This document provides guidance for American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) post-disaster assessment teams. It outlines the process for deciding to launch an assessment, selecting a team leader, and choosing team members. The primary goals of assessments are to evaluate engineered structures after disasters and learn lessons to improve future performance. The manual provides standards while allowing flexibility based on each event's unique conditions. It aims to ensure assessments are properly conducted and findings reported in a timely, ethical manner.
Assessment – SITXOHS004BStudent name ____________________________.docxfredharris32
Assessment – SITXOHS004BStudent name: ____________________________
What you have to do
There are a total of three (3) parts to complete, as follows:
Part A – consists of tasks requiring an extended response answer.
Part B – consists of a task requiring an extended response answer.
Part C – consists of short answers.
Securely attach your answers on separate sheets that clearly identify the question to which you are responding and number the pages in sequence. At the end of each answer, allow adequate space (at least 6-8 lines), for the teacher’s comments and feedback.
You will be assessed on how well you interpret each task request and how you structure each according to layout, sequencing and by providing all relevant and applicable details for each task.
This is an ungraded unit. Your result is based on the evidence you provide to meet the criteria for competence as specified in the unit of competency and grading criteria. You will receive a result of Achieved Competency (AC) or Not yet Competent (NC).
Information on how to submit your assignment is located on the OTEN website under your OLS log-in.
Tasks
Part A: Develop a WHS Program or Procedure
Task
In this Unit of Competency we learnt that it is common practice for organisations to adopt the “Six Step Approach” to develop and implement a Work health and Safety Management System (WHSMS).
As you discovered, an organisation’s WHS Policy forms the “corner stone” of the WHSMS and clearly states the organisation’s commitment to WHS and identifies the initiatives that will be taken to ensure a safe work environment is provided to all persons working in, serviced by, or visiting the workplace.
For part A of this Assessment you are required to write one (1) WHS Program or Procedure that aims to fulfil the goals set by an Organisation’s WHS Policy.
To successfully complete this task you must:
1. Read the following example WHS Policy for “Big Corp Travel”.
2. Select one (1) of the WHS programs or procedures listed in the WHS Policy for this tourism company and prepare (write) a detailed program or procedure that can be included in the Organisation’s WHS Programs manual.
3. Your WHS Program/Procedure must contain and address the following paragraph headings:
· WHS Program/Procedure title (name).
· Purpose and objectives (what does the program/procedure aim to achieve?)
· Scope (who does this program/procedure apply to? Departments and personnel)
· Program/Procedure (outline the steps in the program – what, where, how)
· Implementation Strategies (how will the program be implemented and communicated to staff?)
· Monitoring and Evaluation (how will the program be monitored and evaluated?)
· Review (when will this program be reviewed to ensure that it remains current and relevant and who will conduct this revision?)
Example WHS Policy
Commitment statement
The health and safety of all persons employed within Big Corp Travel, its customers and those visiting the workplace is cons ...
This document discusses environmental scanning and the QUEST technique. It defines environmental scanning as monitoring, evaluating, and disseminating external and internal information. The QUEST technique is a 4-step process where strategists 1) identify events and trends, 2) speculate on issues, 3) prepare scenarios, and 4) identify strategic options. It allows for rapid development of potential futures at low cost. While it relies on senior executives, it ensures implementation. Evaluation notes its speed and cost but over-reliance on executives could contaminate results. After scanning, strategists prepare an environmental threats and opportunities profile to analyze impact of different sectors.
Manual for eq damage evaluation by usa femaBhim Upadhyaya
This manual may be useful for Nepal's engineers for evaluation of damage done by EQ. This is basic manual prepared by USA Federal Emergency Management Agency.
This document provides a self-assessment checklist for organizations to evaluate their compliance with the requirements of the OHSAS 18001:2007 standard for occupational health and safety management systems. The checklist restates the requirements of the standard and includes questions for organizations to assess how their system addresses each requirement. It also includes space for organizations to comment on the status of their system for each requirement. The checklist is intended to be an effective tool for both implementing an OH&S management system and conducting self-assessments of the system.
Applied Health and Safety_Basic Risk assessmentCharl Esau
This document provides an overview of risk assessments and how to conduct them. It discusses what risk assessments are, the difference between hazards and risks, why risk assessments are important, relevant South African laws, international standards, and the iterative risk assessment process. Assignments are included throughout for the reader to apply the concepts to their own work environment by identifying risks, suggesting controls, and completing a basic risk assessment.
• Be able to describe the difference between preparedness and readiness.
Preparedness: is planning, development of SOPs, specification of roles and responsibilities, staging of equipment, training staff, connecting integral systems, and exhibiting masterful awareness of required actions and tasks related to an emergency response function.
-Deals with all the preliminary training, standard operating procedures (SOPs), equipment practice, and performing of the routines of emergency response
Readiness: is the actual demonstration and execution of essential emergency functions and tasks at the highest possible level of effectiveness in an actual crisis or in realistic emergency exercise situations.
-is the actual demonstration of emergency response capability under deployed conditions to respond effectively to all-hazard crisis.
page. 2
• Be able to describe the difference between an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and an Exercise Plan (ExPlan)
• DIFFERENCES: the objectives of each. EOP provides the pre-disaster guidance outlining what safety measures and protective actions can be completed given an emergency situation. EXPlan outlines how a group of emergency works and first responders will be expected to handle and overcome an emergency situation.
• Roles and responsibilities are delineated by EOPs and ExPlans are designed to test them.
• Page 5
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP): intended to provide an overall guide outlining major facilities, buildings, risk zones, and expected hazards for which the managing or governing, organization is responsible to safeguard.
Objective 1: identify the risk and hazard issues for the territorial space that the organization, group, business, or government retains for responsibility to protect and safeguard. Provide guidance to inhabitants, employees, visitors, and all who enter the risk domain and territory bored by the EOP on what to do and how to behave in different risk, hazard, or crisis situations.
Outline steps necessary for reacting to an emergency event and they will usually identify which organizational unit is primarily responsible for responding to the crisis and getting it under control. Written in two ways: innocent unsuspecting victims OR highly trying and skilled workers and responders.
Exercise Plan (ExPlan): is an outline of how the emergency rescue workers and first responders decide to handle the crisis. It may involve well-known situation like orderly evacuation of a dormitory or office building for a bomb threat. Or it can be complex and unexpected how to protect workers on upper floors from toxic fumes in air handling system or evacuate a major railway from tanker spill of chlorine gas.
The company was formed in 1908 as an investment company of Buick Motor Company with William C. Durant as the owner. It proliferated to acquire other companies such as Oldsmobile, Oakland, Rapid Motor Vehicle Company, and McLaughlin of Canada. In 1929, the company expanded to be the leading passenger car manufacturer surpassing the Ford Motor Company, which was the leading manufacture. It proceeded and extended its operations overseas, where it became the world's leading motor vehicle manufacturer in the world by 1931
This document outlines the objectives, scope, approach, and reporting structure for conducting a risk management and insurance planning study. The study aims to systematically identify and assess all potential risks, review current insurance coverage, and make recommendations to optimize risk exposure. It will involve identifying internal and external risks, reviewing existing risk controls, scrutinizing insurance policies, and providing guidelines to determine appropriate coverage and documentation. The consulting firm has experts with over 17 years of experience conducting similar studies for various industrial sectors. They will visit the site, collect information, analyze data, and provide a confidential report with findings and recommendations.
Assessment – SITXOHS004BStudent name ____________________________.docxfredharris32
Assessment – SITXOHS004BStudent name: ____________________________
What you have to do
There are a total of three (3) parts to complete, as follows:
Part A – consists of tasks requiring an extended response answer.
Part B – consists of a task requiring an extended response answer.
Part C – consists of short answers.
Securely attach your answers on separate sheets that clearly identify the question to which you are responding and number the pages in sequence. At the end of each answer, allow adequate space (at least 6-8 lines), for the teacher’s comments and feedback.
You will be assessed on how well you interpret each task request and how you structure each according to layout, sequencing and by providing all relevant and applicable details for each task.
This is an ungraded unit. Your result is based on the evidence you provide to meet the criteria for competence as specified in the unit of competency and grading criteria. You will receive a result of Achieved Competency (AC) or Not yet Competent (NC).
Information on how to submit your assignment is located on the OTEN website under your OLS log-in.
Tasks
Part A: Develop a WHS Program or Procedure
Task
In this Unit of Competency we learnt that it is common practice for organisations to adopt the “Six Step Approach” to develop and implement a Work health and Safety Management System (WHSMS).
As you discovered, an organisation’s WHS Policy forms the “corner stone” of the WHSMS and clearly states the organisation’s commitment to WHS and identifies the initiatives that will be taken to ensure a safe work environment is provided to all persons working in, serviced by, or visiting the workplace.
For part A of this Assessment you are required to write one (1) WHS Program or Procedure that aims to fulfil the goals set by an Organisation’s WHS Policy.
To successfully complete this task you must:
1. Read the following example WHS Policy for “Big Corp Travel”.
2. Select one (1) of the WHS programs or procedures listed in the WHS Policy for this tourism company and prepare (write) a detailed program or procedure that can be included in the Organisation’s WHS Programs manual.
3. Your WHS Program/Procedure must contain and address the following paragraph headings:
· WHS Program/Procedure title (name).
· Purpose and objectives (what does the program/procedure aim to achieve?)
· Scope (who does this program/procedure apply to? Departments and personnel)
· Program/Procedure (outline the steps in the program – what, where, how)
· Implementation Strategies (how will the program be implemented and communicated to staff?)
· Monitoring and Evaluation (how will the program be monitored and evaluated?)
· Review (when will this program be reviewed to ensure that it remains current and relevant and who will conduct this revision?)
Example WHS Policy
Commitment statement
The health and safety of all persons employed within Big Corp Travel, its customers and those visiting the workplace is cons ...
This document discusses environmental scanning and the QUEST technique. It defines environmental scanning as monitoring, evaluating, and disseminating external and internal information. The QUEST technique is a 4-step process where strategists 1) identify events and trends, 2) speculate on issues, 3) prepare scenarios, and 4) identify strategic options. It allows for rapid development of potential futures at low cost. While it relies on senior executives, it ensures implementation. Evaluation notes its speed and cost but over-reliance on executives could contaminate results. After scanning, strategists prepare an environmental threats and opportunities profile to analyze impact of different sectors.
Manual for eq damage evaluation by usa femaBhim Upadhyaya
This manual may be useful for Nepal's engineers for evaluation of damage done by EQ. This is basic manual prepared by USA Federal Emergency Management Agency.
This document provides a self-assessment checklist for organizations to evaluate their compliance with the requirements of the OHSAS 18001:2007 standard for occupational health and safety management systems. The checklist restates the requirements of the standard and includes questions for organizations to assess how their system addresses each requirement. It also includes space for organizations to comment on the status of their system for each requirement. The checklist is intended to be an effective tool for both implementing an OH&S management system and conducting self-assessments of the system.
Applied Health and Safety_Basic Risk assessmentCharl Esau
This document provides an overview of risk assessments and how to conduct them. It discusses what risk assessments are, the difference between hazards and risks, why risk assessments are important, relevant South African laws, international standards, and the iterative risk assessment process. Assignments are included throughout for the reader to apply the concepts to their own work environment by identifying risks, suggesting controls, and completing a basic risk assessment.
