project management committee meeting washington, d.c. september 21, 2004 independent study to assess...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
217 views
TRANSCRIPT
Project Management Committee MeetingWashington, D.C.
September 21, 2004
Independent Study to Assess FutureIndependent Study to Assess FutureSavings from Mitigation, Track BSavings from Mitigation, Track B
Telephone Interview DataTelephone Interview DataPreliminary AnalysisPreliminary Analysis
2
Track BProgress to Date
3
Track B Progress - ICommunity
FEMACall w/ Region
StateVisit
Federal Visit
FEMA LetterSent
Given OK to Start Calls
Hayward, CA
11/25/03 12/15/03(Sacramento)
12/16/03(Oakland)
12/19/03 1/8/04
Jefferson Co., AL Project Impact
1/5/04 Not Planned(Clanton)
2/11/04(Atlanta)
1/15/04 2/5/04
Horry Co., SC Project Impact
1/5/04 2/18/04(Columbia)
2/13/04(Atlanta)
1/15/04 2/7/04
Freeport, NY Project Impact
2/5/04 Not Planned(Albany)
2/27/04(New York City)
3/1/04 3/11/04
Tuscola, MI
1/27/04 3/17/04(Lansing)
2/18/04(Chicago)
3/4/04 3/10/04
Jamestown, ND Project Impact
3/30/04 8/16/04(Bismarck)
4/27/04(Denver)
4/15/04 4/26/04
Multnomah Co, OR Project Impact
6/23/04 Not Planned(Salem)
8/2/04(Seattle)
7/15/04 8/9/04
Orange, CA
Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending
Fort Walton Bch., FL Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending
Mandeville, LA Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending
4
Track B Progress - IICommunity
Given OK to Start Calls
Interviews Completed
CommunityVisited
BCA DataCollected
Bibliography Created
Hayward, CA
1/8/04 3/12/04 1/22/04 Complete Complete
Jefferson Co., AL Project Impact
2/5/04 3/10/04 4/6/04 Complete Complete
Horry Co., SC Project Impact
2/7/04 3/2/04 4/20/04 Complete Complete
Freeport, NY Project Impact
3/11/04 7/1/04 7/15/04 Complete Complete
Tuscola, MI
3/10/04 7/15/04 3/17/04 Complete Complete
Jamestown, ND Project Impact
4/26/04 7/20/04 8/17/04 Complete Pending
Multnomah Co, OR Project Impact
8/9/04 In Process Pending Complete Pending
Orange, CA
Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending
Fort Walton Bch., FL Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending
Mandeville, LA Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending
5
Track BProcess Data
6
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)
7
Informant Participation Status
88
67
52
0
20
40
60
80
100
# In
divi
dual
s
Referred Approached Interviewed
8
Informant Participation Status by Community
15
21
10 10
1517
1311
79
12
15
7
10
67
11 11
0
5
10
15
20
25
Hayward
Jefferson Co.
Horry Co.
Freeport
Tuscola
Jamestown
Referred Approached Interviewed
# In
div
idu
als
9
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
10
Informant Referrals by Community21
3.91.6
3.13.6 2.82.8
1715
1010
15
0
5
10
15
20
# R
efer
rals
Avg. Referrals per Person Tot. Individuals Referred
11
Total Number of Contacts Needed to Complete Interviews
(Includes Telephone, Mail, Fax, Email)
98
70
50
8194 90
7 10 6 7 11 11
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Hayward
Jefferson Co.
Horry Co.
Freeport
Tuscola
Jamestown
(n )
Total Contacts Interviews
12
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
13
Acting AssistantCity ManagerREFUSED2/3/04
Assistant Director of Public WorksINTERVIEWED 1/27/04 1
City Manager, Originally agreed Then REFUSED 1/30/04 1
Dir. Public WorksINTERVIEWED 2/9/04
Chief BuildingInspectorREFUSED 2/5/04
Associate CivilEngineerINTERVIEWED2/11/04
SeniorPlannerREFUSED 2/5/04
HAZMAT ProgramCoordinatorINTERVIEWED 2/18/04
Fire ChiefREFUSED2/5/04
Emergency OperationsREFUSED 2/9/04
Division Head of Water FacilityINTERVIEWED 2/19/04
1 Index Informant2 Independent Network
Director, Community &Economic DevelopmentINTERVIEWED 3/12/04 2
Public Information OfficerINTERVIEWED 3/12/04 2
Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Hayward
FEMA
Deputy Publicity Dir. for UtilitiesNot Approached
Cal State HaywardNot Approached
14
FEMA
Director, County EMAInterviewed 1
3/1/04
1 Index Informant
Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Jefferson Co.
