirmed

Total Number of Spin-Offs: Mentioned Vs. Confirmed

*Spin-off mentioned in Freeport still under evaluation.

# Spin-Offs

*

(To be Determined)


  • Login