• Be able to describe the difference between preparedness and readiness.
Preparedness: is planning, development of SOPs, specification of roles and responsibilities, staging of equipment, training staff, connecting integral systems, and exhibiting masterful awareness of required actions and tasks related to an emergency response function.
-Deals with all the preliminary training, standard operating procedures (SOPs), equipment practice, and performing of the routines of emergency response
Readiness: is the actual demonstration and execution of essential emergency functions and tasks at the highest possible level of effectiveness in an actual crisis or in realistic emergency exercise situations.
-is the actual demonstration of emergency response capability under deployed conditions to respond effectively to all-hazard crisis.
page. 2
• Be able to describe the difference between an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and an Exercise Plan (ExPlan)
• DIFFERENCES: the objectives of each. EOP provides the pre-disaster guidance outlining what safety measures and protective actions can be completed given an emergency situation. EXPlan outlines how a group of emergency works and first responders will be expected to handle and overcome an emergency situation.
• Roles and responsibilities are delineated by EOPs and ExPlans are designed to test them.
• Page 5
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP): intended to provide an overall guide outlining major facilities, buildings, risk zones, and expected hazards for which the managing or governing, organization is responsible to safeguard.
Objective 1: identify the risk and hazard issues for the territorial space that the organization, group, business, or government retains for responsibility to protect and safeguard. Provide guidance to inhabitants, employees, visitors, and all who enter the risk domain and territory bored by the EOP on what to do and how to behave in different risk, hazard, or crisis situations.
Outline steps necessary for reacting to an emergency event and they will usually identify which organizational unit is primarily responsible for responding to the crisis and getting it under control. Written in two ways: innocent unsuspecting victims OR highly trying and skilled workers and responders.
Exercise Plan (ExPlan): is an outline of how the emergency rescue workers and first responders decide to handle the crisis. It may involve well-known situation like orderly evacuation of a dormitory or office building for a bomb threat. Or it can be complex and unexpected how to protect workers on upper floors from toxic fumes in air handling system or evacuate a major railway from tanker spill of chlorine gas.
The company was formed in 1908 as an investment company of Buick Motor Company with William C. Durant as the owner. It proliferated to acquire other companies such as Oldsmobile, Oakland, Rapid Motor Vehicle Company, and McLaughlin of Canada. In 1929, the company expanded to be the leading passenger car manufacturer surpassing the Ford Motor Company, which was the leading manufacture. It proceeded and extended its operations overseas, where it became the world's leading motor vehicle manufacturer in the world by 1931
This document outlines the objectives, scope, approach, and reporting structure for conducting a risk management and insurance planning study. The study aims to systematically identify and assess all potential risks, review current insurance coverage, and make recommendations to optimize risk exposure. It will involve identifying internal and external risks, reviewing existing risk controls, scrutinizing insurance policies, and providing guidelines to determine appropriate coverage and documentation. The consulting firm has experts with over 17 years of experience conducting similar studies for various industrial sectors. They will visit the site, collect information, analyze data, and provide a confidential report with findings and recommendations.
The document provides guidance on developing a National Action Plan for Safe Health Facilities. It outlines steps to form coordination platforms, conduct assessments of hospital vulnerability, and hold workshops. It recommends ensuring new facilities adhere to building codes and retrofitting existing infrastructure. Key components of a National Action Plan are identified as retrofitting, new construction, emergency preparedness, vulnerability assessment, and structural/non-structural measures. Examples of first, second, and third level priorities for the plan are given. A template is also provided that includes sections on disaster risk, priority DRR actions, implementation, and a summary of priority projects.
The document provides guidance on developing a National Action Plan for Safe Health Facilities. It outlines steps to form coordination platforms, conduct assessments of hospital vulnerability, and hold workshops. It recommends ensuring new facilities adhere to building codes and retrofitting existing infrastructure. Key components of a National Action Plan are identified as retrofitting, new construction, emergency preparedness, vulnerability assessment, and structural/non-structural measures. Examples of first, second, and third level priorities for the plan are given. A template is also provided that includes sections on disaster risk, priority DRR actions, implementation, and a summary of priority projects.
The document discusses the fundamentals of software testing including the main tasks in the testing process: (1) planning and control such as determining test scope and approach; (2) analysis and design like identifying test conditions and designing test cases; (3) implementation including developing test cases and executing test suites; and (4) evaluation like comparing actual and expected results. It also provides examples of questions and answers related to software testing concepts based on the ISTQB glossary definitions.
The document outlines a 5-step process for developing an ergonomics program to prevent musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs) in the workplace. Step 1 involves identifying existing MSI problems by reviewing injury reports and conducting worker surveys. Step 2 establishes an ergonomics team to assess risks. Step 3 has the team perform ergonomic assessments using tools to identify hazards. Step 4 has the team review recommendations with management and implement controls. Step 5 requires regularly evaluating the program's effectiveness in reducing MSIs. The goal is to help organizations systematically implement robust ergonomics programs to improve worker safety and health.
overview on when to use environmental analysis; Assessment of the Internal factors of PANELCO III (management audit, functional departmental areas; organizational core values and illustration of S-W
This document provides an overview of ASQ's certification programs and the process for developing their exams. It describes the multi-step process including: conducting a job analysis survey of members to identify key skills and knowledge, organizing the information into a Body of Knowledge with committees, writing exam questions and ensuring they are linked to reference materials, reviewing questions through multiple committees, testing the exam, analyzing results, and reexamining programs every five years. The goal is to develop valid exams that accurately reflect the necessary skills in the field and maintain ASQ certification as a standard of excellence.
This document provides a midterm evaluation of the Higher Education Solutions Network (HESN) project. The evaluation assessed the progress of 8 HESN Labs in meeting the project's 3 objectives: 1) improving data for development decision making, 2) accelerating development innovations, and 3) catalyzing global knowledge sharing. Key findings include:
- HESN Labs met or exceeded targets for 79% of indicators, strongly performing in objective 1 on data.
- 90% of beneficiaries validated that HESN Labs provided needed benefits.
- HESN increased international development activities, collaborations, and faculty/students at partner universities.
- HESN Labs established 72 partnerships with developing country universities and
This document outlines the roles and responsibilities of various personnel involved in developing and sustaining an enterprise security program (ESP). It discusses nine groups of personnel including the board risk committee, senior officers, cross-organizational ESP team, asset owners, business managers, operational personnel, certification agent, board audit committee, and internal/external audit personnel. It provides details on the responsibilities of the ESP team, including the chief security officer, chief information officer, business line executives, general counsel, and chief financial officer. The responsibilities include asset management, security assessments, planning and strategy, controls and performance management, and reviews/audits.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Sy.docxjewisonantone
This document provides an overview of innovative uses of social media in emergency management based on case studies and literature review. It finds that public safety organizations are increasingly using social media to engage with communities before, during, and after emergencies to share timely information and gain situational awareness. The case studies highlight how government agencies and non-profits collaborated with communities through social media during recent natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and wildfires to coordinate responses and distribute updates. The document also outlines best practices for social media implementation identified in literature, including developing strategic and policy frameworks, actively monitoring content, and using mapping tools to provide visual context.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Sy.docxfestockton
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER)
Innovative Uses of Social Media in
Emergency Management
September 2013
Prepared by Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic
The Innovative Uses of Social Media in Emergency Management report was funded under
Interagency Agreement No. HSHQDC-07-X-00467 from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate.
The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
U.S. Government.
Reference herein to any specific commercial products, processes, or services by trade
name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government.
The information and statements contained herein shall not be used for the purposes of
advertising, nor to imply the endorsement or recommendation of the U.S. Government.
With respect to documentation contained herein, neither the U.S. Government nor any of
its employees make any warranty, express or implied, including but not limited to the
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Further, neither the
U.S. Government nor any of its employees assume any legal liability or responsibility for
the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed; nor do they represent that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights.
Cover images are courtesy of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) News
Photos.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
i
FOREWORD
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established the System Assessment and
Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) Program to assist emergency responders
making procurement decisions. Located within the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T)
of DHS, the SAVER Program conducts objective assessments and validations on commercial
equipment and systems and provides those results along with other relevant equipment
information to the emergency response community in an operationally useful form. SAVER
provides information on equipment that falls within the categories listed in the DHS Authorized
Equipment List (AEL). The SAVER Program mission includes:
Conducting impartial, practitioner-relevant, operationally oriented assessments and
validations of emergency responder equipment; and
Providing information, in the form of knowledge products, that enables decision-makers
and responders to better select, procure, use, and maintain emergency responder
equipment.
Information provided by the SAVER Program will be shared nationally with the responder
community, providing a life- and cost-saving asset to DHS, as well as to Federal, state, and local
responders.
The SAVER Program is supported by a network of Technical Agents who perf ...
The Barzan Onshore Project has achieved 60 million lost time injury man-hours through a continuous team effort involving the client, company and contractors. Key factors that contributed to this success include:
- Strong leadership and support from the Project Manager in prioritizing safety
- Management team embracing safety programs and leading by example
- High-quality safety training delivered to all workers in their native language
- Focus on behavioral observation programs and risk assessment tools
- Development and support of line supervisors' safety responsibilities
- Higher than normal staffing ratios for safety personnel
- Thorough incident investigation and corrective action plans
- Use of data and trend analysis to proactively address safety issues
- Generous safety incentive
The IMPADA Common Assessment Framework (CAF) is a tool designed for education organisations (and practitioners) to self-assess the effectiveness of their adult education provision with disadvantaged groups.
This Implementation Guide supports the provider’s leadership team through the process, including setting up the most effective Assessment Team.
The CAF is also supported by a Methodology, to enable the Assessment Team to self-assess, produce a Self-Assessment Report (SAR) and action plan identified improvements.
This presentation covered hazard identification and risk management. The key objectives were to develop procedures for ongoing hazard identification and risk assessment, include hazard identification when planning workplace changes, develop and follow procedures for selecting and implementing risk controls according to the hierarchy of control and WHS requirements, identify inadequacies in existing risk controls and provide resources for improvement, and identify when expert WHS advice is required.
Dynamic Stress Test diffusion model and scoring performanceZiad Fares
This document proposes a methodology for dynamically diffusing stress across a credit rating scale when performing stress tests on credit portfolios. It recognizes that existing stress testing practices often do not accurately reflect portfolio behavior under stress. The proposed approach considers how credit score performance impacts default rates across rating classes under stress conditions. It involves using a beta distribution to model default rates pre-and post-stress, then establishing a relationship between credit score metrics like the Gini index and the level of stress applied to each rating class. The approach is demonstrated on a real SME loan portfolio to show how it can more accurately reflect portfolio risks under stress compared to uniform stress diffusion methods typically used.
Ch cie gra - stress-test-diffusion-model-and-scoring-performanceC Louiza
The 2008 crisis has demonstrated the importance of conducting stress tests to prevent banking failure. This exercise has also a significant impact on banks’ capital, organization and image.
This paper aims to provide a methodology that diffuses the stress applied on a credit portfolio while taking into account risk and performance for each rating category.
