The Homeland Security Blog

Virtual USA received an important vote of support from a multidisciplinary group of practitioners from around the country yesterday when Charles Werner, Charlottesville Fire Chief and Strategic Resource Group (SRG) Chair, released an SRG Executive Council resolution strongly supporting the initiative.

Virtual USA is a Department of Homeland Security initiative that integrates technologies, methodologies and capabilities for sharing and collaborating using public, multi-jurisdictional and private sector information for the purpose of protecting lives, property, and the environment. It improves situational awareness, enhances decision making, and facilitates a more complete user defined operating view that enables users to enhance the utilization of their existing systems while maintaining control of their own data.

Werner’s e-mail read:

Large scale incidents like the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Hurricane Katrina, and the Gulf oil spill have highlighted the critical need for emergency preparedness and response practitioners to have access to important information when protecting lives, property, and the environment. The Virtual USA initiative is addressing the need for dynamic real-time information sharing and has been incredibly successful in its first pilot phases. By addressing the needs of local, state, tribal and federal emergency preparedness and response agencies, Virtual USA is helping us be better prepared for all emergencies – large and small.

Please read the attached resolution in support of Virtual USA from a multi-disciplinary group of emergency preparedness and response leaders from around the country. I urge you to engage with and support this critical initiative.

If you have any questions regarding Virtual USA or this resolution, please contact me. To read a recent article about Virtual USA being used in the Gulf oil spill response please see page 31 of Mission Critical Magazine’s September issue at: http://www.thehomelandsecurityblog.com/wp-content/uploads/vUSA-in-MCC-Sept-2010.pdf

Sincerely,

Charles Werner, Co-Chair, Virtual USA Strategic Resource Group

Charles L. Werner
Fire Chief
Charlottesville Fire Department
203 Ridge Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 970-3323

Thinking about technology and our expectations for their application, it seems to me that Americans look for the one solution – the one thing that we can use (no, not use, BUY) that will solve whatever needs to be solved so we won’t have to worry about it any longer than necessary. After all, we reduced home fire deaths with smoke alarms (a seemingly simple buy-it-and-stick-it-up item with magnificent technology behind it) and increased emergency warning systems (instant communications via the Internet and attendant devices like iPods and iPads, cell phones, and Blackberries.

All I want is just one thing!
I suspect that many people think that all problems can be solved with some existing or soon-to-be technological widget. We continue to look for it – the one thing, that singular item to prevent houses from burning in wildfires. Unfortunately, technology alone does not offer the panacea we need.

After exploring the application of technologies from remote sensing to social networking in the past few blogs, the conclusion is that none of the technological advances and devices can succeed alone. Only by combining technologies with the human skills of social interaction and rational analysis can we achieve the best solution. In the case of homes and wildfires, it’s a combination of good land use planning, well-coordinated response capabilities, technological resources, comprehensive engagement in mitigation, well prepared recovery strategies, and dedication to a common purpose and common sense (the toughest of all).

Just give me the specifications and we’ll do it!
Another facet of our expectations is that if something works in one community, it should work in every community. Again, the “best solution” will be unique to and within each community. In the past, cities identified with other cities because their industries were similar, their populations were the same size, their economic bases and metrics were similar, etc. They referred to themselves as ‘sister cities.’ Given identical populations, economies, and all, their approaches to problem solving differed greatly.

While there are complex specifications for technological devices, there are no such rules for problem solving. From primitive tools to space shuttles and iPads, the key to success has always been the unique combination of human thought and technology.

With the arrival of Hurricane Earl and the tropical storms behind it, the beginning of National Preparedness Month is perfectly timed.  On August 27, President Obama issued a proclamation for the 7th annual National Preparedness Month (NPM).  NPM is aimed at increasing awareness among the public, and to encourage individuals and communities to make preparations for emergencies before they happen.  As FEMA Administrator Fugate said at a kick-off event, “Hurricane Earl is another important reminder to all of us that every member of the community needs to be prepared for hurricanes and other disasters.  Engaging with children on the topic of emergency preparedness is an effective way to bring home the preparedness message.  Local events like this one are happening all over the country throughout September to underscore the importance of getting people of all ages involved in preparing for emergencies.”  Local events include preparedness booths at state fairs, school programs to teach students first aid, and even contests using social media.  Visit Ready.gov and Citizen Corps to learn more about National Preparedness Month.

