The Value of Precision Notification
Next-generation ENS eases compliance with timely notification.
- By Timothy Means
- Jul 01, 2011
In December 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) released the Final Program Review Determination (FPRD) as the last say on its earlier ruling that Virginia Tech University violated the Clery Act's requirement for issuing a timely warning during the events of April 16, 2007. The FPRD findings bring clarity to how DOE views the mandate of "timely notification" as articulated in the Clery Act.
This decision places more scrutiny on university officials and their management of emergency events and dangerous situations. Let's take a look at the challenges facing the leaders in higher education and how the tools provided by industry can respond to the need for timely notification.
DOE does not set specific time requirements for emergency notification. Early drafts of the Higher Education Opportunity Act 2008 (HEOA 2008) cited 30 minutes as a warning window, but in the end the more vague term "within a reasonable and timely manner" was used. Also, there is no definition of what constitutes an emergency event or dangerous situation requiring notification of the campus population. By not setting a finite measure of time or defining what emergency events are, the law has left it to be determined after the fact as to whether or not timely notification was properly executed.
According to DOE, "The determination of whether a warning is timely is determined by the nature of the crime, the continuing danger to the campus community and the possible risk of compromising law enforcement efforts among other circumstances surrounding the event in question." By definition, DOE has made it clear that the determination will be decided on a case-by-case basis. This vagueness in the law poses a conundrum for higher education: What is good enough?
David Burns, campus emergency manager for UCLA observed, "It would appear given the new direction, anyone who commits a violent crime using a firearm or deadly weapon should be considered an ongoing threat until they are apprehended, since it could be liberally assumed to be an immediate threat to the health and safety of students, faculty or employees on campus." (Campus Safety Magazine, Dec. 15, 2010)
DOE's December ruling changes the nature of campus police responsibility and response. In order to meet this obligation, universities will be forced into more elaborate scenario planning so that there is less contemplation when an emergency does occur. Quicker decisions means less time to notification. When the decision is made to notify the population, the notification system in place needs to deliver as simply and quickly as possible.
Suzanne Grimes, mother of one of the Virginia Tech victims, a former teacher, and a vocal advocate for school safety, concurs with Burns, saying there should be more teeth in the law. "The DOE really needs to define what 'immediate' means. Does it mean there is an imminent danger -- a double homicide, a fire, a chemical spill? While you can't expect them to account for every situation, they can create classifications that require immediate notification. They didn't do that in the Clery Act, but I would hope that in the future it will be defined more specifically to give these schools some guidance," said Grimes. "What it means for universities is that they have to step up to the plate. They have to make sure their emergency plans are up to date, they have to practice and prepare better."
Responding to DOE's initial June 2010 report, Virginia Tech argued that because Clery Act legislation does not define "timely notification," the university's efforts on April 16, 2007, were sufficient. DOE disagreed in December, saying the basic facts of the situation -- one person killed, one injured, no suspect in custody, and no weapon found at the scene -- defined the sense of urgency. It was reasonable, said DOE, to assume there was an armed and dangerous suspect at large who posed a danger to the campus community. A timely warning should have been issued even if the law has not set a specific timetable. In this case, the DOE determined that two hours plus was too long.
University and Industry Response
Active shooting events have happened on K-12 and higher education campuses in the past. However, the frequency has increased from one per decade to 30 since 2000. While those numbers may reflect greater accuracy in news reporting, it is also clear that the active shooter has become an American cultural dynamic.
The Clery Act embodies more than shootings. There are 11 distinct categories that campus police must report on in order to be in compliance. These include robbery, assault, rape, and hate crimes. Going forward, the mandate to notify the campus population is now framed in terms of one individual posing a threat to other individuals.
Universities have learned to layer technologies in order to address the notification challenge: The current toolbox includes in-building alerting systems, fire alarms, outdoor sirens, emergency phone stations, mobile cell/text messaging, e-mail blasts, website announcements, social networks, and more.
So what does this ruling mean to manufacturers of emergency notification systems going forward? The good news is that since 2007, great strides have been made in mass notification. Smarter, more accurate, more reliable systems that integrate layers, target locations, provide two-way communications, and use multiple, redundant communications networks have arrived on the scene. These precision notification systems often feature a software platform that puts more information at the fingertips of emergency management, police, and other decision makers.
||Initial information about event, confirmation of what has happened|
||Determination of what message should be issued by authorized person or group|
|Coordination of the message
||Activating the approved plan by engaging all messaging layers|
|Message delivery speed
||Actual time from "send" to "last message received"|
In any emergency event, the clock starts ticking when the event begins. Actual message delivery speed -- the elapsed time from send to receive -- is only one piece of the puzzle of timely response. In its December ruling, DOE took a hard look at what information was known, by whom, and when, as well as who had access to launch notification. In DOE's judgment, this is where Virginia Tech misspent critical time and where one of the violations of the Clery Act occurred.
