State DOTs Transportation Security Training Needs A Briefing Report for AASHTO s Transportation Security Task Force

Transcription

1 State DOTs Transportation Security Training Needs A Briefing Report for AASHTO s Transportation Security Task Force Prepared by TransTech Management, Inc. August 2002

2 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT SURVEY FINDINGS SURVEY METHODOLOGY SECURITY TRAINING NEEDS SURVEY FINDINGS Types of Security Training Offered by DOTs How DOTs Deliver Security Training State DOTs Security Training Needs Federal Transportation Security Training for State DOTs BEST PRACTICES CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 12

3 1.0 Introduction The recent terrorist attacks in the United States and the threat of additional terrorist activity have forced government agencies to reassess their preparedness to protect American citizens and to secure critical infrastructure. Due to the susceptibility of transportation modes to attack by terrorists and their potential to be used as weapons of attack, transportation agencies must recognize their vulnerabilities, keep their staff alert for suspicious activities, and be prepared to respond to terrorism-related emergencies. For the most part these are new responsibilities for transportation organizations; especially state departments of transportation (DOTs). Performing these new roles successfully will require additional training for transportation agency employees, but most DOTs currently lack understanding of what training is needed and the capabilities to provide adequate training. A wide-ranging survey of transportation security issues, carried out in November 2001 by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Transportation Security Task Force identified appropriate training as a gap in state transportation agencies enhanced security activities. In response, the Task Force created a subcommittee to address state DOTs training needs in more detail. 1 The subcommittee conducted a telephone and e- mail survey of 28 AASHTO member DOTs to provide a more detailed perspective on: Current state and federal transportation security training practices, State DOTs security training needs, and Potential resources to help transportation agencies meet their security training needs. TransTech Management assisted the subcommittee in preparing the survey and this report. The report documents the findings from the survey and makes recommendations for next steps. 2.0 Overview of Significant Survey Findings Following are key findings from the survey: About 70 percent of DOTs surveyed provide in-house security training to their employees, but most of this training addresses 1) handling hazardous materials situations and, or 2) emergency responses to disaster situations. All but eight DOTs surveyed provide in-house hazardous materials and, or emergency response training, but the training typically focuses on responses to major accidents and natural disasters such as earthquakes or floods, and it is targeted only to DOTs maintenance workers. A majority of DOTs surveyed (about 80 percent) have not made major changes to their in-house training activities since September 11 th to include broader securityrelated training initiatives. About 70 percent of state DOTs surveyed are reassessing, or have already reassessed their training needs. Shortages in funding, staff, or expertise; however, have hindered the ability of most states DOTs to expand and 1 The subcommittee is led by Tom Hicks, Director of Office of Traffic and Safety, Maryland State Highway Administration; members include Gary Hoffman, Chief Engineer Highway Administration, Pennsylvania DOT; Vince Pearce, FHWA; and Terry Simmonds, Emergency Management Program Manager, Washington State Department of Transportation Security Training Report Draft 1 of 15 Aug 21 02

4 improve security training capabilities. Although most DOTs are reassessing their security training, only about 20 percent have formally changed their training beyond instructing employees to be more aware and vigilant. Most DOTs surveyed (about 60 percent) want federal input and support on how to develop security-related training. Staff responsible for training in state DOTs are looking to federal agencies to provide technical expertise in developing training programs. State DOTs report that flexibility in mechanisms for delivering training that allow states to design programs that fit their needs will be important. In particular, some states are interested in train the trainer approaches as an effective way for federal and state agencies to work together. Several states noted that they don t have the funding or staff to develop in-house training programs. A handful of state DOTs are developing or providing security training that is more advanced than most DOTs. A group of states surveyed, including California, Georgia, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington (highlighted later in this report), offer potential best practices resources in the area of state DOT security training. These states are delivering training that goes beyond the standard fare of hazardous material (HAZMAT) and emergency response programs found in most DOTs. A significant number of DOTs are using external resources to provide security training, especially State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMA). At least 45 percent of the surveyed states are aware of SEMA training, and at least 55 percent use this resource as an element of their security training. Some state DOTs also use federal agency training such as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) classes, as well as university resources and transportation association programs. 3.0 Survey Methodology In November 2001 an AASHTO survey of AASHTO member agencies found that 33 states (65 percent) did not have training resources available concerning transportation security. A short follow-up survey of DOTs was developed and administered in Summer 2002 to provide additional understanding of DOTs training needs. The survey was conducted in two phases: Phase 1 - Survey. A two page survey was sent to all 52 AASHTO members training coordinators. (A copy of the survey is included in Appendix A). Survey questions addressed: States current highway-related transportation security training resources, and States highway-related transportation security training needs. Phase 2 - Phone Survey. To strengthen understanding of survey findings, follow-up phone interviews were conducted with selected states, based on the same survey questions. A total of 28 state DOTs responded to the or phone survey, helping to provide a geographically dispersed snapshot of DOT security training throughout the country, as shown in Table One: Security Training Report Draft 2 of 15 Aug 21 02