CountyCommissionerInterviewed 1
3/4/04
Director, Land DevelopmentInterviewed 3/4/04
Land Development eInterviewed 2/24/04
Land Development prInterviewed 2/17/04
Former City Planner, Consultant Interviewed 2/23/04
Admin. Assistant,County EMA Interviewed 2/24/04
City NFIPNot Approached
Director, Inspection ServicesNot Approached
County GIS ManagerNot Approached
CountyCommissionerRefused 3/8/04
Dir., Local Land TrustInterviewed 3/4/04
Fire Chief, City of TarrantNot Approached
Auburn UniversityNot Approached
USGSNot Approached
Dir. of County Inspection ServicesNot Approached
State Hazard Mitigation OfficerNot Approached
President, Local Engineering CompanyInterviewed 3/10/04
Hydrologist, Local Engineering CompanyInterviewed 3/10/04 County EMA
Not Approached
County EMANot Approached
15
FEMA
1 Index Informant
Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Horry Co.
Emergency Planner,County EMDInterviewed 1
2/18/04
Director, Emergency ServicesCounty Red Cross ChapterInterviewed 3/19/04
Meteorologist, Local Television StationInterviewed 3/1/04
Public Safety Director,County EMDInterviewed 2/25/04
Property Manager, County EMDInterviewed 3/2/04
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Clemson UniversityInterviewed 2/23/04
National Weather ServiceNot Approached
Head Building Official,City of ConwayNot Approached
Fire Chief,County Fire DepartmentRefused 3/8/04
Director, County Storm Water ManagementNot Approached
16
FEMA
1 Index Informant
Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Freeport
Grant Administrator,Public WorksInterviewed 1
3/23/04
Floodplain Manager,Superintendent of Buildings, Mitigation CoordinatorInterviewed 3/18/04
Manager,Public WorksInterviewed 3/16/04
Village Trustee; Owner, Local Insurance AgencyInterviewed 3/23/04
Business Owner, Local Marine StorageInterviewed 4/14/04
Coordinator, Emergency Management TeamInterviewed 5/25/04
Director, Emergency ManagementInterviewed 4/21/04
Business Owner, Local Restaurant Refused 5/27/04
Village Trustee Refused 5/21/04
Village Engineer,Department of Public WorksNot Approached
17
FEMA
1 Index Informant
Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Tuscola
County Drain CommissionerInterviewed 1 4/5/04
Engineer, Local Eng. GroupRefused 4/6/04
Prog. Admin., Intercounty DrainsInterviewed 5/25/04
Lieutenant, State Police Dept.Interviewed 4/5/04
Township Mgr., TittabawasseeInterviewed 4/1/04
Engineer, Local Company Interviewed 3/25/04
Flood Specialist,City of Vassar Interviewed 4/2/04
President, Local BusinessNot Approached
Environmental Engineer,State Dept. Environmental QualityInterviewed 5/24/04
Engineer, Local Eng. GroupInterviewed 4/1/04
Preliminary Research
Manager, City of VassarInterviewed 1 3/25/04
Director, Public WorksCity of FrankenmuthInterviewed 1 4/2/04
State Hazard Mitigation Officer Not Approached
Local Construction Co.Interviewed 1 3/22/04
Engineer, Canadian CompanyNot Approached
181 Index Informant
Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Jamestown
City Engineer Interviewed 6/4/04
Consultant Interviewed 6/7/04
Local Red Cross ChapterInterviewed 6/18/04
Parks and Recreation Interviewed 6/30/04
State House of Reps. Interviewed 7/9/04
Weather SpotterRefused 6/4/04
Training Office, Fire Dept.Refused 6/8/04
City Fire Chief Interviewed 6/8/04
Police ChiefNot Approached
State Department of Emergency ManagementInterviewed 7/20/04
City AdministratorInterviewed 7/1/04
FEMA
MayorInterviewed 1
6/1/04
Director, State Dept. of Emergency Mgmt.Refused 7/6/04
Asst. City EngineerRefused 7/6/04
President, Amateur Radio Association Interviewed 6/17/04
Local Cable Services Refused 7/12/04
County Emergency Manager Interviewed 6/21/04
19
Interview Informant Job Titles (N=52)
68%
15%
15%2%
Community OfficialNGO/Community PartnerLocal InformantHazard Mitig. Officer
20
Track BPreliminary Findings