The content is structured in three parts:
The importance of stress testing and the impacts on reputation
Methodology for a dynamic stress diffusion model
Study on a real SME portfolio showing that the model designed in this paper captures relationship between Gini index and the stress diffusion
The OCTAVE-S methodology involves 3 phases to evaluate operational threats, assets, and vulnerabilities. Phase 1 involves building asset-based threat profiles by identifying impact criteria, important organizational assets, security practices, and defining threat profiles for critical assets. Phase 2 identifies infrastructure vulnerabilities by analyzing how people access critical assets and who maintains components. Phase 3 develops a security strategy and mitigation plans by identifying risks to critical assets and deciding on approaches to address the risks.
The document provides guidance on conducting risk assessment and implementing risk management in Malaysian workplaces according to the Industry Code of Practice on Occupational Safety and Health Risk Management (ICOP).
It outlines the objectives, scope and general requirements of the ICOP, including duties of employers, appointed persons, risk assessors and employees. The risk management process involves preparation, risk assessment, implementation, record keeping and review. Risk assessment consists of hazard identification, risk evaluation and control. Employers must ensure risks are reduced to medium or low levels before activities are carried out.
This document provides guidance for evaluating drills and exercises related to oil spill response. It acknowledges contributors who helped create the manual. The manual contains background information on relevant terminology like the National Incident Management System (NIMS), Incident Command System (ICS), and ICS Planning P process. It also outlines different types of exercises like seminars, workshops, tabletop exercises, and games. The overall goal is to improve oil spill response through enhancing drill design, evaluation methods, and documenting lessons learned.
The document provides guidance on developing national action plans for safe health facilities. It outlines steps to take which include forming coordination platforms, conducting assessments of hospital vulnerability, and holding workshops. Key actions recommended are ensuring new facilities adhere to building codes, retrofitting existing infrastructure, and establishing legal and policy frameworks. The national action plan should define structural and non-structural risk reduction priorities like emergency planning, and include implementation mechanisms and monitoring. Templates provided give an example of how to prioritize projects based on risk levels and timeframes.
Virtual Assessment Centre Ebook- The Edge of Virtual Over PhysicalNicole Yean
This guide takes you along the journey of the
Assessment Centre’s virtualization path and
shows how to retain proven validity whilst
leveraging technological advantages.
The CBC machine is a common diagnostic tool used by doctors to measure a patient's red blood cell count, white blood cell count and platelet count. The machine uses a small sample of the patient's blood, which is then placed into special tubes and analyzed. The results of the analysis are then displayed on a screen for the doctor to review. The CBC machine is an important tool for diagnosing various conditions, such as anemia, infection and leukemia. It can also help to monitor a patient's response to treatment.
The document provides guidance on developing a National Action Plan for Safe Health Facilities. It outlines steps to form coordination platforms, conduct assessments of hospital vulnerability, and hold workshops. It recommends ensuring new facilities adhere to building codes and retrofitting existing infrastructure. Key components of a National Action Plan are identified as retrofitting, new construction, emergency preparedness, vulnerability assessment, and structural/non-structural measures. Examples of first, second, and third level priorities for the plan are given. A template is also provided that includes sections on disaster risk, priority DRR actions, implementation, and a summary of priority projects.
The document provides guidance on developing a National Action Plan for Safe Health Facilities. It outlines steps to form coordination platforms, conduct assessments of hospital vulnerability, and hold workshops. It recommends ensuring new facilities adhere to building codes and retrofitting existing infrastructure. Key components of a National Action Plan are identified as retrofitting, new construction, emergency preparedness, vulnerability assessment, and structural/non-structural measures. Examples of first, second, and third level priorities for the plan are given. A template is also provided that includes sections on disaster risk, priority DRR actions, implementation, and a summary of priority projects.
The document discusses the fundamentals of software testing including the main tasks in the testing process: (1) planning and control such as determining test scope and approach; (2) analysis and design like identifying test conditions and designing test cases; (3) implementation including developing test cases and executing test suites; and (4) evaluation like comparing actual and expected results. It also provides examples of questions and answers related to software testing concepts based on the ISTQB glossary definitions.
The document outlines a 5-step process for developing an ergonomics program to prevent musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs) in the workplace. Step 1 involves identifying existing MSI problems by reviewing injury reports and conducting worker surveys. Step 2 establishes an ergonomics team to assess risks. Step 3 has the team perform ergonomic assessments using tools to identify hazards. Step 4 has the team review recommendations with management and implement controls. Step 5 requires regularly evaluating the program's effectiveness in reducing MSIs. The goal is to help organizations systematically implement robust ergonomics programs to improve worker safety and health.
overview on when to use environmental analysis; Assessment of the Internal factors of PANELCO III (management audit, functional departmental areas; organizational core values and illustration of S-W
This document provides an overview of ASQ's certification programs and the process for developing their exams. It describes the multi-step process including: conducting a job analysis survey of members to identify key skills and knowledge, organizing the information into a Body of Knowledge with committees, writing exam questions and ensuring they are linked to reference materials, reviewing questions through multiple committees, testing the exam, analyzing results, and reexamining programs every five years. The goal is to develop valid exams that accurately reflect the necessary skills in the field and maintain ASQ certification as a standard of excellence.
This document provides a midterm evaluation of the Higher Education Solutions Network (HESN) project. The evaluation assessed the progress of 8 HESN Labs in meeting the project's 3 objectives: 1) improving data for development decision making, 2) accelerating development innovations, and 3) catalyzing global knowledge sharing. Key findings include:
- HESN Labs met or exceeded targets for 79% of indicators, strongly performing in objective 1 on data.
- 90% of beneficiaries validated that HESN Labs provided needed benefits.
- HESN increased international development activities, collaborations, and faculty/students at partner universities.
- HESN Labs established 72 partnerships with developing country universities and
This document outlines the roles and responsibilities of various personnel involved in developing and sustaining an enterprise security program (ESP). It discusses nine groups of personnel including the board risk committee, senior officers, cross-organizational ESP team, asset owners, business managers, operational personnel, certification agent, board audit committee, and internal/external audit personnel. It provides details on the responsibilities of the ESP team, including the chief security officer, chief information officer, business line executives, general counsel, and chief financial officer. The responsibilities include asset management, security assessments, planning and strategy, controls and performance management, and reviews/audits.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Sy.docxjewisonantone
This document provides an overview of innovative uses of social media in emergency management based on case studies and literature review. It finds that public safety organizations are increasingly using social media to engage with communities before, during, and after emergencies to share timely information and gain situational awareness. The case studies highlight how government agencies and non-profits collaborated with communities through social media during recent natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and wildfires to coordinate responses and distribute updates. The document also outlines best practices for social media implementation identified in literature, including developing strategic and policy frameworks, actively monitoring content, and using mapping tools to provide visual context.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Sy.docxfestockton
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER)
Innovative Uses of Social Media in
Emergency Management
September 2013
Prepared by Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic
The Innovative Uses of Social Media in Emergency Management report was funded under
Interagency Agreement No. HSHQDC-07-X-00467 from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate.
The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
U.S. Government.
Reference herein to any specific commercial products, processes, or services by trade
name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government.
The information and statements contained herein shall not be used for the purposes of
advertising, nor to imply the endorsement or recommendation of the U.S. Government.
With respect to documentation contained herein, neither the U.S. Government nor any of
its employees make any warranty, express or implied, including but not limited to the
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Further, neither the
U.S. Government nor any of its employees assume any legal liability or responsibility for
the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed; nor do they represent that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights.
Cover images are courtesy of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) News
Photos.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
i
FOREWORD
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established the System Assessment and
Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) Program to assist emergency responders
making procurement decisions. Located within the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T)
of DHS, the SAVER Program conducts objective assessments and validations on commercial
equipment and systems and provides those results along with other relevant equipment
information to the emergency response community in an operationally useful form. SAVER
provides information on equipment that falls within the categories listed in the DHS Authorized
Equipment List (AEL). The SAVER Program mission includes:
Conducting impartial, practitioner-relevant, operationally oriented assessments and
validations of emergency responder equipment; and
Providing information, in the form of knowledge products, that enables decision-makers
and responders to better select, procure, use, and maintain emergency responder
equipment.
Information provided by the SAVER Program will be shared nationally with the responder
community, providing a life- and cost-saving asset to DHS, as well as to Federal, state, and local
responders.
The SAVER Program is supported by a network of Technical Agents who perf ...
The Barzan Onshore Project has achieved 60 million lost time injury man-hours through a continuous team effort involving the client, company and contractors. Key factors that contributed to this success include:
- Strong leadership and support from the Project Manager in prioritizing safety
- Management team embracing safety programs and leading by example
- High-quality safety training delivered to all workers in their native language
- Focus on behavioral observation programs and risk assessment tools
- Development and support of line supervisors' safety responsibilities
- Higher than normal staffing ratios for safety personnel
- Thorough incident investigation and corrective action plans
- Use of data and trend analysis to proactively address safety issues
- Generous safety incentive
The IMPADA Common Assessment Framework (CAF) is a tool designed for education organisations (and practitioners) to self-assess the effectiveness of their adult education provision with disadvantaged groups.
This Implementation Guide supports the provider’s leadership team through the process, including setting up the most effective Assessment Team.
The CAF is also supported by a Methodology, to enable the Assessment Team to self-assess, produce a Self-Assessment Report (SAR) and action plan identified improvements.
This presentation covered hazard identification and risk management. The key objectives were to develop procedures for ongoing hazard identification and risk assessment, include hazard identification when planning workplace changes, develop and follow procedures for selecting and implementing risk controls according to the hierarchy of control and WHS requirements, identify inadequacies in existing risk controls and provide resources for improvement, and identify when expert WHS advice is required.
Dynamic Stress Test diffusion model and scoring performanceZiad Fares
This document proposes a methodology for dynamically diffusing stress across a credit rating scale when performing stress tests on credit portfolios. It recognizes that existing stress testing practices often do not accurately reflect portfolio behavior under stress. The proposed approach considers how credit score performance impacts default rates across rating classes under stress conditions. It involves using a beta distribution to model default rates pre-and post-stress, then establishing a relationship between credit score metrics like the Gini index and the level of stress applied to each rating class. The approach is demonstrated on a real SME loan portfolio to show how it can more accurately reflect portfolio risks under stress compared to uniform stress diffusion methods typically used.
Ch cie gra - stress-test-diffusion-model-and-scoring-performanceC Louiza
The 2008 crisis has demonstrated the importance of conducting stress tests to prevent banking failure. This exercise has also a significant impact on banks’ capital, organization and image.
This paper aims to provide a methodology that diffuses the stress applied on a credit portfolio while taking into account risk and performance for each rating category.
The content is structured in three parts:
The importance of stress testing and the impacts on reputation
Methodology for a dynamic stress diffusion model
Study on a real SME portfolio showing that the model designed in this paper captures relationship between Gini index and the stress diffusion
The OCTAVE-S methodology involves 3 phases to evaluate operational threats, assets, and vulnerabilities. Phase 1 involves building asset-based threat profiles by identifying impact criteria, important organizational assets, security practices, and defining threat profiles for critical assets. Phase 2 identifies infrastructure vulnerabilities by analyzing how people access critical assets and who maintains components. Phase 3 develops a security strategy and mitigation plans by identifying risks to critical assets and deciding on approaches to address the risks.
The document provides guidance on conducting risk assessment and implementing risk management in Malaysian workplaces according to the Industry Code of Practice on Occupational Safety and Health Risk Management (ICOP).