One critical component of a precision notification system is using a central command software platform that integrates systems and shares information. An effective command center provides the following features:
1. Sharing resources. Various layers are being employed to get the right message to the right place at the right time. But as those layers stack up, university administrators and dispatchers may find themselves buried. Therefore, universities must balance operational efficiency with redundancy in roles and responsibilities. Any central command must allow dispatchers to launch multiple systems from a single user interface. Also, the central command software must support multiple users from remote locations so the ability to launch notification does not rest with a single person in a single place. "Even though the university had articulated in their emergency plan that the chief of police was able to send out a notification, he had no way to do it, had no access to do it. All he could do was call the university president. And all of that took more time," said Grimes.
2. Two-way communications. Many emergency notification systems are one way, pushing warnings out to end users. However, some newer systems today provide Request for Help or panic buttons on fixed location receivers that tie directly back to the central command interface. This may be the source of initial information about an event and must do so independently of cellular networks. During emergencies, these networks are subject to a spike in demand and become clogged with outbound messages and person-to-person communications.
3. Information availability. Command center software that can store information about a building, such as the location of AEDs, floor plans, exit routes, or hazardous materials, greatly assists response efforts. Many universities are deploying IP camera systems. A central command center software platform that integrates real-time IP video is an invaluable tool in the notification process. Better yet is coordination of cameras and panic/help buttons. Seeing is believing.
4. Event data archiving. Because judgment about whether or not university officials complied with the law will be made after the fact, it is important to archive all system activities: who, what, when, and where. Can you go back and listen to that call for help? Surveillance camera footage can provide indisputable evidence in court. Can you document how long it took to respond? The burden of proof is clearly on the university.
A well-developed precision notification command center provides enough information to help reduce notification time and activate and manage multiple systems. It records system activity and assists in efforts to respond more effectively.
A second critical area where precision notification reduces warning time is by targeting warnings to specific locations. This location-based approach can save significant time versus mass notification by pushing warnings into the rooms, floors, or buildings where emergency events are happening. This type of targeting is more efficient and effective than calling everyone but not knowing where anyone is located.
"Unlike the longstanding timely warning that must be issued across the campus community, emergency notifications may be targeted to only a segment or segments of the campus community that are at risk. Each institution must disclose how it will assess which segment is at risk and how each segment will receive the notification." (S. Daniel Carter, "Security On Campus," Campus Safety Magazine, September 2010)
Following the incidents at Virginia Tech, many universities quickly adopted some form of person-based alerting systems to contact individuals via cell phones, beepers, laptops, and smart phones. Person-based messages are typically one-directional and take the form of e-mails, text messages, and phone calls that play programmed recordings. The alerting devices are mostly consumer-grade devices that receive data over cellular networks, WiFi, and the Internet. Using this type of system requires developing and maintaining a database of phone numbers and e-mail and IP addresses of individual recipients and is often limited in its effectiveness by the number of people to opt in to receive these messages.
Location-based systems rely on activating fixed location devices that use sirens, lights, voice, and text to get attention from anyone nearby. Fire alarms, PA systems, sirens, IP phones, and a wide range of proprietary devices fit into this category. These systems are hardwired for power, battery backed up, and use redundant communications networks, such as Ethernet, wireless mesh, and even FM-RBDS. Typically the alerting devices are commercial/industrial grade, with redundancies for power and communications built in.
While DOE has not yet drawn the lines regarding which events require what type of warnings, there is nothing to preclude a university from taking those same steps on its own. At UCLA, Burns has implemented a plan in which the entire notification process is pre-approved for 15 specific scenarios. Another 30 are in place in which some element of discretion is needed. Not only can warning messages be pre-approved, but they can be prepared in multiple languages. A list of first response personnel, key administrators and other important people can be created for each scenario. Desktop exercises and live drills can be done on a regular basis whether or not the law is clear. All of these measures serve to prove that timely notification is taken seriously.
This article originally appeared in the July 2011 issue of Occupational Health & Safety.