5 Table One. Respondents to AASHTO Security Training Needs Survey Northeast (Region 1) Southeast (Region 2) Connecticut Arkansas Maryland Georgia Pennsylvania Kentucky Vermont Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia Mississippi Valley (Region 3) West (Region 4) Illinois Alaska Indiana Arizona Iowa California Minnesota Montana Missouri Nebraska Wisconsin New Mexico Oregon Texas Utah Washington In addition, the research team surveyed a number of federal agencies to determine what training programs they offer to employees of state DOTs. 4.0 Security Training Needs Survey Findings The results from the security training needs survey are grouped into four categories: Types of security training offered by DOTs How DOTs deliver security training State DOTs security training needs Federal highway transportation security training programs 4.1 Types of Security Training Offered by DOTs In their responses to the survey, 20 out of 28 state DOTs, or 70 percent, indicated they provide some combination of the following three major categories of security-related training: 1) emergency response training, 2) HAZMAT training, and 3) terrorism awareness training. Overall, however, the survey results suggest that most state DOTs continue to rely on existing emergency response training (e.g., to natural disasters) and HAZMAT training as a stopgap measure for meeting security training needs. Emergency Response Training Emergency response training focuses on recovery and restoration of operations after an emergency and a majority of this type of training provided by DOTs deals with non terrorism-related emergency response issues, such as earthquakes and hurricanes. About 65 percent of the states surveyed offer in-house training on emergency preparedness or related issues such as Incident Command System training and first responder actions. States have dealt with natural disasters in Security Training Report Draft 3 of 15 Aug 21 02

6 the past and there is a wealth of information in this area. As the terrorist attacks of September 11 th illustrated, however, a terrorist attack creates different response scenarios for which current emergency response training may not be applicable and there is concern among states that current training in this area is inadequate. HAZMAT Training HAZMAT training includes how to identify hazardous materials in DOT vehicles and how to control hazardous materials spills. About 40 percent of the states surveyed provide hazardous material training. HAZMAT training may be beneficial for employees who encounter some kind of biological or chemical attack, but states don t feel the training is sufficient for dealing with weapons of mass destruction or any other terrorist attack. Terrorism Awareness Training Terrorism awareness training deals with training workers on how to be alert for suspicious incidents, people, packages, and vehicles and how to protect key facilities and computer networks. Only about 10 percent of the surveyed states are doing any terrorism awareness training. Better terrorism awareness training remains a critical need for most DOTs. Critical Needs State DOTs need to strengthen terrorism awareness training. State DOTs are weakest in the area of terrorism awareness training, which includes threat assessment and risk management training. Only about ten percent of DOTs currently provide this type of training. 4.2 How DOTs Deliver Security Training State DOTs that completed the survey rely on a variety of internal and external resources to deliver security training. Their preferred approach for delivering training is via in-house programs that cover the entire spectrum of training delivery mechanisms, from classroom presentations to video presentations, and even web-based self study programs (in New Mexico and Virginia). Most DOTs rely primarily on in-house resources to provide security training. Most DOTs training is done in-house, but it is often closely coordinated with other state agencies, especially the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA). The majority (80 percent) of training is delivered in classroom settings that may encompass presentations, videos, and simulations. SEMA training resources are the external security training resource most frequently used by DOTs. About two-thirds of DOTs surveyed are aware of training offered by other state agencies, and at least 45 percent of the states surveyed have used other state-level training resources. Most frequently state DOTs rely on training provided by the SEMA. Typically this training focuses on Hazardous Weather and Flooding Preparedness, Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning, Incident Command System (ICS), Hurricane Planning, and Disaster Recovery Operations. Security Training Report Draft 4 of 15 Aug 21 02