It outlines the objectives, scope and general requirements of the ICOP, including duties of employers, appointed persons, risk assessors and employees. The risk management process involves preparation, risk assessment, implementation, record keeping and review. Risk assessment consists of hazard identification, risk evaluation and control. Employers must ensure risks are reduced to medium or low levels before activities are carried out.
This document provides guidance for evaluating drills and exercises related to oil spill response. It acknowledges contributors who helped create the manual. The manual contains background information on relevant terminology like the National Incident Management System (NIMS), Incident Command System (ICS), and ICS Planning P process. It also outlines different types of exercises like seminars, workshops, tabletop exercises, and games. The overall goal is to improve oil spill response through enhancing drill design, evaluation methods, and documenting lessons learned.
The document provides guidance on developing national action plans for safe health facilities. It outlines steps to take which include forming coordination platforms, conducting assessments of hospital vulnerability, and holding workshops. Key actions recommended are ensuring new facilities adhere to building codes, retrofitting existing infrastructure, and establishing legal and policy frameworks. The national action plan should define structural and non-structural risk reduction priorities like emergency planning, and include implementation mechanisms and monitoring. Templates provided give an example of how to prioritize projects based on risk levels and timeframes.
Virtual Assessment Centre Ebook- The Edge of Virtual Over PhysicalNicole Yean
This guide takes you along the journey of the
Assessment Centre’s virtualization path and
shows how to retain proven validity whilst
leveraging technological advantages.
The CBC machine is a common diagnostic tool used by doctors to measure a patient's red blood cell count, white blood cell count and platelet count. The machine uses a small sample of the patient's blood, which is then placed into special tubes and analyzed. The results of the analysis are then displayed on a screen for the doctor to review. The CBC machine is an important tool for diagnosing various conditions, such as anemia, infection and leukemia. It can also help to monitor a patient's response to treatment.
Introduction- e - waste – definition - sources of e-waste– hazardous substances in e-waste - effects of e-waste on environment and human health- need for e-waste management– e-waste handling rules - waste minimization techniques for managing e-waste – recycling of e-waste - disposal treatment methods of e- waste – mechanism of extraction of precious metal from leaching solution-global Scenario of E-waste – E-waste in India- case studies.
artificial intelligence and data science contents.pptxGauravCar
What is artificial intelligence? Artificial intelligence is the ability of a computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks that are commonly associated with the intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason.
› ...
Artificial intelligence (AI) | Definitio
Null Bangalore | Pentesters Approach to AWS IAMDivyanshu
#Abstract:
- Learn more about the real-world methods for auditing AWS IAM (Identity and Access Management) as a pentester. So let us proceed with a brief discussion of IAM as well as some typical misconfigurations and their potential exploits in order to reinforce the understanding of IAM security best practices.
- Gain actionable insights into AWS IAM policies and roles, using hands on approach.
#Prerequisites:
- Basic understanding of AWS services and architecture
- Familiarity with cloud security concepts
- Experience using the AWS Management Console or AWS CLI.
- For hands on lab create account on [killercoda.com](https://killercoda.com/cloudsecurity-scenario/)
# Scenario Covered:
- Basics of IAM in AWS
- Implementing IAM Policies with Least Privilege to Manage S3 Bucket
- Objective: Create an S3 bucket with least privilege IAM policy and validate access.
- Steps:
- Create S3 bucket.
- Attach least privilege policy to IAM user.
- Validate access.
- Exploiting IAM PassRole Misconfiguration
-Allows a user to pass a specific IAM role to an AWS service (ec2), typically used for service access delegation. Then exploit PassRole Misconfiguration granting unauthorized access to sensitive resources.
- Objective: Demonstrate how a PassRole misconfiguration can grant unauthorized access.
- Steps:
- Allow user to pass IAM role to EC2.
- Exploit misconfiguration for unauthorized access.
- Access sensitive resources.
- Exploiting IAM AssumeRole Misconfiguration with Overly Permissive Role
- An overly permissive IAM role configuration can lead to privilege escalation by creating a role with administrative privileges and allow a user to assume this role.
- Objective: Show how overly permissive IAM roles can lead to privilege escalation.
- Steps:
- Create role with administrative privileges.
- Allow user to assume the role.
- Perform administrative actions.
- Differentiation between PassRole vs AssumeRole
Try at [killercoda.com](https://killercoda.com/cloudsecurity-scenario/)
Redefining brain tumor segmentation: a cutting-edge convolutional neural netw...IJECEIAES
Medical image analysis has witnessed significant advancements with deep learning techniques. In the domain of brain tumor segmentation, the ability to
precisely delineate tumor boundaries from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
scans holds profound implications for diagnosis. This study presents an ensemble convolutional neural network (CNN) with transfer learning, integrating
the state-of-the-art Deeplabv3+ architecture with the ResNet18 backbone. The
model is rigorously trained and evaluated, exhibiting remarkable performance
metrics, including an impressive global accuracy of 99.286%, a high-class accuracy of 82.191%, a mean intersection over union (IoU) of 79.900%, a weighted
IoU of 98.620%, and a Boundary F1 (BF) score of 83.303%. Notably, a detailed comparative analysis with existing methods showcases the superiority of
our proposed model. These findings underscore the model’s competence in precise brain tumor localization, underscoring its potential to revolutionize medical
image analysis and enhance healthcare outcomes. This research paves the way
for future exploration and optimization of advanced CNN models in medical
imaging, emphasizing addressing false positives and resource efficiency.
Batteries -Introduction – Types of Batteries – discharging and charging of battery - characteristics of battery –battery rating- various tests on battery- – Primary battery: silver button cell- Secondary battery :Ni-Cd battery-modern battery: lithium ion battery-maintenance of batteries-choices of batteries for electric vehicle applications.
Fuel Cells: Introduction- importance and classification of fuel cells - description, principle, components, applications of fuel cells: H2-O2 fuel cell, alkaline fuel cell, molten carbonate fuel cell and direct methanol fuel cells.
International Conference on NLP, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning an...gerogepatton
International Conference on NLP, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Applications (NLAIM 2024) offers a premier global platform for exchanging insights and findings in the theory, methodology, and applications of NLP, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and their applications. The conference seeks substantial contributions across all key domains of NLP, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and their practical applications, aiming to foster both theoretical advancements and real-world implementations. With a focus on facilitating collaboration between researchers and practitioners from academia and industry, the conference serves as a nexus for sharing the latest developments in the field.
1. ASCE
POST-DISASTER
ASSESSMENT MANUAL
Prepared by ASCE Task Committee on Engineering Review Procedures
H. Gerard Schwartz, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., NAE, Pres.02.ASCE, Chair
W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., NAE, Dist.M.ASCE
Eugene Raymond Desormeaux, P.E., F.ASCE
Billy L. Edge, Ph.D., P.E., Dist.M.ASCE
Curtis L. Edwards, P.E., F.ASCE
Joseph Wartman, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Approved by ASCE Board of Direction on July 25, 2009
2. 2
Contents
1.0 Purpose and Scope of Manual……………………………….…………..3
2.0 Launching an Assessment……………………………………………….3
3.0 Funding of Assessments…………………………………………………6
4.0 Selection of Team Leader…………………………………………………8
5.0 Selection of Team Members…………………………………….…..……9
6.0 Coordination with other Organizations……………………………….11
7.0 Schedule……………………………………………………………...…….12
8.0 Staff Support………………………………………………………….……13
9.0 Public Communication…………………………………………………...14
10.0 Assessment Team Responsibilities, Conflicts of Interest…….…...16
11.0 Team Findings………………………………………………………….…..16
12.0 Publication of Assessment Team Report……………………………...17
Appendix A – ASCE Post-Disaster Assessment Team Request Form…..19
Appendix B – Model ASCE Assessment Team Media Policy………………22
Appendix C – Acknowledgement of Ethics and Professional
Responsibilities, Terms and Conditions, and
Waiver and Release……………………………………….……..25
Appendix D – Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form…………………………..27
Appendix E – Guidelines for Compliance with ASCE’s Conflict of
Interest Policy………………………………………....................30
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations…………………………………………..35
3. 3
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF MANUAL
The purpose of this manual is to provide general guidance for the formation and
operation of ASCE post-disaster assessment teams (assessment team or team).
Each disaster may entail unique conditions requiring special considerations in the
formation and operation of a team or teams. Previously, ASCE has conducted
post-disaster assessments under varied conditions and in various countries, and
ASCE also has been involved in peer reviews of the post-disaster assessment
efforts of others. For purposes of this manual, the terms “assessment” and
“assessment team” apply to both activities. Recognizing that different
approaches may be necessary to address the unique conditions surrounding a
particular disaster and that there are a number of related organizational entities
(technical councils, divisions, committees, and Institutes) within ASCE, this
manual provides overall guidance while leaving specific Team instructions to the
discretion of the organizational entity involved. The manual shall serve as a
guide for all individuals involved in conducting an ASCE assessment and does
not apply to individual ASCE members conducting similar assessments for other
public or private organizations—that is, not sponsored by ASCE. The manual
was written to be consistent with all ASCE policies related to post-disaster
assessments. However, it shall be the responsibility of the ASCE organizational
entity authorizing the team to resolve any policy conflicts that should arise in the
future.
The primary purpose of ASCE post-disaster assessments is to evaluate the
behavior of various engineered facilities under extreme conditions and to learn
from the behaviors observed. The goal of these assessments is to document
lessons learned regarding the causes of failures, restoration efforts, restoration
times, and success stories.
This manual applies to post-disaster assessments of both natural and human-
caused disasters including but not limited to: earthquakes; landslides; floods;
hurricanes and tropical storms; wind; snow; ice; tsunamis; tornados; wildfires;
power outages; terrorist attacks; and industrial, chemical, and biological events.
This document addresses the process for making the decision to launch an
assessment as well as outlining the overall purpose, funding, and operation of
the team effort so that assessment teams can be assembled, assessments
conducted, and findings reported correctly and in a timely manner.
2.0 LAUNCHING AN ASSESSMENT
Within ASCE there are various organizational entities that regularly undertake
post-disaster assessments. The governing bodies for such organizational
entities may coordinate the initial assessment team formation process directly or
may designate a group of specialists, experienced in the evaluation of disaster
4. 4
damage within their specific areas of practice to lead the effort. Following an
event, the governing body of the relevant organizational entity shall designate a
team leader who shall complete and submit the ASCE Post-Disaster Assessment
Team Request Form (Appendix A) to the governing body for approval. Upon
approval, the governing body shall forward the recommendation and the
completed form to the ASCE executive director or designee for final
consideration. No assessment team shall be authorized without the approval of
the ASCE executive director or designee. Depending on the source and amount
of funding involved, the additional approval of the ASCE Executive Committee
(ExCOM) or ASCE Board of Direction (BOD) may be required. Figure 1.0 below
illustrates the process for launching an ASCE assessment.
In determining whether to organize an assessment team the following criteria
must first be met,
(i) The assessment is consistent with ASCE's purpose, vision, mission,
and goals, including specifically the advancement of the science of
engineering and engineering education; and
(ii) The assessment involves ASCE’s production of widely disseminated
deliverables in the form of publications, articles, conferences, and/or
continuing education.
