Conducting a school emergency communications survey

September 15, 2015 by
Internal public address for school emergency communications

Internal and external public address systems can be among the most effective means of school emergency communications. Periodic testing of these systems can be important.

 

School emergency communications is important

Regardless of the type of school emergency, the ability of staff to communicate can be a life and death matter. Today, there are often numerous options for school emergency communication.

All of these approaches have two things in common:

  1. They require humans to take some form of action.
  2. They have the potential for failure.

As almost any option for emergency communications can quickly become a life-saving capability, it is important to develop an approach to periodically test each option. There are a variety of ways to test specific systems, but I thought it would be helpful to provide some examples of how to test two of the most basic and important systems schools for a wide array of school emergencies: internal and external public address systems. While there are a number of excellent emergency communications alternatives, these two options are often still the fastest and most reliable way to communicate the need for students and staff to implement emergency protective actions such as lockdown and severe weather sheltering.

Testing emergency communications for internal public address

As a primary means of emergency communications for most K12 schools, it can be important to test the reliability of internal public address systems. When we assess schools, our analysts interview personnel in various parts of each building to see if they can not only hear, but just as importantly, understand announcements. We also suggest that our clients conduct an internal public address survey annually for each school. This can be done with a simple test announcement which instructs staff to email a contact point to let them know if they did or did not understand the test announcement. Of course, it is important to look at the responses to see if any areas with internal public address did not respond at all. Pay particular attention to gymnasiums, pool areas, kitchens, cafeterias, weight rooms, vocational shops, and other areas where noisy conditions often exist.

Testing emergency communications for external public address

One of the best emergency communications systems from a cost/benefit ration perspective, schools that have reliable external public address capability can warn students and staff who are in outdoor areas much more quickly and often more accurately than schools that either lack this capability or that attempt to use automated warning systems. To test external public address capability, we suggest that staff be surveyed to ask if they have noticed any outdoor areas where they have experienced problems hearing and understanding announcements.   In addition, it is a good idea to position personnel in specific critical areas such as bus and parent loading and unloading areas, playgrounds, and athletic fields to see how clearly they can hear a test announcement.

Take appropriate corrective action

This type of testing will often reveal the need for adjustments to equipment or in some cases the need for additional speakers. It is important to follow through when concerns are identified. Sometimes it may not be feasible to correct problems with older systems. If this is the case, thoughtful alternative communications approaches should be developed to address the concern.

Many of our clients have dramatically improved their ability to communicate in an emergency by conducting these types of tests and taking corrective action. Take the time to test the approaches you rely on to warn people of danger – lives may someday depend on it.

 

Filed Under: Michael Dorn Tagged With: , , ,

When School Safety Software is Slower

September 1, 2015 by
Touch Screen Directory

While designed to make it easier for travelers to find information, this airport electronic information board slows down the process and inconveniences people who need to use it. Some school safety software solutions also slow people down. This can be dangerous in emergency situations.

Software can be Slower than the Human Brain

While flying out of the Atlanta Airport last week, I was reminded of the need to write this column.  A while back, I went to a concourse information board to find a restaurant.  I quickly realized that they had installed a very sophisticated and interactive information board to help travelers.  As I stood in line watching people try to figure out how to use the new device, it became quickly apparent that though the new board was more robust, had much better graphics and looked really cool, it was dramatically slower to use.

Unexpected Outcomes

The new board has touch screen capability which allows the user to navigate to a wide variety of different screens.   Unfortunately, this means that only one person at a time can look at the board for information.  With the old single display map four or five people could look at the board and find what they are looking for at one time.  When I used the board last week, I found that people are still standing in line trying to figure out how to use the innovative but slow device.  While this information board probably results in millions of wasted minutes for travelers each month, it does not endanger anyone’s life.  When similar delays result from technology that is designed for school crisis situations, inconvenience can become life-threatening.