7 While SEMAs and other agencies offer training that is useful to DOTs, the training is seldom transportation specific. The surveyed states also report a number of other organizations they draw on for security training, including local and state law enforcement, universities, and public safety agencies. Federal training resources are not widely used by DOTs Few DOTs make use of federal training resources available from federal agencies such as FHWA, FEMA, or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and several DOTs reported in the survey that they are not aware of any federal security training resources. Non-governmental security training resources are not widely used by DOTs Only six (20 percent) state DOTs surveyed mentioned that they use non-governmental training resources. State universities or transportation associations typically provide non-governmental training that can be accessed by DOTs. These training programs cover many subjects where DOTs are looking for assistance, such as preparing and responding to terrorism, terrorism preparedness for senior officials, and incident and emergency management strategies. Lack of knowledge and funding at state DOTs appears to be a major barrier to greater use of non-governmental training resources. Most DOT security training is targeted only to maintenance workers Of the states that provide security training, about 60 percent deliver it just to maintenance workers and/or their immediate supervisors. This is based on the premise that maintenance workers are typically first responders to emergency or HAZMAT incidents. A few states mentioned that innovative technology-based training would be inappropriate for maintenance workers. Critical Needs Consider federal/state development of train the trainer programs A train the trainer initiative would allow states and federal agencies to share expertise efficiently, while allowing states to retain flexibility to design training programs that meet their needs. A few states noted that any new training should extend to DOT managers, yet a focus on first responders is still desired. 4.3 State DOTs Security Training Needs Most of the security-related training that state DOTs offer was in place before September 11 th and addresses natural disaster emergency response or hazardous materials issues. In the survey, DOTs were asked to identify the areas where they need new or better training including: Vulnerability assessment Methodologies for identifying critical infrastructure, equipment, and systems including evaluation of the consequences of facility loss, techniques for data collection, and retrieval of relevant records, etc. Strengthening security Reporting suspicious activities, surveillance of key facilities, protecting computer networks/data, DOT buildings and human resources, legal issues, etc. Pre- and post- event emergency response planning Traffic management and operations, inter-agency coordination, hardening targets, quick-turnaround repairs, recovery and restoration of normal operations. Media and public information Controlling information flow, protecting secure information, alerting the public, etc. Security Training Report Draft 5 of 15 Aug 21 02

8 A majority of state DOTs are concerned about overall security training sufficiency About 65 percent of state DOTs surveyed think their current level of training is insufficient and that they need to provide their staff with additional and more diverse transportation security-related training. Many state DOTs are in the process of, or have recently conducted a self assessment of training needs About 70 percent of states have reassessed or are currently reassessing their security training since the terrorist attacks. A few states are also forming councils or taskforces, some with members from universities and the private sector, to assess current training and needs. However, a majority of DOT reassessment consists of preliminary steps toward increasing vigilance and awareness. While about 20% of the states surveyed are developing terrorism models, increasing biological and chemical response capacities, etc., most of the states that are reassessing their training needs have not formally changed the way they train workers. State DOTs biggest training need is terrorism awareness State DOTs surveyed have varying opinions about what additional security training they need, but a majority (about 70 percent) identified that stronger terrorism awareness and/or tailored pre- and post- terrorism event emergency response planning are their most critical needs. A number of states also identified a need for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) training. Several states said they would welcome any type of terrorism training available, because they have little knowledge on where to begin. 4.4 Federal Transportation Security Training for State DOTs A limited set of phone interviews with federal agencies was conducted as a companion piece to the state DOT survey to provide an overview of federal agencies training resources. The following are training programs mentioned during federal agency interviews or by DOTs that use these resources: FHWA, Emergency Preparedness Workshops The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is conducting ten, two-day workshops around the country consisting of a case study analysis and a terrorism exercise. The case study is based on the 9/11 events in New York City. The terrorism exercise is a 12-hour tabletop exercise specifically tailored to the area the training is being given. The audience is by invite only and usually includes about 75 people. FHWA, Military Power Platforms The Military Power Platforms are 17 tabletop exercises held throughout 2002 by FHWA for military personnel. They focus on military deployment during a disaster. In addition, military personnel will be trained on how to deal with civilians during such an incident. State DOTs are currently not privy to this training. FHWA, Vulnerability Assessment Workshops The FHWA Office of Bridge Technology is sponsoring four Workshops on Vulnerability Assessment. The AASHTO Vulnerability Assessment Guide will be used as the basis for this training. FHWA will develop and provide the training to staff, who will then provide it to appropriate state and local transportation officials. FHWA, Internal Staff Training FHWA is developing a mini-briefing security training package for FHWA personnel. Topics identified for this training include: Federal response plan Security Training Report Draft 6 of 15 Aug 21 02

