Dam Safety/School Safety.....Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to
What does dam safety have to do with school safety, you ask? They have nothing in common, do they? Totally different scenarios, right? So why am I including a photo of a dam failure in progress to start this post? Hang with me, folks. We're just getting started.
In comparing this single dam failure, and the consequences that followed, with school safety related to mass school shootings, I ask you to consider how many schools on a national level have had mass school shootings occur in your lifetime? Have any schools in your own community had a mass school shooting? If the answer is yes, then you understand the dire consequences these incidents manifest. If the answer is no, then why are schools nationally required to have active shooter and lockdown drills?
Dam failures are what those in the field of emergency management label as low probability/high consequence type disasters. Thing is, so are school mass shootings. They are both statistically rare incidents. But real life consequences if they do occur are really difficult for many folks to be able to wrap their heads around, especially if those folks haven't been directly affected by them.
When I started working for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation way back in 1990, the prevailing attitude of almost all owners and operators of dams in the U.S. was 'our dams don't fail'.
This attitude was actually a conviction they held even though empirical historical data contradicted it.
Dam failures in the U.S. are rare. There's no doubt about that. But they do occur, and when they do, the consequences, both in loss of life and in economic damages can be, and often times are, catastrophic. Hence, the Federal government's requirement to have a 'Dam Safety Program' .
Even after this program was implemented, the focus was primarily on "dam failure", not on those types of events that might have a lesser impact, but a higher probability of occurrence.
It wasn't until 1995 that my agency, the Bureau of Reclamation, actually directed my colleagues and I to design and develop emergency management guidelines to implement as policy for the agency to address all hazards that could potentially affect our facilities nationally. We worked diligently for 5 long, what seemed tortuous years to draft those guidelines with fits and starts along the way.
Once those guidelines were implemented and proven to work in exercises and in actual incidents, requests began coming in to share our expertise. These requests were from other organizations in the U.S. and from other countries including the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Argentina, and others. Reclamation began assisting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in disaster relief activities, and was nationally recognized as a leader in this endeavor.
The reason I'm sharing this here isn't to toot anyone's horn, mine included. Rather, it is intended to illustrate how planning is dynamic, it is ongoing, it cannot be done in a vacuum, and it will be difficult. However, keeping the "eye on the prize" throughout the process will inevitably help ensure a quality product when a goal is finally reached. That doesn't mean the process is done. It just means a safety milestone has been reached and now the hard part begins - sustaining and maintaining.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Emergency Management
The nuclear industry is another fine example of a low probability/high consequence industry. We all know the probability of a meltdown at a nuclear power plant is very low. If that's the case, then why is the nuclear power industry one of the most heavily regulated of any regarding preparedness for those type of events? Simply, it's because of the potential consequences of a meltdown. We're all familiar with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Those three events alone were impetus enough to cause significant damage (although Three Mile Island had much less of an impact than the other two), and resultant calls for additional controls on the industry. Some countries even went so far as to shut down their nuclear power industry altogether following the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Low probability/high consequence events. Planning for them is a huge responsibility.
And, with that, I come to gun violence in schools. The low probability/high consequence events like what happened at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University, Marjory Stoneman Douglas high School, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Robb Elementary School and many others that have now become too numerous to mention here are invariably the ones that get the most attention, and result in the most argument over gun rights. The fact there are many more incidents of gun violence of a lesser scale in our nation's schools is often times virtually overlooked as an issue.
In order to plan for gun violence in our schools, a broader approach needs to be taken that recognizes a range of probability vs. consequences. This is a risk analysis. Corporations do risk analyses all the time. They have entire departments devoted solely to doing this. Both FEMA and the Department of Education promote this approach for schools, too. Problem is, schools often times don't really take emergency management seriously, their protestations to the contrary, much less do risk analyses regarding the types of gun violence they face. In fact, often times they don't even address the other types of hazards they may have to face. Fire drills, yes. Perhaps they even do drills calling for lock-downs or active shooters. Beyond that, I'd wager their preparedness and mitigation efforts are sadly lacking, if not non-existent altogether. Plus, who is responsible for doing all this? School administrators most of the time. Do those school administrators actually do what they're tasked with doing? Just one more reason why paid part time school staff as emergency managers is more than justified.
