1 / 19

Independent Study to Assess Future Savings from Mitigation Track B Progress Report

Independent Study to Assess Future Savings from Mitigation Track B Progress Report. Project Management Committee Meeting, Washington, D.C. April 2, 2004. Hayward was selected to represent:. 1 of 56 medium-sized communities (50,000-499,999 population)

winola
Download Presentation

Independent Study to Assess Future Savings from Mitigation Track B Progress Report

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 MitigationTrack B Progress Report Project Management Committee Meeting, Washington, D.C. April 2, 2004

  2. Hayward was selected to represent: • 1 of 56 medium-sized communities (50,000-499,999 population) • 1 of 10 communities that received awards only for earthquakes • 1 of 30 communities at high risk of earthquakes • 1 of 9 communities located in Region IX The other communities that meet all four criteria are Berkeley, Oakland, Orange and Costa Mesa. All located in California.

  3. Demographic Characteristics of Hayward: Source: Census 2000 Summary File, DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000.

  4. Demographic Characteristics of Hayward:continued Source: Census 2000 Summary File, DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000.

  5. Protocol Followed in Setting Up Interviews Coordination with Region Conference Call FEMA Letter Confirmation of Letter Preliminary Research Regional Office Visit Contact Community Confirm FEMA Awards Telephone Interviews Community Visits and Economic Analyses Description of Spin-offs List of Participants and Interviews Data Files

  6. Protocol Followed in Setting Up Interviews Confirmation that FEMA Letter Received, Given OK to Proceed Send Introduction Letter to Primary Contact (Email, Fax, Mail) Telephone Primary Contact: Describe Study, Get Referrals, Schedule Interview Send Introduction Letter to Referrals (Email, Fax, Mail) Telephone Referrals: Schedule Interviews, Get Referrals Conduct Interviews Send Thank You Letters to Participants

  7. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Hayward City Manager, Originally agreed Then REFUSED on 1/30/04 Referred back to Assistant Division Head of Water Facility INTERVIEWED on 2/1904 After 15 Contacts and intervention Director of Public Works INTERVIEWED on 1/9/04 after 6 Contacts and Intervention Emergency Operations REFUSED on 2/9/04 After 3 contacts Assistant Director Of Public Works INTERVIEWED on 1/27 after 9 contacts over 16 days1 Acting Assistant City Manager 1/12/04 REFUSED 2/3/04 Fire Chief REFUSED On 2/5/04 After 4 contacts FEMA Senior Planner REFUSED On 2/5/04 After 2 contacts HAZMAT Program Coordinator INTERVIEWED on 2/18/04 After 9 contacts and intervention Chief Building Inspector REFUSED on 2/5/04 after 4 contacts Director, Community & Economic Development INTERVIEWED on 3/12/042 Associate Civil Engineer INTERVIEWED On 21104 After 13 Contacts and intervention 1Index Informant 2Independent Network Public Information Officer INTERVIEWED on 3/12/042

  8. Summary of Hayward Interviews • Agreed to Interview = 53.8% (7/13) • # NEMIS Awards Informants Asked about = 4 • Informants (# NEMIS Awards Familiar with): • Director of Public Works (2) • Assistant Director of Public Works (3) • Associate Civil Engineer (3) • Div. Head of Water Facility (1) • HAZMAT Program Coordinator (1) • Director of Community and Economic Development (0) • Public Information Officer (2) • Average Length of Interview = 65.7 min. (35-160)

  9. “What is your assessment of the community’s overall natural hazard mitigation program?” • “It’s good within funding limitations. We addressed this fairly well, but there's always a problem with cost.” -Assistant Director of Public Works • “It’s good in that we've gotten a lot of state and federal grants, we’ve been proactive with the retrofit of public as well as emergency response buildings, and we’ve done a good job in trying to prepare for earthquakes.” ‑Associate Civil Engineer • “There’s not one, but a whole series of policies, it’s very appropriate for community.”‑Director of Public Works • “It’s pretty well thought out; we’ve spent a lot of time and effort preparing for a large earthquake.” –Division Head of Water Facility • “As a homeowner, it's middling.”–Public Information Officer • “I think because we are in California, we pay more attention, and we have a good set of policies and procedures. Our Emergency Operation Center needs a little tuning up, and we're working on that. We're up there with some of the better.” –Director, Community & Economic Development

  10. Perceived Benefits of HAZMAT Equipment Project1Hayward(N = 4 of 7 respondents knew about this project ) Persons 1 NEMIS 0845-0014

  11. Perceived Benefits of Relocation of Fire Station #11Hayward(N = 3 of 7 respondents knew about this project ) Persons 1NEMIS 0845-0015

  12. Perceived Benefits of Retrofit of Fire Buildings & Yard1Hayward(N = 3 of 7 respondents knew about this project ) Persons 1NEMIS 0845-0074

  13. Perceived Benefits of Emergency Public Information1Hayward(N = 1 of 7 respondents knew about this project ) Persons 1 NEMIS 0845-0079 (Process Award)

  14. Perceived Benefits of HAZMAT Release Prevention1Hayward(N = 1 of 7 respondents knew about this project ) Persons 1 Spin-off of NEMIS 845-0014

  15. Perceived Benefits of FEMA Map-Floodplain Management1Hayward(N = 1 of 7 respondents knew about this project ) Persons 1 Informant considered this a spin-off but it does not flow from any NEMIS activity.

  16. Comparison of Community’s Ability to Meet This Objective With and Without this Activity1Hayward(N = 1-4 of 7 respondents knew about these projects) Extremely High Extremely Low 1 On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 …. And 10 ….., how would you rate the community’s success in Meeting this objective with this activity? … without this activity? Respondent who knew about HAZMAT relief answered “don’t know” to both questions.

  17. Lessons Learned from Hayward • Do not send questionnaires or a synopsis of the questionnaire in advance • Simultaneously contact all persons identified in the community • A protocol was developed for handling “gatekeepers” • Additional informants may be identified during the field visit

  18. Status of Other 5 Communities: Interviews • Jefferson County, AL • 10 Interviews, 1 Refusal, Tentatively Completed • Horry County, SC • 6 Interviews, 1 Refusal, Tentatively Completed • Village of Freeport, NY • 4 Interviews, 0 Refusals, In progress • Tuscola County, MI • 3 Interviews, 0 Refusals, In progress • Jamestown, ND • Waiting for approval.

  19. Status of Other 5 Communities: Contact Attempts 1 Interviewing still in process; pursuing 3 additional referrals. 2 Interviewing still in process; pursuing 4 additional referrals.

More Related