21
Informant Perceptions of Community Risk
123456789
10
Quake Wind Flood
VeryLow
Very High
(n=49, n=49, n=50)Don’t Know: n=3, n=3, n=2 for Quake, Wind, Flood
22
Percent of Informants who Believe the Community Has a Natural Hazard
Mitigation Program
83100 100 100
50 54
0102030405060708090
100
% Y
es%
Yes
In your opinion, does the community have a natural hazard mitigation program? (n=48; Don’t Know, n=4)
23
Informants’ Knowledge of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation
Program
3.4
6.7
3.5
7.97.3
4.8
123456789
10
Not Very
Much
Very Much
Ave
rage
Kn
owle
dge
How much do you know about the community’s natural hazard mitigation program? (n=36 of those who think there is one)
24
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?
25
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?
26
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?
27
Informants’ Assessment of the Appropriateness and Effectiveness of Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs
123456789
10
Appropriate Effective
How appropriate/effective do you consider these [natural hazard mitigation] efforts? (n=40; Don’t Know, n=12)
28
Informants’ Perceptions of how the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation
Program Compares to Others
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)
Much Better
3.84.3
3.84.1
4.7 5
1
2
3
4
5
Hayward
Jefferson Co.
Horry Co.
Freeport
Tuscola
Jamestown
Much Worse
About the Same
ME
AN
29
Percent of Informants Who Mentioned Primary Mitigation Objectives/Benefits-I
Which of the following benefits were provided by [this mitigation activity]? (n=?)
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0%
Reducing Death, Injury, Illness
Reducing Stress and Trauma
Reducing Property Damage
Reducing Infrastructure Damage
Reducing Damage to Historic Sites
Reducing Environmental Damage
Red. Residents’ Disruption/Displcmt.
Red. Emerg. Response/Mgmt. Costs
Reducing Government Disruption
Reducing Business Disruption
100%
30
Percent of Informants Who Mentioned Primary Mitigation Objectives/Benefits-II
Which of the following benefits were provided by [this mitigation activity]? (n=?)
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0%
Reducing Insurance Premiums
Improving Emerg. Response Capacity
Improving Disaster Mitig. Capacity
Stimulating Private Sector Mitigations
Other
Pub. Ed. abt Risks, Risk Red. Options
New Knowlg. about Hazards, Impacts
Environmental Benefits
Increase in Property Values
100%
31
Number of Times Benefits Mentioned as Primary Mitigation Objective-I
What was the major objective of this activity? (n=?)
Benefits/Objectives Project Mitigations Process Mitigations
Reducing deaths, injuries, illnesses # #
Reducing stress and trauma # #
Reducing property damage # #
Reducing infrastructure damage # #
Red. Emergency response/mgmt. costs # #
Red. residents’ disruption/displacement # #
Reducing business disruption # #
Reducing government disruption # #
Reducing environmental damage # #
Reducing damage to historic sites # #
32
Number of Times Benefits Mentioned as Primary Mitigation Objective-II
What was the major objective of this activity? (n=?)
Benefits/Objectives Project Mitigations Process Mitigations
Reducing insurance premiums # #
Improving emergency response capacity # #
Improving disaster mitigation capacity # #
Stimulating private sector mitigations # #
New knowledge about hazards, impacts # #
Pub. ed. about risks/risk red. options # #
Increase in property values # #
Environmental benefits # #
Other # #
33
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=?)
34
Total Number of Spin-Offs: Mentioned Vs. Confirmed
3 3
2
1
0 00
1 1 1
0 00
1
2
3
4
5
Mentioned Mentioned and Confirmed Total Confirmed
# S
pin
-Off
s#
Sp
in-O
ffs
(To be Determined)
*Spin-off mentioned in Freeport still under evaluation.
*