Recently, incidents of severe workplace violence have made frequent headlines. These include nine tragic deaths at a Connecticut beer distributorship, and the loss of four lives resulting from a pension disagreement, at a St. Louis company.

Co-worker homicides (where an employee murders a co-worker) numbered 72 in 2009. That’s about 1 in 7 of all workplace homicides that year. The remaining deaths are most often the result of a robbery attempt, though some are acts of visitors who know an employee, and intend violence. A recent shooting in Albuquerque, sparked by an argument over child custody between an employee and her visiting boyfriend, killed three manufacturing employees. A sad, classic case of Domestic Violence Spillover, the shooter murdered his girlfriend and two others, then killed himself, as happened in the Connecticut and St. Louis cases, which had different origins.

Tragic scenes like these are akin to terrorist events, in the sense that they may be “targeted violence” – a planned attack on specific persons at a certain location. Such attacks might not be intended to result in fatalities but can easily escalate to deadly circumstances.

Deadly or not, violent acts at work remain common. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that one in every four American workers will be attacked, threatened, or harassed at work sometime in the course of their career.

Not enough is being done by businesses to prevent this trend. The bureau says that about 70% of workplaces never issue any violence prevention policy. This is particularly disheartening since it’s easy to obtain a key to prevention known as Threat Assessment Management (or TAM).

At Findlay All Hazards, we conduct informal polls at training events. Our results show that 80% of the private-sector organizations we work with have never engaged in workplace violence TAM. Initiating TAM is a step that we believe is essential in reducing violent events.

TAM is a behavior-based analysis that helps an organization identify potential cases of targeted workplace violence, so that the business may intercede before any violence occurs. Total commitment from the organization is the most important step. TAM requires a company-wide education and reporting system and a plan for how react to potential or realized violence.

American businesses fail to complete an assessment for predictable reasons. They believe that such an effort will be prohibitively expensive, or don’t recognize the need (“It won’t happen here”), or don’t know where to begin.

Implementing a TAM program may not be as costly as you think. Excellent TAM models exist in public sources. And no matter the cost, it’s certainly less costly than a deadly incident, in both human and financial terms.

Ignoring a need because “our company is safe” is unwise. None of the companies described above were expecting a shooting incident, of course.

And finding a starting place is as simple as a search of appropriate government websites. OSHA addresses the workplace violence issue with a series of worthwhile documents at osha.gov. The U.S. Secret Service offers a document called Threat Assessment: An Approach To Prevent Targeted Violence at secretservice.gov that we’ve found to be a valuable threat assessment primer.

Any business will benefit from an in-house review of the many widely available free resources and reports addressing the subject. Once a company learns their level of specific risk, they can easily introduce methods for conflict resolution and improved security that could prevent violent episodes and deadly tragedies.

Check it out! “Disaster Response in the Gulf: A New Data-Sharing Platform is Put to the Test” is this month’s featured cover story of Mission Critical Communications. In early June, I went down to four states in the Gulf to support this effort and the story perfectly captures how folks such as the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness in Louisiana are benefitting from participation in Virtual USA. You have to read this story – see pages 31 – 35.

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Protection and National Preparedness, have announced that the availability of the National Dialogue on Preparedness has been extended to September 10, 2010.

The National Dialogue on Preparedness is an OpenGov initiative hosted by DHS and FEMA for the Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force. Congress mandated that the Task Force develop recommendations on how to improve preparedness for natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or other man-made disasters. The Task Force is seeking help to inform its recommendations. Your opinion is valuable as the Task Force considers what works, what needs improvement, and where there are trends and consistency in thinking – or not – on these core questions:

- How do we collectively assess our capabilities and gaps?

- Which policies and guidance need updating and what process should we use to update them?

- Which grant programs work the most efficiently and which programs can be improved?

We urge you to visit http://preparedness.ideascale.com to participate in the dialogue. Make certain that the Task Force has considered all ideas from across the nation – submit an idea, comment on posted ideas, submit recommendations, and support the Task Force by sharing the initiative with your employees, colleagues, members, or constituents.

At the All Hazards Training Center, we train and consult in a myriad of safety and security areas. Those areas include both counter-terrorism and assisting in the protection of college campuses and schools. Recently, we’ve started to consider those two areas as overlapping circles.