Additional considerations may include the following:
Natural or Human
Caused Disaster
Occurs
Organizational Entity
Determines Post-
Disaster Assessment
Need/Value and
Appoints Assessment
Team Leader
Assessment Team
Leader and Assigned
Staff Complete Post-
Disaster Assessment
Team Request Form
External Funding
Internal Funding
Decision-Making Flowchart
Figure 1.0
ExCOM Approval
ExCOM Appoints 3
Person Panel to Review
Project Details
Staject
valuations
Executive Director or
Designee Approval
• < $10K – Assessment Launches
• > $10K, < $50K – ExCOM Approval Required
• > $50K – BOD Approval Required
Executive Director or
Designee Approval
ASCE Staff
Standing
Committee on
Project Evaluation
(SCOPE) Review
Organizational
Entity Review
and Approval of
Post-Disaster
Assessment
Team Request
Form
5. 5
(iii) The assessment is of national or international significance, has
implications for the civil engineering profession, and provides substantial
public benefit via improved performance of engineered facilities in future
disasters;
(iv) The assessment involves circumstances requiring independent,
objective, and credible review;
(v) The assessment requires the identification and coordination of a team
of engineering experts and/or an unusual depth of expertise;
(vi) The assessment would not compete with customary engineering firm
services;
(vii) Accuracy and availability of damage information;
(viii) Geographic location and site accessibility as well as specific site
safety considerations (for example, with respect to international events,
can visas easily be obtained?);
(ix) The assessment is within the scope and capabilities of the respective
ASCE technical council, committee, or Institute;
(x) The assessment involves new lessons to be learned that add to the
body of engineering and scientific knowledge, and the resulting
assessment provides meaningful, practical information to ASCE members
and the public;
(xi) The assessment includes data that are perishable;
(xii) Are there other teams being deployed to the disaster site? Will there
be duplication of efforts? If so, can the inspections be coordinated to
avoid duplication? Is there an opportunity to collaborate with other groups;
and
(xiii) Is external funding required?
ASCE organizational entities that do not regularly conduct post-disaster
assessments may contact ASCE staff for guidance in submitting an ASCE Post-
Disaster Assessment Team Request Form (Appendix A) directly or for referral to
another ASCE organizational entity for assistance in selecting a team leader and
conducting a preliminary evaluation of the disaster to determine if an assessment
is warranted. The team leader shall have the responsibility to train and otherwise
ensure that the team members are apprised of the requirements of the
assessment, including procedures, work products, and safety issues.
Assessment teams must comply with access, safety and other requirements
established by those in control of disaster sites, usually a government agency.
Before launching an assessment, the ASCE team must assure itself that such
site specific requirements will enable a thorough review of the disaster and are
consistent with ASCE’s standards. Team leaders shall have the authority to
assemble and deploy assessment teams as granted by the ASCE executive
director or designee. Each team leader and associated assessment team shall
mobilize, deploy, and conduct assessments on the basis of the specific needs of
the project.
6. 6
Individuals involved in an assessment may need to monitor the effects of the
event, determine if vulnerable systems have been damaged, and disregard
misinformation that is often released during or after major events.
3.0 FUNDING OF ASSESSMENTS
3.1 ASCE Funding
ASCE solicits and retains voluntary contributions from its membership for the
purpose of funding post-disaster assessments. It is expected that these funds will
be sufficient to finance most assessments undertaken by the Society.
As codified in article 5.0 of the Society’s Rules of Policy and Procedure, the
ASCE executive director is authorized to commit up to $10,000 from the ASCE
Voluntary Fund to cover ordinary travel expenses incurred by an assessment
team. Reimbursement is permitted for reasonable, actual travel expenses but is
limited to members of ASCE and its institutes.
Funding requirements in excess of $10,000 but not greater than $50,000 can be
authorized by the ExCOM. If the ExCOM authorization is required, additional time
for approval should be expected.
For major incidents requiring unbudgeted funding in excess of $50,000, approval
of the ASCE Board of Direction is required. The process for board approval can
be time intensive, but in extraordinary circumstances board approval can be
expedited.
Institute and TAC funds that are budgeted for supplemental assessment team
travel can be authorized, within budget limits, by the institute director.
Reallocation of Institute funds for supplemental assessment activity can be
approved by the institute’s Board of Governors.
3.1.1 Travel Expenses
A budget and itinerary for the assessment activity must be prepared for review
and approval by the executive director or designee prior to expenditure of Society
funds. The purchase of airline tickets, hotel deposits, or any commitment of
Society funds cannot be made without the written approval of the authorized
ASCE staff.
3.1.2 Consulting Expenses
Team members are not eligible for honoraria or compensation from Society or
institute funds for their time for serving on an assessment team.
7. 7
Contracts for editorial assistance or subject matter expertise can be executed by
authorized ASCE staff, as appropriate, using budgeted or approved funds.
3.2 External Funding
For extraordinary events, ASCE may accept funding for an assessment team
from an external source such as a federal or local governmental agency. Such
funding shall be accepted only when approved by the ExCOM and when it is
consistent with this manual and all other ASCE policies, procedures, and
guidelines.
External funding is processed by the ASCE Department of Grants and Contracts
in accordance with the Society’s accounting policies, procedures, and controls.
Work performed using external funding sources shall be subject to review and
approval of a panel of three ASCE members appointed by the ExCOM. All
nominees for the three-member panel shall submit a completed Conflict of
Interest and Disclosure Form (Appendix D). Panel members shall not receive
compensation for their service, but shall be eligible to receive travel
reimbursement in accordance with the ASCE Rules of Policy and Procedure.
In exceptional circumstances, when an externally funded assessment requires
team members to provide extensive services or time commitments beyond that
typically expected of team members, the ExCOM may approve honoraria or
compensation for members of an assessment team. If such compensation is
approved, it shall be monitored by the three-member panel appointed by the
ExCOM to ensure that the work is being performed in compliance with ASCE‘s
policies and in accordance with the ASCE Code of Ethics. Such compensation
shall be in addition to travel reimbursement permitted under ASCE’s Rules of
Policy and Procedure and this manual and must comply with the terms of the
specific grant or contract with regard to allowances for travel expenses,
honoraria, compensation for time, writing and editing, or subject matter experts.
Participation by non-ASCE member consultants may be authorized as needed
for externally funded assessments and shall be subject to review by the
appropriate governing body and by the three-member panel appointed by the
ExCOM. Compensation for such consultants shall be provided in addition to
travel reimbursement in accordance with the ASCE Rules of Policy and
Procedure and this manual.
ASCE must be careful to only accept funding for assessments where
independence and objectivity can be assured, and external funding proposals
should be carefully evaluated for both actual and perceived conflicts of interest.
8. 8
Peer review of work done by or for owner agencies can be conducted by ASCE
teams subject to the owner agency’s understanding and acknowledgment that
the Society shall maintain strict ethical boundaries when conducting such work.
Agents of a funding source may not participate as a member of the assessment
team, in the assessment team’s selection, the assessment team’s work, or
closed meetings of the assessment team and may not contribute to the team’s
work product. Representatives of the funding provider can be extended an
invitation to participate in open meetings of the assessment team and be allowed
to express opinions for consideration by the team.
4.0 SELECTION OF TEAM LEADER
The governing body of the authorizing ASCE organizational entity shall appoint
the team leader to prepare a final recommendation for launching an assessment
team. For instance, for an assessment being conducted by the Structural
Engineering Institute (SEI), the authorization responsibility would reside with the
Board of Governors of SEI and hence the Board of Governors would appoint the
team leader.
Nominations for the position of team leader may be made by the members of the
governing body or by ASCE staff. The authorizing body need not consider
multiple nominations. Organizational entities that regularly undertake post-
disaster assessments are encouraged to establish a pool of prequalified team
leaders for a particular type of assessment. In the absence of an appropriate pool
of prequalified team leaders, nominees for this position should be evaluated on
the basis of the following:
Technical knowledge
Experience in conducting assessments
Experience leading assessments and/or teams/committees
General leadership capabilities
Experience with the media
Public and extemporaneous speaking skills
Translation needs if event is in a non-English-speaking country
Time availability
Team leader should not be a local resident
Personal funding requirements
Performance in meeting volunteer commitments and deadlines
Licensure – It is strongly preferred that the team leader be licensed, and
the team leader may need to be licensed in the jurisdiction of the
event.
Physical restrictions
International travel requirements—that is, the ability to obtain a visa
Security clearances required
9. 9
Conflicts of interest--real and perceived--and the disclosure thereof
internal and external to the Society
All nominees being considered for the position of team leader shall submit a
completed Agreement and Conflict of Interest Form (Appendices C and D). The
completed Conflict of Interest Form shall be provided to all members of the
authorizing body prior to their deliberations and decision.
Team leaders shall be members of the Society.
The team leader may be removed by action of the authorizing organizational
entity’s governing body, the ASCE ExCOM or the ASCE Board of Direction.
5.0 SELECTION OF ASSESSMENT TEAM MEMBERS
The Team leader shall assemble a list of candidates for membership on the
assessment team. The team leader may poll the organizational entity, ASCE
staff, other ASCE members, and nonmembers to determine interest, availability,
and detailed funding requirements for potential team members who can offer
specialized knowledge to the team. Organizational entities that regularly
undertake post-disaster assessments are encouraged to establish a pool of
prequalified team members for a particular type of assessment. The team leader
shall strive to assemble a team of sufficient size and character to conduct the
anticipated assessment. Final selection and appointment of the assessment
team members shall be made by the governing body of the ASCE entity that
appointed the team leader.
It is recognized that the size and composition of the team may vary over the
duration of the assessment.
All nominees for a position on the team shall submit a completed Agreement and
Conflict of Interest Form (Appendices C and D). It is preferable that the
completed Conflict of Interest Form be provided to all members of the authorizing
body prior to their deliberations and decision, but in no case shall the form be
provided to all members of the authorizing body later than seven days after the
appointment is made.
Team members must acknowledge that they participate at their own risk. They
shall be required to sign a liability release statement indicating that ASCE
assumes no responsibility for possible injury, death, property damage, or other
losses related to their participation on the assessment team.
Team members should be members of the Society, except for assessments that
require special expertise that is not readily available within the Society's
membership.
10. 10
Any assessment team member may be removed by action of the authorizing
organizational entity’s governing body in consultation with the team leader, the
ASCE ExCOM, or the ASCE Board of Direction.
In assembling the team, the team leader shall take the following factors into
consideration:
Overall team size
Geographic proximity of team member candidates to the event
Funding available for the assessment
Technical needs of the assessment effort
Representation from interested and affected organizations
Local representation: the team leader is strongly encouraged to have
representation from the local engineering community on the
assessment team.
Such individual characteristics as:
Technical knowledge
Experience in conducting assessments
Experience on teams/committees
General team aptitude
Experience with the media
Public and extemporaneous speaking skills
Translation needs if event is in a non-English-speaking country
Time availability
Proximity to the event
Local contacts for access
Personal funding requirements
Performance in meeting volunteer commitments and deadlines
Licensure
Physical restrictions
International travel requirements—that is, the ability to obtain a visa
Security clearances required
Conflicts of interest--real and perceived--and the disclosure thereof
internal and external to the Society
Prior to deployment of the team, ASCE staff shall communicate with the
applicable Section president, Branch president, and Region director regarding
the initiation of an assessment within the geographic boundaries of a particular
Section, Branch, or Region. The Region director shall be responsible for
appropriate communications with associated Region governors. Subject to
approval of the authorizing governing body, the Section and Branch presidents
may be afforded the opportunity to participate as corresponding members of the
assessment team or appoint a designee to serve as such. Corresponding
members do not have the right to vote or receive Society reimbursement for
11. 11
expenses, but may attend the assessment team’s open meetings and receive
correspondence, agendas, and minutes.