9 Continuity of operations Incident command system Unified command system Homeland security advisory system Although this training is still in the developmental stage, FHWA is willing to share the final products with interested states. AASHTO, Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assessment AASHTO funded the development of a Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assessment. Much of the information in the report is a direct result of dialogue with state DOTs and is intended to assist these agencies in vulnerability assessments. The Guide is available on the AASHTO website ( for DOT use. It is unclear how many states have used this resource but it rarely arose in DOT survey responses. AASHTO, Guide to Updating Highway Emergency Response Plans for Terrorist Incidents AASHTO funded the development of the Guide to Updating Highway Emergency Response Plans for Terrorist Incidents. The guide focuses on providing DOTs a blueprint to updating emergency response plans given the development of weapons of mass destruction terrorist threats. The Guide is available on the AASHTO website for DOT use. It is unclear how many states have used this resource but it rarely arose in DOT survey responses. National Highway Institute (NHI), Incident Management Course. NHI offers an incident management course aimed at resolving traffic incidents and other roadway emergencies in a safe and efficient manner. Course participants will be able to identify the various institutional and technical aspects of traffic incident management as well as develop next step tools for their respective agencies. The course is geared towards mid or upper-level managers who direct the resources of their agencies at the scene of a traffic incident or in response to an incident. National Transit Institute/FTA, System Security Awareness for Transit Employees The National Transit Institute (NTI) offers a multi-level training program for transit agencies. System Security Awareness for Transit Employees is designed for front-line employees and their immediate supervisors and teaches staff how to recognize suspicious entities, observe and report relevant information, and minimize harm to themselves and others. Security Incident Management for Transit Supervisors is designed for front-line supervisors to assess their skills and their responsibilities during a security incident. NTI s program is designed for transit employees but elements of the initiative are applicable for all transportation modes. Washington DOT is already planning on delivering both courses to its highway employees. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), US Trucks and Terrorism Rapid Risk Recognition, Assessment, and Response FMCSA s Trucks and Terrorism program is an effort to protect the public from terrorists using commercial motor vehicles as weapons or targets. Trucks and Terrorism is a eight-hour seminar that emphasizes identifying and interdicting a threat before an incident or a suspect truck enters a workplace or community. Attendees are introduced to techniques that enable a totality of circumstance assessment of everyday terrorism scenarios. Security Training Report Draft 7 of 15 Aug 21 02

10 FTA, "Connecting Communities: Emergency Preparedness and Security Regional Forums." The forums are designed to help small to mid-size transit agencies prepare for emergencies and are targeted to the following groups: Transit agency management and personnel Police and fire personnel responsible for emergency management coordination Emergency medical services and hospital disaster relief coordinators State and local government emergency management coordinators FTA held its first forum in May 2002 in Orlando, Florida and will be offering the course in 16 additional cities at no charge to the participants. FEMA s Emergency Management Institute (EMI) In addition to supporting SEMA training courses, FEMA also offers the following classes at EMI: Terrorism Planning Course Community Emergency Response (CERT) Train-the-Trainer Course Radiological Emergency Response Operations Course Advanced Radiation Incident Operations Course Radiological Series Train-the-Trainer Integrated Emergency Management Course (IEMC): Consequences of Terrorism FEMA s Consequences of Terrorism course is among the agency s most relevant classes for meeting DOTs training needs. The course focuses on preparing for and responding to the consequences of a terrorist event and is delivered by placing participants in a disaster simulation. This program stresses the following objectives: Analyze emergency policies, plans and procedures as related to a terrorist event, Identify additional planning and preparation requirements to minimize community disruption, Clarify roles and responsibilities, Improve teamwork and coordination between responding agencies, and Enhance response and recovery capability to minimize the effects of the terrorist act 5.0 Best Practices Several of the state DOTs surveyed have developed innovative transportation security training programs that stand out as examples of best practices in the field. These DOTs are leading the way in creating post-september 11 security training programs to prevent and respond to terrorism and security incidents. The states highlighted in this section present a snapshot of the most innovative DOTs among the 28 states surveyed. California CalTrans is unique among DOTs surveyed in the way it delivers security training. Most DOTs that participated in the survey either conduct training in-house or work with State Emergency Management Agencies. These programs are typically emergency response efforts that were in place before September 11 th. Caltrans has created a model that extends beyond normal Security Training Report Draft 8 of 15 Aug 21 02