Americans are accustomed, sadly, to a series of ‘lone gunman’ events at schools and college campuses throughout the US. Such incidents are most often discovered to be the work of a single, troubled person (as with Virginia Tech in 2007) or a small band of vengeful, suicidal criminals (as with Columbine). While they don’t meet the FBI definition of ‘terrorism’, campus tragedies like these may be considered as such by lay people. Perhaps that’s because the public lumps such incidents into simple categories, and most people aren’t aware of the true definition of the word.

Regardless, college campuses are a target-rich environment for those who we might commonly define as terrorists. Those who organize to strike public places might soon conspire to attack an institution of higher learning as a symbol of their cultural or political enemy.

The Jeanne Clery Act of 1998 is a little-publicized federal law that requires colleges and universities to disclose campus crime statistics. The most common beneficiaries of this regulation are knowledge-seeking parents and students, who wish to establish for themselves the safety level of a prospective college. And as a conduit of information for that purpose, the Clery Act is invaluable.

The downside is that the publication of campus crime information can also help a terrorist group profile a college as a likely target. Schools with higher crime rates can logically be assumed to be those with more flaws in their security services and routines.

Colleges and universities are the lifeblood of public discourse and research. To serve that purpose well – for the campus community to really think – a certain feeling of comfort and freedom is essential. Those conditions, however, may allow for unfettered access to any number of busy administration buildings and classrooms. Non-residents often easily enter even residence halls, where gateway security may be most common.

Institutions of higher learning are perfect emotional targets, too, since they are populated by young adults, who most still think of as “kids.” Any disaster at a large or well-known university will attract the highest level of media attention.

Colleges do have tools for terrorism defense, however. The US Department of Education website lists the most logical means of terrorism prevention and deterrence for post-secondary schools, from building stronger alliances with law enforcement to increasing video surveillance. Trouble is, many colleges face serious budget shortfalls now and in the near future. So security upkeep is difficult.

But colleges can do one thing on the cheap that might well deter terrorist groups from targeting their campuses: put a ‘beware of dog’ sign in the yard.

When a school makes security plans or improvements of any kind, those actions should be trumpeted as loudly as any significant research finding. College administrators are happy to brag about everything from a recent football victory to the construction of a new classroom building. At Findlay, we remind them to also boast of tight, smart security, and of a culture of security consciousness that stretches across their campus community. Like the homeowner who uses a window sign to portray his common beagle as a trained Doberman, colleges should publicly depict their plans to protect against terrorism as ironclad.

Naturally, we would never advocate creating a false security curtain. All institutions of higher learning need to be constantly vigilant and defensive against all forms of crime and terrorism. But they should never be quiet about their efforts. They must let the world know – with a loud noise – that they are on guard.

Everyone is likely familiar with the phrase “usual suspects.”  These are the ones the TV cops round up following a heinous crime because the detectives are familiar with their escapades.  But the term also applies to the “off the top of my head” response in listing people and organizations when searching for likely partners for special projects.  The key to gaining cooperation to address wildfire issues – in this case, before smoke is in the air – is to identify the specific issues that create the problem and not merely the issues that appear as the symptoms.

The engagement of residents and non-traditional stakeholders in solving a “fire problem” could include insurance professionals, land use planners, builders and developers, in addition to the “usual suspects” in the fire service and forestry agencies.  In fact, I suggest that the essence of the “problem” of home loss due to wildfires is not a fire problem at all.  It’s essentially a land use planning problem.  It’s only a fire problem when there’s a fire – sort of like realizing a home is in a flood plain when only the roof is above water.  Can’t we plan better with the idea for living compatibility with nature, whether the issue is fire, flood, or some other threat?

Technology can be an effective method to educate and engage both the usual suspects and those we “should have thought of.”  For example, geographic information systems (GIS) can be extremely effective for demonstrating the complexities of certain issues of wildfires and the presence of homes among the trees.  Besides the locations of homes in hazardous areas, GIS maps can assist lay people in grasping the relationships among slope of the surrounding terrain; number and quality of roads; the distances involved between emergency services and homes; and so on.

One of the more profound moments I’ve witnessed in years of using GIS for teaching spatial relationships has been the “ah-ha” realization why certain solutions may not be feasible.  For example, developing a plot of land for residential use depends on factors such as soil (type and stability), the proximity to environmentally sensitive areas (water supplies and watersheds), the presence or proximity of cultural sites or endangered habitats; and many others.  When a solution is offered, spatial analysis can help the professionals and lay people discard one solution and work toward a mutually agreeable one.