6.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Post-disaster assessment efforts may be conducted jointly with other
organizations. The terms and conditions of a joint effort shall be approved by the
governing body of the authorizing ASCE organizational entity and shall be
consistent with the guidance of this manual if the effort is led by ASCE. The
culture and operating procedures of the partnering organization(s) must be
recognized, and the roles and responsibilities of each organization clearly stated
in a written agreement between the partnering organizations. Past experience
has shown that carefully defining the roles and responsibilities greatly improves
cooperation and the operational success of the assessment.
In instances when ASCE is not the lead entity in a joint effort, if the roles,
responsibilities, and operating procedures differ significantly from those
contained in this manual, then the ASCE Executive Committee must approve the
participation.
Any joint assessment occurring within the geographic boundaries of an ASCE
Section shall be reported to that Section’s president prior to deployment of the
team.
It is recognized that post-disaster assessment efforts conducted by ASCE may
be of interest to related organizations with which ASCE has an existing
relationship. In those instances, the team leader and lead ASCE staff support
may establish an advisory group consisting of representatives from appropriate
interested organizations. Organizational membership on the advisory entity shall
be approved by the ASCE organizational entity authorizing the assessment.
The team leader, a designated team member, or lead ASCE staff support may be
assigned to provide detailed briefings to the advisory group and to engage the
group in open discussions on any or all aspects of the assessment effort. All
individuals participating in the discussions must provide a signed nondisclosure
and confidentiality agreement prior to participating.
Organizations participating in the advisory group shall be acknowledged in the
report of the assessment team.
12. 12
7.0 SCHEDULE
The team leader and lead ASCE staff support shall develop and maintain an
anticipated schedule of the assessment effort and regularly advise the
authorizing governing body of the progress of the effort and potential delays.
Although each assessment effort is unique, the following generic schedule is
offered as a starting point for consideration by the team leader and support staff,
with the recognition that these steps are rarely as linear as presented below:
1. Event occurs
2. Decision is made to conduct an assessment
3. Access to site is verified
4. Funding source is determined and initial level established
5. Team leader is appointed
6. Assessment team members are appointed
7. Initial conference call of team is conducted
a. Discussion of roles and assignments
b. Discussion of scope of assessment
c. Briefing on anticipated field conditions
d. External communications protocols reviewed
8. Team is deployed to site
a. Individuals are responsible for securing appropriate safety
equipment, such as steel-toed shoes, goggles, ear protection,
etc. Some specialized safety equipment may be provided at the
site.
b. A safety briefing must be provided prior to accessing the site
c. Field office established if needed
d. Internal communications verified
e. On-site schedule, assignments and responsibilities verified
9. Team gathers perishable data on-site (photographic, video,
physical, etc.)
10. Closure of field visit review and discussion
a. Generally anticipate that there will only be a single field visit for
an assessment
b. Discussion of theories
c. Draft outline of report created
d. Principal writing assignments made
e. Establish schedule of report development: in-person meetings
required, conference calls required, estimated dates, etc.
f. Obtain agreement/commitment in writing from all team members
to adhere to the schedule developed for writing the report.
11. Report development, review and publication
13. 13
8.0 STAFF SUPPORT
The ASCE executive director or designee shall appoint at least one member of
ASCE staff to provide support to the assessment team. If more than one staff
member is assigned to an assessment team, one staff member shall be
designated lead ASCE staff support.
ASCE staff can be integral to the assessment effort and can be an important part
of the assessment team. Input from professional Society staff can be considered
by the team; however, unless specifically authorized by the authorizing
organizational entity (or in the case of externally funded assessments, by the
oversight panel appointed by the ExCOM) and the ASCE executive director or
designee, ASCE staff are not permitted to be voting members of an assessment
team. Staff is generally available to provide support and advice to the team and,
unless otherwise authorized, is expected to guard against influencing
conclusions and recommendations.
8.1 Engineering Programs
Assessment teams sponsored by an ASCE institute or a division or technical
council of the Technical Activities Committee (TAC) can expect initial guidance
on forming a team from the staff assigned to these activities. Depending on the
scope and complexity of the incident being assessed, staff may be available to
assist with securing funding approval, budget preparation, travel arrangements,
letters of introduction, and providing local contacts.
Institute or TAC staff are responsible for approving the expenditure of authorized
funds and are also the point of contact with other ASCE staff that may be
assisting with the assessment.
8.2 Legal
The Society’s legal counsel is responsible for providing the appropriate
agreement and disclosure documents to assessment team members and for
distributing ASCE’s policies related to assessment teams. The lead ASCE staff
support shall assist in coordinating and collecting signatures on all necessary
documents. Signed documents from each team member must be received at
ASCE headquarters prior to deployment with the team.
8.3 Communications
Team interaction with the media is governed by the Assessment Team Media
Policy (Appendix B). The ASCE communications department is responsible for
coordinating all contact between the team and the media. Team members are
required to acknowledge and adhere to the media policy.
14. 14
8.4 Publications
The production staff of the ASCE publications department is available for
providing guidance on the publication of the team’s final report.
9.0 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
ASCE’s communications department shall be responsible for coordinating media
contacts and disseminating information to the public as needed on all post-
disaster assessments undertaken by ASCE. ASCE staff shall work with the team
leader to ensure that the public receives timely and factual information and
assistance as needed without hindering the work of the team. The team leader is
responsible for maintaining the integrity of the assessment and for releasing any
preliminary findings and information to the public and media.
9.1 Public Information
9.1.1 Web Site
Staff normally shall maintain a publicly accessible Web page for each
assessment team. The contents of the page may include, but shall not
necessarily be limited to, team announcements, explanations of the team’s scope
of work, rosters, press releases, approved findings/reports (preliminary and final),
and status reports/announcements.
9.1.2 Meetings/Public Comment
Whenever appropriate and feasible, provisions should be made for public
comment both during the course of the team’s assessment and engineering
review and upon release of its draft final report. A variety of methods may be
used to facilitate broader public input, including online message boards, list
serves, or e-mail. Registration, advance notice, and limits on length and scope
may be established. Public comment is intended to further inform the work of the
team, and individual responses to public comment shall not be provided.
Reasonable accommodations should be made to allow for public and media
access to portions of team meetings that are open to the public.
9.2 Media Policy
9.2.1 Access
To facilitate a timely and appropriate response, media and public inquires must
be coordinated through the ASCE communications department. Media interaction
shall be governed by the established Assessment Team Media Policy (Appendix
15. 15
B). Until the assessment team’s final report is publicly released, members of the
assessment team shall not participate in briefings, blog postings, conferences,
public or professional presentations, or other public communications related to
the assessment team’s work without the approval of the team leader and
communications department.
9.2.2 Briefings
Periodic media briefings may be scheduled to report on the progress of the
assessment team’s engineering review. The schedule for these briefings shall be
developed by the ASCE communications department in conjunction with the
team leader, and may include, but not be limited to, key milestones such as: the
announcement of the formation of an assessment team and its scope of work;
the appointment of the team leader and team members; the conclusion of field
visits, testing, and other major studies; and the release of the team’s primary
findings.
9.2.3 Authorized Spokespersons
The team leader serves as the designated spokesperson for the team and is
responsible for ensuring that any public information or public communications
related to the team’s work or findings represent the consensus of the team as a
whole. The team leader may designate an alternate team member to serve in
his/her place as the spokesperson, in which case the alternate shall be held to
the same standard regarding team consensus..
9.2.4 Assessment Team Media Policy
ASCE’s Assessment Team Media Policy (Appendix B)1
governs all interaction
between assessment team members and the media during the course of an
active post-disaster assessment. Upon public release of the team’s draft final
report, all parties are released from the terms of this policy.
1
Model Federal Agency Media Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists, Tarek Maassarani, author,
formerly lead investigator for the Government Accountability Project. The language draws from
media policies adopted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Model-Media-Policy-1.pdf
16. 16
10.0 ASSESSMENT TEAM RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST
Assessment team members have an ethical and legal obligation to produce a
work product that is objective, thorough, independent, and technically sound.
Conflicts of interest occur when an individual team member’s ability to fulfill this
obligation to the team is threatened by the individual’s personal loyalties or
financial ties. To ensure that ASCE’s assessment teams are fairly balanced,
independent, and free of conflicts of interest, ASCE shall evaluate each
assessment team candidate’s bias, objectivity, and conflicts of interest,
recognizing that the existence of a possible bias may not necessarily disqualify a
candidate from participation but shall be taken into account relative to the
composition of the assessment team and in conjunction with other applicable
factors.
Each member of the assessment team must agree to be bound by the provisions
of ASCE’s Code of Ethics and to comply with ASCE’s standards of ethical
conduct in connection with the assessment team’s activities. Consistent with this
obligation, each member of the assessment team must sign an Acknowledgment
of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities, Terms, and Conditions and Waiver
and Release (Appendix C).
Each member of the assessment team must also complete and update annually,
or more frequently as appropriate, ASCE’s Conflict of Interest Policy,
Acknowledgement and Disclosure Form (Appendix D). By doing so, each
assessment team member must also acknowledge his/her review of ASCE’s
Conflict of Interest Policy and Guidelines for Compliance with ASCE’s Conflicts of
Interest Policy (Appendix E). Disclosure of relevant information, including new or
changed information, is a continuing obligation of assessment team members
throughout the duration of the assessment team’s work. Each assessment team
member shall also be expected to participate in an orientation followed by annual
briefings on ASCE’s Conflicts of Interest Policy.
11.0 TEAM FINDINGS
The results of the assessment effort shall be presented in a written report
prepared by the members of the team and representing the consensus views of
the team. Teams are, however, cautioned not to allow a desire for unanimity to
weaken the contents of their report, as the profession may be better served by
the presentation of areas of disagreement along with the supporting rationale for
each.
In view of the consideration that “consensus” does not necessarily mean
“unanimity,” the team leader is encouraged to employ specific voting processes
to assist the team in reaching a consensus. At his/her discretion, the team
17. 17
leader may wish to employ the procedures for reaching consensus as contained
in the ASCE Rules for Standards Committees.
It is acceptable for the team’s report to express differing views or theories. It is
recommended that it should be the consensus of the team members that
including minority views are warranted. Limitations may be placed on the length
of any individual minority view contained within the report, the precise nature of
the limitation being determined by the team leader.
12.0 PUBLICATION OF ASSESSMENT REPORT
Unless other arrangements are made, the final report of an assessment team’s
findings shall be published by ASCE and may be made available in whole or part
on the ASCE Website or other electronic venues. ASCE staff shall also forward
the final report to the applicable Section president, Branch president, and Region
director.
Final assessment team reports are published as an ASCE committee report in
accordance with the latest edition of “ASCE Publications & Publications Policies.”
Staff shall submit final reports in a digital format acceptable to ASCE’s
publications staff. Final reports must include the secured permissions of any non-
ASCE copyrighted material, including photographs, sketches, tables, and similar
work that are to be published in the report. It is recommended that the team’s
written report comply with the latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style.