New School Safety Software

We are contacted by school safety product vendors with new school safety solutions every week.  We have found some new products to be impressive and practical while others cause us concern.  For example, a number of vendors now offer solutions which allow school crisis plans to be viewed on portable devices.  We considered making our school crisis planning templates available in this format about five years ago.  Our planning team decided that this was not a wise approach after looking at the research of Dr. Gary Klein and considering feedback from school and public safety officials who had experienced significant problems with software-based crisis plans during actual emergency situations.

Unrealistic School Safety Software Can Kill

In one case, a client who had paid more than one million dollars for a computerized school crisis plan was successfully sued after the death of a student.  Our client could not understand how an administrator who had received several days of emergency preparedness training could perform so poorly, forgetting even the most basic action steps.  When we performed one-on-one controlled simulations with a variety of school administrators in the district, we learned that they could not make reasonable and prompt decisions fast enough because they had been inadvertently conditioned to think that they would be able to pull up the action steps if faced with a crisis.  As this was a large urban school district that has experienced a large number of fatal school crisis events, it was troubling to see how ill-prepared administrators were to make life and death decisions.

Test Your School Safety Software Solutions

We have seen numerous instances of technology solutions that like the airport information station, appear to be very helpful at first glance, but can actually make matters worse because of false assumptions about how effective they will be under fast-breaking and stressful conditions.  As we have advised many times, new approaches should be thoroughly tested using scenario-based prompting which requires individuals to react in very short time frames.  If it does not work in simulations, things will most likely get worse when young lives are actually at risk.

Filed Under: Michael Dorn, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,

It All Depends – Situational School Security

August 14, 2015 by
While school security experts typically recommend that fencing for schools permit open viewing to reduce crime, there are exceptions. Because this Florida school serves a number of autistic children and has a swamp located next to this side of the school, the installation of screening materials to conceal the water is both logical and prudent as many autistic children are attracted to bodies of water.

While school security experts typically recommend that fencing for schools permit open viewing to reduce crime, there are exceptions. Because this Florida school serves a number of autistic children and has a swamp located next to this side of the school, the installation of screening materials to conceal the water is both logical and prudent as many autistic children are attracted to bodies of water.

School security measures can be situational

Many people desire absolute answers when it comes to school safety. There have been several attempts to create a national school security codes similar to that of the national fire code. Each of these efforts have failed for a variety of reasons. The lack of some types of data for violence prevention in contrast to the fire science field is one reason for this. In addition, the many types and methodologies for violence are perhaps more complex than fire is.   For example, when you install entry point metal detection at a school, an aggressor may simply shoot students on a school bus or as they wait in line to be screened. This means that the implementation of this approach can require additional solutions to prevent simply moving the attack site. When we install fire sprinklers in a school, the fire will not move to the parking lot to avoid the suppression system. Reviewing some of the standardized school security requirements that have been implemented at the state level reveals that these problems are a challenge even at that scale.

Setting standards can sometimes increase danger

Another reason it can be so difficult to establish set requirements for school security is that a textbook answer for most schools could increase danger in a school with a unique situation. As one example, while the research demonstrates that natural surveillance (improving the ability for people to see and be seen) reduces the opportunity for crime and the fear of crime, there are cases where improving natural surveillance can increase risk.   Some of our independent schools educate children of famous people who could be at risk for abduction or even murder. We have clients who have individual students assigned with armed bodyguards all day, every day by their parents. The abduction for ransom of the daughter of a prominent pasta company owner from a Florida independent school many years ago is an excellent example of this very real risk. A kidnapper posing as the father’s bodyguard signed the girl out from an independent school using a fake letter from the child’s father. She was buried in a box in a swamp and held for ransom. For this reason, we advise some of our independent school clients with this type of risk to use visual barriers on fencing for playgrounds contrary to the normal practice of maintaining open sightlines.

Sometimes it simply all depends on the details

As one professor in my graduate business school program told us many years ago, the correct answer is sometimes IAD – it all depends. When a student asked for a clear cut answer to a specific management issue, the professor explained that the correct answer would depend on specific variables. He was not dodging the question but instead cautioning us to take care not to create absolute answers when it would be less effective to do so. School and public safety officials should heed this advice.

Filed Under: Safe Havens Blog
« Previous Page
Next Page »