1 / 19

State DOT Security/Emergency Management Survey Results

This report provides the summary of the 2010 State DOT Security/Emergency Management Survey results, conducted by the AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security & Emergency Management. The report includes information on security priorities, emergency management plans, infrastructure security plans, training priorities, and capacity building approaches.

msaenz
Download Presentation

State DOT Security/Emergency Management Survey Results

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. AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security & Emergency Management Summary of 2010 State DOT Security/Emergency Management Survey Results Final Contractor’s Report May 2011

  2. Study Requested By: AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security & Emergency Management Study Prepared By: Joe Crossett, High Street Consulting Group Under Contract NCHRP 20-59 (29) Acknowledgments This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and was conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-59(29). The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 20-59 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security and Emergency Management. The work was guided by a task group that included Chief Joseph C. Bober, Mr. John M. Contestabile, Mr. David S. Ekern, Mr. Randall H. Iwasaki, Mr. Mark Krentz, Mr. Herby Gerard Lissade, Ms. Eileen M. Phifer, Mr. Bryan D. Smith, Mr. Jeffrey L. Western, Mr. Robert A. Younie, Mr. Steven L. Ernst, Mr. Ernesto L. Acosta, Mr. William Brownlow, Mr. Mark S. Bush, Ms. Georgia M. “Gia” Harrigan, Mr. Vincent P. Pearce, LTC Gregory A. Pickell, Mr. Charles Sikoff, Ms. Joedy W. Cambridge, Ms. Sheila Rimal Duwadi, Mr. Dan Ferezan, Ms. Laurel J. “Laurie” Radow, and Mr. Chuck Runyon (chair). The project was managed by Stephan. A. Parker, CRP Senior Program Officer. The report was prepared by Joe Crossett of High Street Consulting, LLC. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. This report has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Board's Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council.

  3. Responding DOTs Nevada North Dakota Ohio Pennsylvania Tennessee Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin • Alabama • California • Florida • Idaho • Iowa • Kansas • Maryland • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri

  4. Response Rate Comparison 2007 Survey 2010 Survey

  5. Top All-Hazards Security Priorities (Each respondent asked to list up three priorities; chart shows share of respondents that mentioned the most commonly cited priorities) *Author developed categories to summarize DOTs’ individualresponses

  6. Background of DOT Leader for Emergency Management/Security Issues

  7. Agency-wide ‘All Hazards’Emergency Management Plan Plan in Place or Underway: Mass Transit Integrated into Plan: 2010 2007 Year Emergency Management Plan last exercised: 2009/10 (average of 12 responses)

  8. Coordination of Emergency Management Plans Coordinated with statewide plans Coordinated with local govt. plans Coord. with Nat. Incident Mgmt. Sys. Coordinated with regional plans

  9. Awareness about National Incident Management System Compliance Assistance Support Tool

  10. Infrastructure Security Plan Year Infrastructure Security Plan last exercised: 2008 (average of 3 responses)

  11. Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP Plan) Year COOP last exercised: 2009 (average of 14 responses)

  12. Frequency of Collaboration with Neighbor States

  13. Internal Radio Communications Interoperability Capabilities

  14. Training Priorities(Share of respondents who indicated “more training needed” in key focus areas)

  15. Primary Training Delivery Method

  16. Completion of Incident Command System Training

  17. Completion of ICS Training by Staff Type

  18. Preferred Capacity Building Approaches (Number of respondents that report they are “very likely to use” general capacity building mechanisms described below)

  19. Awareness about Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP)

More Related