Special arrangements can be made to post preliminary team findings on the
ASCE Web site, with permission of the ASCE publisher.
Prior to publication, the ASCE organizational entity authorizing the assessment
team must approve the final report for publication. The organizational entity must
conduct a peer review of the final report. During the peer review process, all
comments should receive a formal response. The organizational entity should be
assured that all comments during the peer review were appropriately addressed
by the assessment team.
It is understood that an assessment team’s final report is the intellectual property
of the American Society of Civil Engineers. It is also understood that ASCE’s
ownership shall also extend to any photographs, sketches, or similar depictions
obtained during the team’s assessment process.
A grant or contract on an externally funded or jointly sponsored assessment team
may require that publication of the team’s findings be done by a third party or that
the content be kept in the public domain. Such provisions shall not, however,
preclude the need for review and approval of the final report by ASCE.
18. 18
The use of the ASCE mark or the marks of its institutes, affiliates, or
organizational entities implies that the work has been approved for publication by
the Society following the prescribed peer review and approval process.
19. 19
APPENDIX A
ASCE POST-DISASTER ASSESSMENT TEAM REQUEST FORM
Date
ASCE Organizational Entity (Technical Council/Committee/Institute)
Date of Disaster
Location of Area Impacted
(City, State, Country)
Site Safety & Accessibility Considerations
Description of project's consistency with ASCE vision, mission, and goals (specifically
the advancement of the science of engineering & engineering education)
Expected work product(s) resulting from the assessment
Scope of the assessment, including overview of facilities impacted
Summary of methodology and technical expertise required
Related assessment efforts (internal or external to ASCE)
1. ASCE Organizational Entity
2. Project Information
20. 20
Total Estimated Budget (attach detailed spreadsheet as needed)
Proposed Schedule/Timeline
Name
ASCE Membership No.
Address
City
State Zip
Work Phone
Home Phone
Cell Phone
Prior Related Experience (years of training and summary of qualifications)
Name
ASCE Membership No.
Address
City
State Zip
Work Phone
Home Phone
Cell Phone
List Any Alternate
Funding Sources
3. Proposed Team Leader
4. Proposed Team Members
4. Proposed Team Members (continued)
21. 21
Name
ASCE Membership No.
Address
City
State Zip
Work Phone
Home Phone
Cell Phone
List Any Alternate
Funding Sources
Name
ASCE Membership No.
Address
City
State Zip
Work Phone
Home Phone
Cell Phone
List Any Alternate
Funding Sources
Request Approved Request Denied
Reviewed by:
Executive Director for ASCE funding up to allowable limit
ASCE EXCOM or BOD for ASCE funding beyond
ll bl li it
ASCE EXCOM for external funding
Signature
Date
For ASCE use only
22. 22
APPENDIX B
Model ASCE Assessment Team Media Policy
Section 1: Purpose
.01 This policy governs assessment team media communications including advisories, press
releases, statements, interviews, news conferences, and other related media contacts. The
ASCE communications department has been established to facilitate the active dissemination
of team findings and to coordinate media and public relations activities. A principal goal of
communications is to help assessment teams most efficiently achieve their mission through the
advancement of sound and objective science.
Section 2: Rights
.01 During the course of an active study, public communications must represent the views of
the team rather than its individual members. Upon public release of the team’s final report,
team members have the fundamental right to express their personal views, provided they
specify that they are not speaking on behalf of, or as a representative of, the team. As long as
this disclaimer is made, the team member is permitted to mention his or her affiliation and
position with the team if this has helped inform his or her views on the matter.
.02 Team members have the right to review, approve, and comment publicly on the final
version of any proposed publication that significantly relies on their research, identifies them as
an author or contributor, or purports to represent their scientific opinion.
.03 Final authority over the content of and parties to any particular media communication
resides with the reporter and the designated spokesperson with whom he or she
communicates.
Section 3: Responsibilities
.01 The ASCE communications department is responsible for:
1. Promoting media attention on important scientific and institutional developments
relating to the assessment team’s work.
2. Coordinating and facilitating contact between journalists and the requested team
member(s).
3. Providing both reporters and team members with timely, accurate, and professional
media assistance.
4. Providing draft press releases or other public statements to team members whose
work is included, to assure the accuracy of scientific information being communicated.
Press releases containing potentially sensitive or controversial content must be pre-
approved by ASCE's President and Executive Director.
5. Coordinating with appropriate personnel of the sponsoring or related organizations.
6. Maintaining a publicly accessible assessment team Web site.
.02 Team members are responsible for working with the ASCE communications department to
make significant findings accessible and comprehensible to the public.
23. 23
.03 Team members are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their communications and
should not represent the team on issues related to their work without prior approval from the
ASCE communications department.
Section 4: Media and Public Interactions
.01 To help the ASCE communications department best fulfill its responsibilities, team
members shall:
1. Keep the communications department informed of any media contact, interest, or
potential for interest in their work.
2. Notify the communications department immediately of impending contact from the
media and provide the department with a recap of the non-confidential aspects of the
media conversation afterward.
3. Review drafts of press releases written by the communications department both for
the accuracy of scientific information being communicated and for format and
nonscientific content, and do so in a timely fashion.
4. Work with the communications department to review presentations or news
conferences for their format and content to assure the accuracy of scientific
information being communicated.
.02 The ASCE Communications Department shall:
1. Respond to all initial media inquiries as soon as possible.
2. Do all that they can to help reporters get the appropriate information needed for an
article.
3. Know the reporter’s deadline to ensure timely response.
4. Provide contact information as to where a staff contact will be available, even after
hours, on weekends and on holidays.
5. Draft regional and national press releases about the assessment team’s work
whenever warranted.
6. Ensure a timely turnaround on press releases.
7. Develop (or coordinate the development of) talking points in collaboration with the
team leader for the release of findings and other team products.
Section 5: Media Coverage
.01 In the spirit of openness, media representatives must be granted free access to open
meetings convened by the team, as well as permission to reasonably use tape recorders,
cameras, and electronic equipment for broadcast purposes.
.02 The ASCE communications department staff member coordinating a meeting may be
present, or consulted, to undertake all responsibilities of a news media nature, including but
not restricted to necessary physical arrangements.
.03 It shall be the responsibility of the ASCE communications department to cooperate fully
with and accede to all reasonable requests from news media representatives.
24. 24
Section 6: Internal Reporting
.01 Assessment teams shall offer an internal disclosure system to allow for the confidential
reporting and meaningful resolution of inappropriate alterations, conduct, or conflicts of interest
that arise with regard to media communications. The system shall also allow for the team
member’s written assessment of whether the matter was resolved to his or her satisfaction.
25. 25
APPENDIX C:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES, TERMS
AND CONDITIONS, AND WAIVER AND RELEASE
By my signature below, I affirm that I have read and understood the “ASCE Post-Disaster
Assessment Manual” and, in consideration for my participation as a member of the
____________________________________ (hereafter, “assessment team”), hereby agree as
follows:
• I am familiar with the ASCE Code of Ethics, and I agree to be bound by its provisions. I
shall adhere to ASCE’s standards of ethical conduct in performance of my
responsibilities as a member of the assessment team.
• I acknowledge that I shall have access to confidential and proprietary information in
connection with my participation on the assessment team, and I agree to maintain strict
confidentiality of all such information. I agree not to disclose any confidential or
proprietary information I may receive in connection with assessment team activities,
except as required by law or with prior written permission from ASCE.
• I agree that all works prepared by me or the assessment team during the course of its
activities are irrevocably assigned to ASCE, and shall remain the exclusive property of
ASCE. Further, I grant and convey unto ASCE all rights, title, and interest in any and all
photographic images and video or audio recordings made by me or the assessment
team during the assessment, including, but not limited to, any royalties, proceeds, or
other benefits derived from such photographs or recordings.
• I understand that my work on the assessment team may involve hazardous activities,
including, but not limited to, risks involved in traveling to, from, and within locations;
differing political, legal, medical, social and economic conditions; different standards of
design, safety, and maintenance of buildings, public places, and conveyances; and
unsafe weather, environmental, or other conditions. I expressly and specifically assume
all risk of injury, loss, or harm in my participation on the assessment team.
• I agree to observe appropriate safety precautions in all activities I undertake in
connection with my performance as an assessment team member, including, but not
limited to, the safety protocols set forth in the “ASCE Post-Disaster Assessment
Manual.”
• I understand that ASCE does not carry or maintain health, medical, or disability
insurance coverage for me, and I agree that ASCE assumes no responsibility for health
care expenses incurred prior to, during, or after my participation on the assessment
team.
• I release, waive, and covenant not to sue ASCE, and its affiliates, institutes, sections,
branches, officers, directors, employees, members, and agents from any and all debts,
demands, or liabilities for injury or damage arising directly or indirectly from my
participation on the assessment team.
• I agree to comply strictly with the terms of the “ASCE Post-Disaster Assessment
26. 26
Manual,” including ASCE’s Assessment Team Media Policy.
• Until the assessment team’s final report is publicly released, I shall not participate in
briefings, blog postings, conferences, public or professional presentations, or other
public communications related to the assessment team’s work without the approval of
the team leader and the communications department.
• I understand that I shall be reimbursed for my travel expenses incurred during my
participation on the assessment team in accordance with ASCE’s standard travel
reimbursement policy, as set forth in Article 8 of ASCE’s Rules of Policy & Procedure.
I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS AGREEMENT AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS
CONTENTS. I AM AWARE THAT THIS IS A RELEASE OF LIABILITY, A PROMISE NOT
TO SUE, AND A CONTRACT BETWEEN ME AND ASCE.
_________________________________________ ______________________________________
Signature Date
_________________________________________
Printed Name
27. 27
APPENDIX D
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM
Name: ___________________________________________ Telephone No.: __________________________
Address: _________________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________
City/State/Zip: _________________________ ASCE Member? No / Yes [Member Grade: ______]
INSTRUCTIONS:
As a member of an ASCE task force, panel, or other committee, you are required to comply with ASCE’s
policy on conflicts of interest. ASCE’s policy on conflicts of interest is set forth as follows:
A Conflict of Interest shall be defined as any activity, transaction, relationship, service, or
consideration which is, or appears to be, contrary to the best interests of the Society, or in which
the interests of an individual or another organization has the potential to be placed above those of
the Society. Any interested individual must disclose the existence of any actual or possible
Conflict of Interest and all material facts to the Society entity considering the proposed
transaction. Action to address the conflict shall be taken by either the interested individual or the
Society entity. (ASCE Bylaws §10.1)
Please complete both sides of this form and return a signed original to ASCE by mail, fax, or e-mail to the
address listed on the opposite side of this form. When completing the form, please identify information that
relates to the subject matter and issues to be addressed by the assessment team. If you need additional
space, please continue on a separate sheet of paper. Where appropriate, please attach your curriculum
vitae and make appropriate references in your response.
DEFINITIONS:
• Assessment Team = the task force, panel, or other committee on which you have been invited to
serve.
• Related Party = you, your immediate family, your employer, or any other person with which you
share a significant financial interest.
