You are here
Pre-disaster planning at Florida community colleges
| Title: | Pre-disaster planning at Florida community colleges: a comparison of FEMA guidelines to processes and practices. |
 118 views 32 downloads |
|---|---|---|
| Name(s): |
De Palma, TImothy J. College of Education Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology |
|
| Type of Resource: | text | |
| Genre: | Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation | |
| Issuance: | monographic | |
| Date Issued: | 2011 | |
| Publisher: | Florida Atlantic University | |
| Physical Form: | electronic | |
| Extent: | xiii, 199 p. : ill. | |
| Language(s): | English | |
| Summary: | The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the pre-disaster planning processes and practices used by Florida's community college administrators as of December 2008. FEMA's Building a Disaster Resistant University (DRU) model was the conceptual lens for this study. A mixed methods research design included 15 surveys completed by Florida community college business officers and six semi-structured interviews with staff most involved in pre-disaster planning. Data were compared to DRU guidelines to establish whether processes and practices were congruent with the DRU. Six quantitative findings were reported in this study. First, 5 of 14 (35.7%) survey respondents appointed a project manager ; second, 14 of 15 respondents (93.3%) conducted a risk assessment ; third, 13 of 15 (87%) respondents reported contacting 2 to14 stakeholders; fourth, 14 of 15 (93.3%) survey respondents conducted an inventory of buildings and infrastructure assets; fifth, majority of survey respondents ( 87.7%) reported they identified mitigation goals and objectives; sixth, 8 of 14 (57.1%) respondents' president formally adopted the pre-disaster mitigation plan. | |
| Summary: | Qualitative findings were, first, wide internal and external stakeholder representation was organized; second, advisory committees have no mission statement; third, one site identified hazards by consulting with stakeholders, but neither one could provide a list of hazards; fourth, sites used only half of the DRU's building inventory items; fifth, recording and mapping of infrastructure (i.e., utilities) are evolved at one site, while both sites backup administrative systems; sixth, neither site considered several hazard profile formula variables recommended by the DRU; seventh, Beta's internal and external stakeholders conduct a rigorous vetting process, which allows it to establish a prioritized list of mitigation goals and objectives; eighth, neither site uses an adequate formula for benefitcost an consultant has been hired to do so; ninth, only one participant could articulate how the mission guided mitigation action prioritization; tenth, key internal and external stakeholders adopted mitigation actions; eleventh, no plan for measuring mitigation action efficacy exists; and twelfth, mitigation action successes are communicated to internal stakeholders, but not external stakeholders making it difficult to achieve plan momentum and funding. Recommendations are provided for community college administrators. | |
| Identifier: | 728100197 (oclc), 3170599 (digitool), FADT3170599 (IID), fau:3621 (fedora) | |
| Note(s): |
by Timothy J. De Palma. Thesis (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2011. Includes bibliography. Electronic reproduction. Boca Raton, Fla., 2011. Mode of access: World Wide Web. |
|
| Subject(s): |
United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency managment -- United States -- Florida -- Planning Universities and colleges -- United States -- Florida -- Security measures Universities and colleges -- United States -- Florida -- Safety measures |
|
| Held by: | FBoU FAUER | |
| Persistent Link to This Record: | http://purl.flvc.org/FAU/3170599 | |
| Use and Reproduction: | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ | |
| Host Institution: | FAU |
