AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security & Emergency Management

Summary of 2010 State DOT Security/Emergency Management Survey Results

Final Contractor’s Report May 2011

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)

AcknowledgmentsThis 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.

DisclaimerThe 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.

Responding DOTs• Alabama• California• Florida• Idaho• Iowa• Kansas• Maryland• Michigan• Mississippi• Missouri

• Nevada• North Dakota• Ohio• Pennsylvania• Tennessee• Vermont• Washington• West Virginia• Wisconsin

3

Response Rate Comparison

2007 Survey 2010 Survey

4

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)

5*Author developed categories to summarize DOTs’ individual responses

Background of DOT Leader for Emergency Management/Security Issues

6

Agency-wide ‘All Hazards’ Emergency Management Plan

Plan in Place or Underway: Mass Transit Integrated into Plan:

7

2010

2007

Year Emergency Management Plan last exercised: 2009/10 (average of 12 responses)

Coord. with Nat. Incident Mgmt. Sys.

Coordinated with regional plans

Coordinated with statewide plans

Coordinated with local govt. plans

Coordination of Emergency Management Plans

8

Awareness about National Incident Management System Compliance Assistance Support Tool

9

Infrastructure Security Plan

10

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

Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP Plan)

11

Year COOP last exercised: 2009 (average of 14 responses)

Frequency of Collaboration with Neighbor States

12

Internal Radio Communications Interoperability Capabilities

13

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

14

Primary Training Delivery Method

15

Completion of Incident Command System Training

16

Completion of ICS Training by Staff Type

17

Preferred Capacity Building Approaches (Number of respondents that report they are “very likely to use”

general capacity building mechanisms described below)

18

Awareness about Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP)

19