Technology, Collaboration, and an All-Hazards Safety Plan
Joe Madsen is currently the director of sales and training for Camtek Inc., a security systems integration company based in Spokane, Washington. Most of Madsen’s 30-year career, however, has been spent in the public sector, serving both K–12 and higher education. Madsen has worked as the manager of safety services for all Washington State University campuses and as director of safety and risk management for the Spokane Public Schools. He began his career as a fireman and emergency medical technician. He spoke with Northwest Education from his office in Spokane.
What does a school or district need to think about when they’re incorporating technology into a comprehensive safety plan?
It goes back to doing assessments. Assessment of the technology you already have and how it matches up with the potential incidents you might face. And then you can address the shortcomings and make an evaluation of the technology that’s out there to meet those needs.
One of the things I concentrate on is how you can leverage different pieces of technology for multiple uses. It’s really a matter of using equipment for an all-hazards approach. When we think about emergencies we typically think of a fire or a flood or some kind of natural disaster. And when we think of a crisis situation we typically think of security-type incidents. Depending on the type of incident, you can utilize the same equipment for a multitude of purposes.
I think it’s important that we utilize technology in a cost-effective manner. Especially in K–12, we can’t afford to spend money that could otherwise be used in the classroom, unless it has a multitude of purposes. So, thinking in an all-hazards way, you want to choose technology that can be used to prevent, respond, or recover from many kinds of incidents.
In your presentation at the Washington State Safe Schools conference this summer you spoke about avoiding “implementation without a plan of action.”
Technology systems will do no good if you haven’t figured out the philosophy of how you’re going to use them; have a policy that addresses when and how you’re going to use them; and then have regular training and practice to ensure that those responsible know how to use them. If all three of those components haven’t been covered—the philosophy, the policy, and the training—then that system very likely won’t work in a crisis.
At a typical school, for example, it might have been the maintenance department or the facilities department that spec’d a security system and installed it and are therefore responsible for it in a crisis. But then you have the IT department who weren’t brought into the loop and so it hasn’t been maintained—the support isn’t there. Or, if there’s a lack of policy or training you end up with a system that’s put in and maintained but it’s not clear, in a crisis, who would effectively utilize that system. Take or example, Virginia Tech. In that type of university setting you might have a security department, a safety department, and an emergency management department—those are three different departments who may or may not work well together. And that’s not even taking into consideration the outside agencies that get involved.
Is that also the case in K–12?
In K–12 there are more what’s called “risk management” departments, and those departments deal more with safety and security issues. In most districts, there is still some work to be done to combine safety, security, transportation, and insurance under the umbrella of risk management. And then risk management—as an entity—should be working with the facilities and IT departments. It’s a three-legged stool that needs to be in place to support any safety and security enhancements. They’re based in technology, they need the facilities department to maintain them, and they need the input of risk management or safety and security professionals to help design and utilize them in a crisis.
Besides the actual technology and the in-house people, you’ve already mentioned the other major player in an emergency response situation—the outside agencies.
Yes, of course. And you need to have two things worked out. You need to make sure that those outside agencies know how to utilize the technology and you need to make sure that everyone knows what their role is.
In a K–12 school shooting scenario, for instance, you should typically have three people from the school involved: the principal or a representative from the school; somebody from the security department; and somebody from the district office. You really need to have all three of those components in the command post working with the outside agencies—which will typically include police, fire, and possibly emergency response personnel or SWAT. And there shouldn’t be any discussion during a crisis as to who does what. Those relationships need to be well-established.
When you look at Virginia Tech or Columbine, or any number of other national incidents what you frequently see is that the outside agencies have not established strong relationships with the school or university, have not been involved in any planning and training that has been done, and often aren’t familiar with the technology that is being used at the school. In order for them to utilize the equipment and technology effectively you need to have already included them in the conversation. They need to understand its design, its use, and procedurally how it’s going to be used in a crisis. And it needs to be very clear who is in charge.
Is the National Incident Management System (NIMS) that’s being implemented around the country a direct attempt to address that kind of issue? Is it working?
As far as incident command and everyone knowing what their role is, yes, it’s a direct attempt to influence that, and it is working in some districts. I don’t want to say larger districts because there are smaller districts that take these issues very seriously and are spending just as much—if not more—time learning about incident command systems and NIMS and actually practicing that and working together with police and fire departments.
In Spokane, the school district has annual meetings during which the police chief and fire chief each meet with all school administrators at the beginning of the school year. They talk about and re-train on the incident command system. That’s a community collaboration that is quite a good example. When you can get the police chief and the fire chief to come in and work directly with the school superintendents and the security department and the risk management office, to initially train, and then provide ongoing support on those types of systems such as the NIMS mandates—that should be a goal of every school district. That’s the only way to ensure that when a crisis occurs, both outside agencies and school personnel are on the same page.
As someone with many years of experience in the fire department, what would you say is the best way for superintendents and principals to reach out to those agencies and build those relationships?
That typically needs to start with the superintendent inviting police and fire in and making it happen at the administrative level. The most important thing is to start that conversation and establish that this is a community priority. And then you can talk about the philosophy—about taking an all-hazards approach and getting all the other necessary people to the table. And then at some point you ask the various staff representatives to work together and figure out how to cooperatively develop a plan and to train and utilize the technology.
Are those relationships sometimes difficult to establish?
Not in my experience. Sometimes it takes a little work to understand the different priorities. That’s what that initial conversation is often about—what are the priorities of the police, the fire department, and the schools? And then working together to meet everyone’s needs. School districts are more and more under the gun—because of testing and legislative mandates—to show academic growth. That’s understandable and that needs to be shared with both police and fire in that conversation. At the same time, police and fire have a mandate to create safe communities, and some of that is done, in the fire department, through prevention programs—visits to classrooms, things like that. In the police department there are similar kinds of things. Those could be seen negatively by school administrators because it takes time away from academics, but I think sharing some of that time can be a win-win situation. It can help create a safer learning and working environment, and that ultimately comes back to the district when there is an emergency.
So in order for technology to be effective, those relationships need to be in place.
The best emergency response is born of communication—communication that occurs at a high level, and which then translates into practical working plans and effective training. It’s very apparent that every incident that has happened, whether it’s Virginia Tech, Columbine, or Katrina, or many others, all boil down to communication.
For schools, that’s where that invitation from the superintendent to the police and fire chiefs is so critical. The success stories that I’ve seen are a direct result of school superintendents opening the door and then having wonderful police and fire chiefs who are willing to work with schools because they recognize that there is no greater asset in the community than the school system. Of all the priorities, children and schools and their facilities and their staff should be put first on the list in terms of emergency response and support and training. I think emergency responders understand that. But it’s up to the superintendent to initiate that conversation. 
For further information regarding incorporating integrated safety and security systems into the school teaching and learning environment, Madsen can be reached at joe@camtek-inc.com.