8.10 Measuring Public Education Success
An effective damage prevention education program includes structured annual or biennial (every two years) measurement(s) to gauge the success of the overall program.
Damage prevention education program effectiveness can be gauged in several ways. Consider the following examples:
- Use of a direct-mail or telephone survey to effectively determine how one call center and/or member facility customers are hearing and recalling the damage prevention message.
- Use of Arbitron Areas of Dominant Influence (ADI) boundaries to measure increases in one call center call volume and/or member facility owners/operators’ one call messages is also an effective measurement. For a given area, these can be compared against the money and resources used in that area for further indications of program effectiveness.
- The collection and tracking of individual or collective facility owners/operators’ damage information from year to year is another outstanding method of measuring success, providing that other internal factors at a given facility owner/operator remain constant.
- Various one call centers including CT, GA, IL, IA, KY, MS, MO, NC, OK, OH, and WI
- API Data Collection Initiative
- INGAA Foundation Pipeline Safety Awareness Material Focus Group Research Report
- “Presentation of Findings: OPS/DAMQAT Underground Facility Damage Prevention Study” (nationwide survey)
- “Presentation of Findings: DAMQAT Pilot Evaluation Study” (regional survey)
- Great Lakes Common Carrier Committee Six-State Survey
- Virginia State Corporation Commission survey on why damages occur
- PHMSA 9 Elements (PIPES ACT)