We have a special request for a very interesting, and I daresay relevant, topic. Oh, and a polite out-of-bandwidth comment on being lazy and not blogging.
How does one establish accountability when evacuating college dormitories and long term care facilities? Well, having never been responsible for either I'll take a stab at it and I may even hunt around to find someone with direct experience in this area. Here goes...
When I was in Korea (ah, the old days) we had a system on our camp (Camp Garry Owen - the old one near Yon Gi Gol) whereby we each possessed a "Garry Owen Card." A similar system was later introduced division-wide called a "Liberty Pass." How is this relevant? Well to get OFF camp we had to turn in out card with the gate guards. Top (and that's a First Sergeant) or the Bear (that'd be the Squadron Command Sergeant Major) could take your GO Card arbitrarily to keep you on the camp. Now maybe some folks deserved this - though not the countless hours of filling sandbags - but anyway you get the gist of this. It established accountability in a very quick sort of way. Who is not in the camp right now! This was a very important concept when it came to alerts (that would be something like a fire drill but it involved loading your life onto a vehicle and driving away from your home - possibly for the last time before someone blew it up). During an alert everyone would sprint back to the camp and grab the GO Card on the way in. At some point Top would contact the gate and find out who he was missing. Simple, neat and effective. So simple no dumb grunt can screw it up, right? Actually, we did have ways to get around it, but that's another story.
Anyway, any accountability system that will be used during a crisis, such as an evacuation, should be very simple to avoid a complete breakdown with no way to recover. Tokens - like the GO Card or Liberty Pass - provide this sort of simplistic accountability. Granted this system may be easier for the extended care facility rather than a college dorm since the amount of rapid access/egress activities are substantially lower. All you need is a control point where the tokens can be dropped off or picked up and a someone to manage this process CONSISTENTLY. Once such a system fails - it is likely to fail for good. Don't worry there'll be a new one - after the next event that costs someone their life.
How else might we do this? We could try the "Battle Buddy" system which makes everyone responsible for someone else - your "Battle Buddy" (or Ranger Buddy for those folks). Then hall wardens/monitors can then be responsible for a segment of the larger group and so on in a very hierarchical organization. This requires a specific level of responsibility which may not be present with students. Not to bust on students in dorms - I was one once (although I was out of the Army and much older than everyone else) - but they are generally young and there are few consequences for poor performance. That is except for maybe losing a friend, but that won't be thought of during the crisis. No matter what Resident Assistants and Resident Directors should be responsible for accounting for those under their charge. This, of course, requires training in whatever procedures are decided on, and exercises to test those procedures.
So we now have a token system and a buddy/leader accountability system. We can apply technology to the problem as well. We can make those student ID's proximity cards so that those entering and leaving are identified on an occupation roster. Guests would still need to be admitted by some means, which could include guest prox cards as well. This is still a token system but it could allow for greater throughput at the access points. And anyone responsible for planning access control systems knows that the throughput rate is everything to your client. Otherwise it just won't be used CONSISTENTLY.
Whether you are using manual or automated rosters it is essential - it is fundamental - and it is the deciding factor as to whether your system functions or breaks to ensure that it is used CONSISTENTLY. Test it - even use focus groups of true delinquents - to learn how it will be bypassed, subverted, and ignored. Then figure out if the system is worth making changes to or a new approach is warranted. As Richard Marchinko wrote in one of his books (or something to the effect anyway), "Do not get married to your plan." Be prepared to change - sometimes on a moments notice - to satisfy the needs of the threat environment, operating environment, and client opinions/preferences. Be absolutely sure that the method you choose fits with the organization's culture: No fit = No use = Disaster.
Is that enough? It certainly is not, but there's just a little too much to try and discuss here all at once. Send some more questions and you might get some more answers. I might even through up an example or two for fun... But keep it simple so that it works in a crisis.
Always be absolutely ruthless with your own plans - is sure beats the embarrassment of someone else doing it to you in front of your peers. OR, I can do it here for you. Send your plan in a comment and I'll gladly look for a way around it.
One other important saying applies here as well: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." So build in some features to account for this necessary flexibility!
Think fast...
No comments:
Post a Comment