11 training and is working towards an approach that covers all areas of transportation security and integrates several delivery mechanisms. Caltrans provides three types of training: 1. Employee awareness, 2. Emergency response, and 3. Hazardous materials training. While portions of this training are delivered in-house, the DOT also works with a private security firm, the Governor s Office of Emergency Services, and the California State Training Institute. In addition, Caltrans has an internal training division that it uses to supply training to other state agencies and private industry. It supplies this training through several different mechanisms, including presentations, simulations, videos, and print media and delivers it to all maintenance and management staff. Very few other DOTs use as many delivery mechanisms or include management staff. Caltrans is one of the few DOTs that is satisfied with the amount and type of training it has available. Unlike other DOTs surveyed, Caltrans not only uses other agencies training, but has reached a level of development that allows it to contract training out to other agencies. Caltrans is the only DOT surveyed that mentioned this aspect of its security training. Caltrans is clearly doing more with less and is attempting to share its knowledge with other state agencies for mutual benefit. Georgia Georgia DOT has reassessed its security training after the September 11 th attacks by increasing employee awareness and vigilance. It has worked with staff, especially field staff, to push heightened awareness while performing normal staff duties. GDOT has also joined a homeland security taskforce created by the state s Emergency Management Agency. GDOT is working with departments of law enforcement, defense, and health in this effort. The taskforce has committees that are developing training, most notably its Strategic Anti-Terrorism Training, which is still in draft stage. Georgia is one of the few states surveyed that has created a security taskforce in tandem with other state agencies. This partnering opportunity is one way DOTs can avoid the costs and staff constraints imposed by creating new security training. Georgia s homeland security taskforce provides training through several different mechanisms including classes, hands-on simulation exercises, and quick responder training. Most of this training is targeted to first responders with additional training provided to other workers in a larger setting. As mentioned in other sections of this report, SEMAs are a resource that many state DOTs are using for security training delivery. GDOT is using GEMA and other state agencies to create an anti-terrorism training product that can be used statewide. This is an important example of how DOTs can use relationships with other agencies to leverage state resources for effective training. Oregon ODOT provides some of the most comprehensive security training among the states surveyed. It delivers training via classroom setting, video, and simulated exercises and administers it to both maintenance workers and executive management based on training content. In addition, ODOT s program covers the breadth of training scope, from maintenance awareness to Security Training Report Draft 9 of 15 Aug 21 02

12 emergency response. It is also creating an initiative that will help prepare it for an array of potential attacks. Oregon DOT provides in-house training in the following areas: First Responder Awareness and Operations Incident Command System for Public Works Emergency Bridge Inspection ODOT Emergency Operations Plan Emergency Response Tabletop Exercise ODOT is developing a terrorism awareness training module for its highway maintenance workers called B-NICE (Biological, Nuclear, Incendiary, Chemical, Explosive). The training will describe characteristics of each category and will teach workers how to recognize hazards in these five areas. The program also includes some additional information about preserving crime scenes, being aware of potential secondary devices, etc. Oregon is one of the most innovative DOTs surveyed in terms of its security training. It has accomplished a program that combines several delivery mechanisms, audience levels, and training areas. ODOT not only works with the Oregon Emergency Management Agency but also FEMA and state DOTs in Washington and Idaho. It is working with federal, interstate, and intrastate agencies to develop the most comprehensive security training available. ODOT s B- NICE program is one of two such programs found among the states surveyed (Kentucky s Division of Emergency Management has a similar program) and is a model for identifying and containing a diverse range of mass destruction weapons. Pennsylvania PENNDOT s security training is notable because it is delivered in a Train-the-Trainer format identified by several states as the most effective way to merge federal and state training resources. PENNDOT has developed a Facilities Emergency Operations Guide that will be used in Train the Trainer sessions conducted by DOT personnel. These individuals will in turn go back to their geographic areas and train district staff on use of the Guide and what actions need to be taken to comply with its requirements. A Train the Trainer program is a format that can be used to create flexible training for state DOTs. The varying extent and nature of DOT training lends itself to a model that can be recreated for each individual DOT s needs. PENNDOT is the only DOT surveyed that mentioned a Train the Trainer technique as a component of its security training program. PENNDOT also participates in security training delivered by other state and federal agencies, including the Pennsylvania State Police, the State Fire Academy, the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, and FEMA. Utah Utah presents a strong case as the DOT with the most relevant security training progress. Utah hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics and was successful in maintaining a secure Olympic setting. The Olympic games were considered by many experts as a prime target for attack after September 11, making it especially important for preventative, effective security training for state employees. Security Training Report Draft 10 of 15 Aug 21 02