The use of streaming video, online education courses, and communications (social networking) are other methods to deliver information and generate feedback and ideas.  Organizations that shy away from (or refuse to consider at all) social networking will continue to rely on tradition to solve the problems of the present and the future with solutions of the past.  What’s that called when we do the same thing over and over and yet expect different results?

Coming up next blog: The right combination.

The use of codes and standards may not readily come to mind as a technological solution, but the development of sound codes and ordinances is founded on science and technology. In the case of wildfires, extensive research, modeling, and observation have shown that wildfires do not behave like floods that flow through residential areas, consuming homes in their path. Neither do these fires “select” homes to destroy as would a monster or, as they are more often characterized, a terrible dragon raging through subdivision after subdivision, consciously deciding which home is destroyed and which is allowed to survive.

The all-too-familiar wildland/urban fire is technically an exposure fire. Thinking of historic conflagrations such as Boston, Chicago, as well as Atlanta and San Francisco (consequences of the Civil War and the 1906 earthquake, respectively), the communication of flames and heat in wildfires is not the issue of the forest fire consuming hundreds of homes at once but with the change in the type of fuels involved. A wildfire (or wildland fire by definition) is a fire supported and spread by vegetation (fuel), driven by wind (oxygen), and generating sufficient energy (heat) to spread. (Yes, the fifth grade lesson of the “fire triangle” still applies). The home losses around the world every year occur as a result of the change in the primary fuel of the wildfire from vegetation (trees and grasses) to structural elements (homes). That’s what gets folks all excited and confused. The change in fuels is the opportunity to reduce damages and losses by building homes and structures that can withstand exposure to a wildfire. And that opportunity lies in part with the adoption of effective codes and standards for building homes in fire prone areas.

While codes and ordinances will not stop the flames, their application does help reduce the resulting damages and burdens on those affected. In the event of a large disaster, the affected population could be in the tens of millions of people. The adoption and enforcement (with lots of education) of nationally developed codes and standards provides consistency across jurisdictions, resulting in improved cooperation and mutual assistance among first responders, planners, builders, and administrators.

Coming up next blog: Getting more people on the same page and in the same book.

Congress is now considering a bill that would give security at American ports a much-needed shot in the arm.  The homeland security appropriations bill now in debate would, if enacted, provide $350 million for the port security grant program.  That’s a major jump over last year, increasing spending in that area by $50 million.

The bill also provides finance support for the Coast Guard, as well as funding for increased security grant programs for means of land transit, like buses and trains.

But here at The All Hazards Training Center at The University of Findlay, it is the maritime component of the bill that caught our attention.  Findlay is part of the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium, and we provide security training and planning for waterway officials in rural areas.  So we watch events in the maritime sector of domestic security.

Many are surprised at the immense traffic of rural inland waterways.  The Port of Huntington-Tri-State, our largest inland port, handles nearly 80 million tons of cargo each year but is barely within 3 hours of any city of a half-million people or more.  And ports and marine terminals are only the most obvious component of marine commerce. River and seaway locks are also a vital part of the nation’s waterway system.

Infrastructurereportcard.org is a fascinating site created by civil engineers that provides their report card for categories of U.S. infrastructure.  The site recently graded inland waterways a frightening D minus, citing the fact that nearly half of all locks are obsolete.  Should a lock or a busy river or lake port, like Duluth, MN, or our nearby Port of Toledo, or the Soo Locks, become a victim of a terrorist attack, U.S. transportation could be altered drastically.  The reverberation would not only cause major changes to the transportation of goods in the immediate days following the attack, thanks to re-routing, but the reaction of maritime security nationwide could greatly slow traffic at all ports and on all rivers.

This week, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg touted the current appropriations bill as crucial to the security of the Port of Newark.  Clearly, a huge maritime facility like Newark is a visible and complex target with ongoing security concerns.  But like many who address the needs of rural responders and security managers, our Findlay All Hazards staff wonders when terrorism will come to an inland target.  It’s our hope that the programs that arise from this new appropriation bill will meet the needs of inland and rural ports and terminals, as well as those of the larger ports of the U.S.