Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

THE INSTITUTIONS AND LEADERSHIP SELF-ASSESSMENT Based on the weaknesses and strategies outlined in the preceding sections, a brief self- assessment questionnaire has been developed (see Table 3). The questionnaire is designed for senior management at the district and headquarters levels. However, it could also be used by program-level staff as a point of comparison to indicate varying views of strengths, weaknesses, and needs. The questionnaire tracks the five principal strategies presented in the previous Improvement Strategies section. The institutional guidance is designed to reveal areas where actions may be needed at the department level (headquarters). It is also intended to provide the necessary frame- work (policy, organizational, resources, and relationships) within which program and district-level actions can progress through more effective and efficient ETO. The questionnaire responses should be in the boxes that most closely resemble the following: • Understood—This means that the respondent understands the issue and is aware that little progress has been made to date. • Start-Up—This means that the respondent understands the issue and believes that a deliberate effort is underway to respond to the issue as stated. • In-Place—This means that a deliberate effort has been underway for some time and that the issues are substantially dealt with. If the senior manager cannot confidently answer the questions, it is a sign that the pro- gram has considerable room for improvement. A limited number of check marks in the In-Place column suggests that proceeding to the next level of assessment will be useful. More rather than fewer checkmarks in the In-Place column will also indicate where some of the most promising areas for improvement may lie—in the areas of operations and technology or in the organizational, policy, and funding area. 23 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S

24 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S Table 3. Department-Level Institutional Self-Assessment Understood Start-Up In Place 1. INTERAGENCY PREPARATIONS FOR COMPLETE ARRAY OF INCIDENTS AND EMERGENCIES Formal working relationships with state/regional emergency management agencies Formal working relationship with state/federal security entities Other state agencies fully briefed on DOTís capabilities 2. FORMAL PROGRAM WITH SENIOR RESPONSIBILITY, ORGANIZATION, REPORTING Existing strategic business plan for ETO (incidents and emergencies) Clear organizational structure – headquarters and districts District level ETO program plans prepared for all hazards DOT response capability on 24x7 basis Appropriate staff expertise 3. ADEQUATE RESOURCE ALLOCATION Line-item budget for ETO District-level allocation scheme for resources Joint project/resourcing opportunities discussed with public safety agencies Emergency and incident management co-location considered Joint federal/state funding opportunities discussed with public safety partners 4. OBJECTIVES WITH RELATED PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND ACCOUNTABILITY Objectives for ETO performance identified Reasonable performance measures with pubic safety agencies negotiated Performance reporting process in place After-action review process used 5. AGENCY POLICY, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS Needed legislative changes identified and in process Interagency agreement on TIM and other events exists Rationale, benefits of improved program communicated to stakeholders Senior-level working relationships with public safety and emergency management leadership exist