13 UDOT provided security training for all transportation employees involved in the 2002 Winter Olympics. The training covered all aspects of security and response issues and was based upon needs identified in a comprehensive threat assessment conducted by outside consultants. UDOT surely has developed innovative techniques for emergency response and terrorism awareness beyond what was asked in the survey questionnaire. Establishment of a nationwide information sharing/best practices network would allow UDOT to educate other DOTs on how to best prepare and respond to a terrorist attack. UDOT has also received training from external sources, including departments of public safety, homeland security, emergency management, law enforcement, the FBI, and FTA. Virginia Virginia DOT (VDOT) has developed a two-part security training program that provides guidance on effective emergency response approaches that incorporate and adapt national training methods: Anti-Terrorism Training VDOT has created and delivered an anti-terrorism training program crafting FEMA course components into a delivery approach most useful for DOT employees. The program is delivered in a classroom setting and focuses on a Stop, Look, and Listen awareness design. All new VDOT employees will take the class, which began in August Employees are taught how to be aware of all threats, specifically those most common to VDOT (anthrax and bomb threats). In addition, workers learn where to report information for each type of incident. The anti-terrorism training can be provided in a facilitator-led classroom setting or using a selfstarting CD. The classroom approach is the preferred method and is accompanied by a interactive presentation program called Vox Proxy. This application is a Microsoft PowerPoint additive that creates animated characters that can talk and respond to voice commands. Anti-Terrorism Kit VDOT is planning to schedule videoconferences with DOT supervisors so that they can train their staff in anti-terrorism techniques. All supervisors that participate in the videoconference will receive a training kit, which can then be distributed to all employees within the supervisor s district. The kit consists of several visual reminders such as flashcards, certificate templates, and posters that can be used a reference for terrorism awareness. Washington Washington DOT continues the trend of progressive western states in its security training delivery. WSDOT provides the standard HAZMAT and emergency response training that is found among almost all state DOTs, but has also developed measures that go beyond normal awareness and response. WSDOT has developed an Employee Disaster Response Plan that covers all aspects of disaster response and assigns specific roles to DOT teams during an emergency. The following are the WSDOT teams and their respective responsibilities: Team Employee Evacuation Team Responsibility Responsible for getting people out of the building safely and as quickly as possible. Also responsible for employee accountability. Security Training Report Draft 11 of 15 Aug 21 02

14 Team Traffic Control Team Staging Team Building Evaluation Team Light Urban SAR Team Medical Team Responsibility Responsible for the safety of employees once they leave the building and getting them to the staging area. Also responsible for providing helicopter landing security. Responsible for shelter and feeding of employees. Responsible for the structural safety of buildings. Responsible for searching for and rescuing trapped or injured employees Responsible for taking care of the injured and dead. This team approach is effective because it ensures that every category of emergency response has a group of individuals that can be relied upon. It also helps to manage the chaos and panic resulting from an alarming emergency. People in WSDOT know who to look for when a disaster occurs and feel confident that they will be taken care of. WSDOT also has a training program called the Self and Family Preparedness Class that extends beyond staff safety in an effort to reach employees families. The class is designed for employees and their families to take action before a disaster so that employees can remain at work when a disaster strikes. The course allows employees to feel secure about their families and ensures they will focus on their own safety. WSDOT has developed a PowerPoint presentation and booklet to support the class and offers it to all employees. This is the only such program mentioned among the states surveyed. In addition to the programs discussed above, WSDOT is in the process of planning the delivery of two new courses for all employees and managers. One course is an awareness training program that is aimed at increasing recognition of surroundings for all employees who travel on infrastructure that WSDOT has responsibility over. The other course is intended for low, middle, and senior level managers and will address front-line supervisors responsibilities in information gathering and analysis, hazard and risk identification, and decision-making. 6.0 Conclusions and Next Steps The AASHTO Task Force review of state DOT training needs confirms the results of the November 2001 state DOT security survey that security training is an issue of concern to DOTs. The review suggests that many DOTs are concerned about the overall adequacy of security training that they provide and seek to improve their training capabilities, but that they lack expertise in this area. As a result, while most are conducting, or have completed assessments of training needs, few have made significant changes to their training programs. Current security-related training in DOTs remains focused on maintenance workers only, and is related to first responder issues regarding emergency response to natural disasters and hazardous materials incidents. Security Training Report Draft 12 of 15 Aug 21 02