In Colorado, there is a law, Senate Bill SB 08-181, that was passed in 2008 that requires full spectrum emergency management programs at every single school in our state. Not just districts. Every single school. The law failed to include a provision for funding. So, even though there's a law on the books, compliance is iffy at best. Schools need help with this. Law enforcement and other response organizations need help with this. There is a methodology although not a national 'standard' that most school safety subject matter experts promote. It's a methodology that can make for safer schools through cooperative planning. Where there's a will, there's almost always a way. While we have the way, we still do not have a corresponding will.
Consider getting involved in your own community. It might just save lives.
This attitude was actually a conviction they held even though empirical historical data contradicted it.
Dam failures in the U.S. are rare. There's no doubt about that. But they do occur, and when they do, the consequences, both in loss of life and in economic damages can be, and often times are, catastrophic. Hence, the Federal government's requirement to have a 'Dam Safety Program' .
Even after this program was implemented, the focus was primarily on "dam failure", not on those types of events that might have a lesser impact, but a higher probability of occurrence.
It wasn't until 1995 that my agency, the Bureau of Reclamation, actually directed my colleagues and I to design and develop emergency management guidelines to implement as policy for the agency to address all hazards that could potentially affect our facilities nationally. We worked diligently for 5 long, what seemed tortuous years to draft those guidelines with fits and starts along the way.
Once those guidelines were implemented and proven to work in exercises and in actual incidents, requests began coming in to share our expertise. These requests were from other organizations in the U.S. and from other countries including the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Argentina, and others. Reclamation began assisting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in disaster relief activities, and was nationally recognized as a leader in this endeavor.
The reason I'm sharing this here isn't to toot anyone's horn, mine included. Rather, it is intended to illustrate how planning is dynamic, it is ongoing, it cannot be done in a vacuum, and it will be difficult. However, keeping the "eye on the prize" throughout the process will inevitably help ensure a quality product when a goal is finally reached. That doesn't mean the process is done. It just means a safety milestone has been reached and now the hard part begins - sustaining and maintaining.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Emergency Management
The nuclear industry is another fine example of a low probability/high consequence industry. We all know the probability of a meltdown at a nuclear power plant is very low. If that's the case, then why is the nuclear power industry one of the most heavily regulated of any regarding preparedness for those type of events? Simply, it's because of the potential consequences of a meltdown. We're all familiar with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Those three events alone were impetus enough to cause significant damage (although Three Mile Island had much less of an impact than the other two), and resultant calls for additional controls on the industry. Some countries even went so far as to shut down their nuclear power industry altogether following the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Low probability/high consequence events. Planning for them is a huge responsibility.
And, with that, I come to gun violence in schools. The low probability/high consequence events like what happened at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University, Marjory Stoneman Douglas high School, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Robb Elementary School and many others that have now become too numerous to mention here are invariably the ones that get the most attention, and result in the most argument over gun rights. The fact there are many more incidents of gun violence of a lesser scale in our nation's schools is often times virtually overlooked as an issue.
In order to plan for gun violence in our schools, a broader approach needs to be taken that recognizes a range of probability vs. consequences. This is a risk analysis. Corporations do risk analyses all the time. They have entire departments devoted solely to doing this. Both FEMA and the Department of Education promote this approach for schools, too. Problem is, schools often times don't really take emergency management seriously, their protestations to the contrary, much less do risk analyses regarding the types of gun violence they face. In fact, often times they don't even address the other types of hazards they may have to face. Fire drills, yes. Perhaps they even do drills calling for lock-downs or active shooters. Beyond that, I'd wager their preparedness and mitigation efforts are sadly lacking, if not non-existent altogether. Plus, who is responsible for doing all this? School administrators most of the time. Do those school administrators actually do what they're tasked with doing? Just one more reason why paid part time school staff as emergency managers is more than justified.
In Colorado, there is a law, Senate Bill SB 08-181, that was passed in 2008 that requires full spectrum emergency management programs at every single school in our state. Not just districts. Every single school. The law failed to include a provision for funding. So, even though there's a law on the books, compliance is iffy at best. Schools need help with this. Law enforcement and other response organizations need help with this. There is a methodology although not a national 'standard' that most school safety subject matter experts promote. It's a methodology that can make for safer schools through cooperative planning. Where there's a will, there's almost always a way. While we have the way, we still do not have a corresponding will.
Consider getting involved in your own community. It might just save lives.
My two cents.....