• Relevant = related to the subject matter and issues to be addressed by the assessment team
PART I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES
Employment Relationships: Please list your current employer and any employer that pays you or a Related
Party in excess of $10,000 annually
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Ownership/Investment Interests: Please list any Relevant business, property, or other entity in which you or a
Related Party holds an ownership or security interest valued at $25,000 or higher
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
28. 28
Organizational Affiliates and Committees: Please list any Relevant memberships in professional and trade
associations, public interest or civic groups, etc., currently held by you or a Related Party, and all current and
Relevant offices, directorships, or committee memberships in any such organization. Include also any current and
Relevant ASCE offices, directorships, or committee memberships.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Government Service: Please list any past or present Relevant service to federal, state, or local government by
you or a Related Party. Include Relevant elected and appointed positions, employment, advisory positions,
contractual agreements, etc.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Research Support: Please list any public or private sources of funding for any Relevant research projects
undertaken by you or a Related Party (excluding funding by a present employer) within the past ten (10) years.
Include also support in the form of equipment, facilities, funding sources, etc.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Publications, Speeches, or Public Positions: Please list any Relevant articles, testimony, speeches, or other
public statements made by you or a Related Party. Include any Relevant positions of groups or organizations with
which you are closely associated.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Additional Information: Please list any other Relevant facts or circumstances that might reasonably be
construed to be a source of bias or to affect your judgment on issues to be undertaken by the assessment team.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
PART II. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
I have reviewed the Guidelines for Compliance with ASCE’s Conflicts of Interest Policy and, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, except as disclosed on this form, neither I nor any Related Party is engaged in any
transaction or activity or has any relationship that may represent a potential Conflict of Interest or be contrary to
the best interests of the Society. I agree immediately to disclose to the Society any potential Conflict of Interest
that should arise hereafter.
30. 30
APPENDIX E:
GUIDELINES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ASCE’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST
POLICY:
POST-DISASTER ASSESSMENT TEAM
The purpose of ASCE’s conflict of interest policy as applied to post-disaster
assessment teams (assessment teams) is to protect the Society’s interests in
producing objective, technically sound, and reliable reports on subject matters of
importance to the civil engineering community and the public at large. ASCE’s
policy on Conflicts of Interest is set forth in its Bylaws as follows:
A Conflict of Interest shall be defined as any activity, transaction,
relationship, service, or consideration which is, or appears to be, contrary
to the best interests of the Society, or in which the interests of an
individual or another organization has the potential to be placed above
those of the Society. Any interested individual must disclose the existence
of any actual or possible Conflict of Interest and all material facts to the
Society entity considering the proposed transaction. Action to address the
conflict shall be taken by either the interested individual or the Society
entity. (ASCE Bylaws §10.1)
These guidelines are intended to supplement the provisions of ASCE’s Conflict of
Interest Policy and to ensure that post-disaster engineering reviews continue to
be conducted ethically and professionally, both to advance the engineering
profession and to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Assessment teams are established and supported by ASCE to investigate and
report on engineering matters of importance to the profession and the public at
large. ASCE’s assessment teams must be fairly balanced, independent and free
from conflicts of interest. To meet this objective, ASCE shall evaluate an
individual’s bias, objectivity, and conflicts of interest, recognizing that the
existence of a possible bias shall be taken into account relative to the
composition of the assessment team but may not necessarily disqualify an
individual. As a member of an assessment team, team members have an ethical
obligation to produce work product and reports that are objective, thorough, and
technically sound. Conflicts of interest occur when an individual’s ability to fulfill
that ethical obligation is threatened by the individual’s personal loyalties or
financial ties.
I. Definition
ASCE’s conflict of interest policy encompasses three types of conflicts of interest:
actual, potential, and perceived. While “actual” conflicts—situations where the
person’s private interests are directly opposed to those of the assessment
team—are the most easily recognized, individuals must also consider
circumstances in which the Team’s activities might possibly affect the individual’s
31. 31
personal interests, or even where they might simply be perceived to have an
influence on personal interest. The true test of a conflict of interest is not whether
the individual believes he/she can serve in an objective and impartial manner as
a member of the assessment team, but whether an observer, in reviewing the
actions of the team member, might reasonably believe that the individual’s
actions could be influenced by motives other than the desire to produce a
technically sound and unbiased report for the benefit of the civil engineering
profession and the public at large.
The possibility of a conflict of interest need not exclude a person from taking part
in an assessment team. Some conflicts may be so substantial as to exclude a
person from participating on an assessment team, such as where an individual
had personal involvement in an engineering project which the team is being
asked to review. But in other cases--particularly in areas with a broad impact on
the community or with a limited pool of experts where it may be difficult, if not
impossible, to locate someone with no potential connection to a subject--it may
simply be necessary to ensure that the assessment team members are selected
in such a way as to represent a balanced spectrum of competing interests.
The following list gives some examples of the types of conflict of interest a
member of an ASCE assessment team is required to disclose under the
provisions of ASCE’s Conflict of Interest Policy. This list should by no means be
interpreted to include all possible conflicts of interest that a team member is
required to disclose, and anyone with concerns over whether a situation requires
disclosure under this policy is invited to contact ASCE’s general counsel, or to
act in favor of full disclosure in accordance with Section III of this document.
II. Types of Conflict of Interests Requiring Disclosure
1. Financial Interests. Financial interests that must be disclosed pursuant to
ASCE’s conflict of interest policy include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. Employment by or a leadership position with any party whose
business interests could be harmed or helped by an action or
position of the assessment team.
b. Ownership or investment interest, contractual or consulting
relationship, or any other financial interest in any party whose
business could be harmed or helped by an action or position of the
assessment team.
c. Any other financial interest that may be affected by an action or
position of the assessment team.
32. 32
2. Personal Relationships. ASCE’s conflict of interest policy requires
disclosure of any personal relationship with an individual who may have a
potentially competing interest. Personal relationships include (but are not
limited to) immediate family members—spouse, parents, siblings,
children—and potentially competing interests include (but are not limited
to) the following:
a. Individuals who are or have been involved in any aspect of
planning, funding, or implementing the project, process, or issue
that is the subject of the assessment.
b. Individuals having an employment, ownership, or other financial
relationship with any party that may be harmed or helped by an
action or position of the assessment team.
c. Individuals employed by or representing any federal, state, or local
agency whose activities or operations may be helped or harmed by
an action or position of the assessment team.
d. Individuals who have any other financial or personal interest that
may be affected by an action or position of the assessment team.
Examples
Example 1: ASCE has been authorized to receive funding to perform an
assessment of the impacts of an earthquake on a city’s critical infrastructure. An
individual employed by the funding agency would like to participate on the
assessment team. The individual would be required to disclose the conflict of
interest and would be excluded from service on the assessment team. An
individual employed by the funding agency may not serve on the assessment
team charged with preparing an independent, objective assessment; however it
may be appropriate for such person to provide information and to participate in
discussions with the assessment team upon invitation during open meetings,
without serving as a member of the assessment team and without having a vote.
Example 2: ASCE has commissioned a task force to perform a forensic analysis
of structures that unexpectedly failed following a minor earthquake. An individual
asked to participate in this analysis has a sister employed by the firm that
designed many of these structures. The individual would be required to disclose
this conflict of interest and would be excluded from service on this assessment
team. However, this individual may be able to provide information to the
assessment team and to participate in discussions with the assessment team
upon invitation during open meetings, without serving as a member of the
assessment team and without having a vote.
33. 33
Example 3: In Example 2 above, an individual who asked to participate in the
analysis works for a direct competitor in the same city and technical discipline as
the firm that designed many of the structures. The individual would be required
to disclose this conflict of interest and may be included or excluded from service
on the assessment team depending upon the circumstances. Factors to be
considered include the individual’s unique expertise, committee composition and
balance, and whether such circumstances are unavoidable.
Example 4: ASCE has been asked to establish an assessment team to perform
an assessment of a state agency’s report on the cause of a major bridge
collapse. An ASCE member asked to serve on the assessment team has a
consulting business that performs regular work for a firm involved in the
construction of the bridge. The individual would be required to disclose this
conflict of interest and would be excluded from service on the assessment team.
Again however, this individual may be able to provide information to the
assessment team and to participate in discussions with the assessment team
upon invitation during open meetings, without serving as a member of the
assessment team and without having a vote.
III. Procedures for Addressing a Conflict of Interest
1. Disclosure. Any person who believes he/she has a possible conflict of
interest must disclose this conflict, and any material facts related to that
conflict of interest, to the Society as required in ASCE’s “Post-Disaster
Assessment Manual.” ASCE’s conflict policy and procedures include two
disclosure requirements:
a. Completion of a conflict of interest disclosure form upon
acceptance of a position on an assessment team.
b. Duty to supplement this initial disclosure in the event of any change
of circumstances following acceptance of a position on an
assessment team that gives rise to a possible conflict of interest.
2. Determining if a Conflict of Interest Exists. Team member disclosure
forms shall be reviewed by ASCE staff, the team leader, and the
authorizing organizational entity’s governing body, and if necessary, also
may be reviewed by the ASCE ExCOM and the ASCE Board of Direction.
The team leader’s disclosure form shall be reviewed by ASCE staff and
the authorizing organizational entity’s governing body, and if necessary,
also may be reviewed by the ASCE ExCOM and ASCE Board of Direction.
Any party who believes he/she has a possible conflict of interest may elect
to disclose the conflict and terminate his/her involvement in the
assessment team without the need for a formal decision from the Society.
34. 34
Alternatively, upon receipt of a conflict of interest disclosure, ASCE shall
review the disclosure notice and make a final determination as to whether
the circumstances represent a possible conflict of interest.
3. Addressing a Conflict of Interest. If ASCE finds that a possible conflict of
interest exists, it must determine the extent to which the disclosing party
may participate in the discussion and/or decision process. Factors to be
considered in this decision include the severity of the possible conflict, the
openness of the deliberation process and the availability of records
supporting the decision, the degree to which the assessment team reflects
a balance of competing interests, and the likelihood that the decision will
be perceived as reflecting improper influence. Options include:
a. The disclosing party must terminate his/her involvement in the
assessment team.
b. The disclosing party may take part in discussing the subject giving
rise to the conflict of interest (provided that the party must preface
any such participation with an acknowledgement of the conflict of
interest), but may not take part in any final decisions made with
respect to this matter.
c. The disclosing party may take part in the discussion and decision,
notwithstanding the existence of a conflict of interest. This option
should only be considered in cases where the possible conflict is
insubstantial or the assessment team has been constituted to
reflect a balance of competing interests and the conflict is not so
substantial as to significantly impair the individual’s objectivity.
4. Confidentiality. Conflict of Interest Policy, Acknowledgement and
Disclosure forms shall be maintained confidentially by ASCE, except as
provided herein or as otherwise required by law.
IV. Questions
Please contact ASCE’s general counsel with any questions or concerns you may
have about ASCE’s conflict of interest policy or this guidelines document:
Tom Smith Tara Hoke
Asst. Executive Director & General Counsel Asst. General Counsel
(703) 295-6061 (703) 295-6151
tsmith@asce.org thoke@asce.org
35. 35
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
Assessment team – ASCE post-disaster assessment team
ExCOM – ASCE Executive Committee
Manual – ASCE Post-Disaster Assessment Manual
Organizational entity - ASCE technical council, division, committee, institute, etc.
SCOPE – ASCE’s staff Standing Committee on Project Evaluation
TAC – Technical Activities Committee
TCERP - Task Committee on Engineering Review Procedures