15 Terrorism awareness training is a critical weakness among DOTs, and a train-the-trainer type resource in this area that would provide DOTs with access to expertise while giving them flexibility to develop training programs that meet their needs. Several states are leading the way in providing advanced security training, and all state DOTs could benefit from increased sharing of information about best practices in security training. Security Training Report Draft 13 of 15 Aug 21 02

16 Appendix A State DOT Highway-Related Transportation Security Training Resources and Needs Two-Part Interview Guide Part 1. States Current Highway-Related Transportation Security Training Resources Purpose of this element of the interview is to gather information about 1) the extent of training states already have in place, 2) model approaches that merit wider distribution via AASHTO etc., and 3) the extent of a training gap, as perceived by states. 1. Does your agency offer training to employees on highway transportation security, emergency preparedness or related issues, either internally or externally (through other state or federal agencies)? Yes Go to Question 2. No Go to Question Describe the highway transportation security, emergency preparedness, or other training resources for which your agency is the primary provider. For each item, if possible, specify information below: Training topic (E.g. Building security, emergency response, haz. mat. response, etc.) Delivery mechanism (E.g. Presentation, simulation exercise, class, video, print, etc.) Audience (E.g. Maintenance workers, districts, safety personnel, etc.) 3. Can you provide copies of relevant print, video or electronic materials used for training described above? 4. What other state-level training resources on highway-related transportation security or emergency preparedness issues are accessible to DOT employees? (E.g. training provided by State Emergency Management offices, Haz Mat training, etc.) 5. What federal-level training resources on highway-related transportation security or emergency preparedness issues are accessible to DOT employees? (E.g. training provided by State Emergency Management offices, Haz Mat training, etc.) 6. How would you characterize the adequacy of the range of training resources available in your state on highway transportation security or emergency preparedness issues? About right amount/type of training available. More/different training is needed. Security Training Report Draft 14 of 15 Aug 21 02

17 Part 2. States Highway-Related Transportation Security Training Needs Purpose of this element of the interview is to gather information about 1) additional training sought by states, 2) who should provide training, and 3) what methods of training are most effective. 1. Have you reassessed, or are you reassessing, your agency s highway-related transportation security training needs in response to recent terrorist events, and if so, what changes are being made? 2. In your opinion, what are the areas where new training resources on highway-related transportation security or emergency preparedness need to be developed? (For each of the major areas below, please identify specific examples. However, do not necessarily limit your responses to those areas listed below.) Vulnerability assessment Methodologies for identifying critical infrastructure, equipment, and systems including evaluation of the consequences of facility loss; techniques for data collection, and retrieval of relevant records; etc. Strengthening security Reporting suspicious activities, surveillance of key facilities, protecting computer networks/data, DOT buildings and human resources, legal issues, etc. Pre- and post- event emergency response planning Traffic management and operations, inter-agency coordination, hardening targets, quick-turnaround repairs, recovery and restoration of normal operations. Media and public information Controlling information flow, protecting secure information, alerting the public, etc. Others 3. For training needs identified above, who should be responsible for providing training? (state/federal, DOTs/other agencies, emergency management agencies, law enforcement agencies, universities, private sector, other) 4. Training will be tailored to the appropriate audiences, using a range of formats, including videos, computers, simulations, classes, print, and others. Do you have any comments on which are most effective type/approach/structure for your operations? Security Training Report Draft 15 of 15 Aug 21 02