Orange County Public Schools:

Comments 11

• CO1
  Written? o Yes 100% o No 0%
• CO2
  On-line / School Website? (with public access) o Yes 35% o No 65%
• CO3
  For Date of Last Plan Revision, a 56% majority specified September or October 2010, with another 17% indicating their plan had been revised during 2010, prior to September. The remaining dates offered for the latest revision ranged from “2006” in the past to “October 2011” in the future. Five of the 14 surveys that were received in January 2011, as a result of a reminder letter, specified a revision date during December 2010. 3 Because some items were left blank, unless otherwise indicated percentages are based on the total number of responses to each item, which may be less than the total number of surveys returned. __________________________________________________________________________ 5 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 The Emergency Plan addresses the following situations (please check all that apply): % % % Fire (on campus) 100 Bomb Threat 80 Epidemic 33 Earthquake 99 Active Shooter 78 Nuclear Incident 22 Intruder on Campus 97 Hazardous Material 77 Other 22 Lockdown 95 Total Power Failure 59 Tsunami 20 Evacuation 95 Flood / Landslide 49 Thirty-two schools (22%) reported additional emergency situations addressed by their plans, not listed above, including aircraft crash, hostage, rape, suicide, abduction / kidnapping, bus accident, wildfires, civil disturbance, animal disturbance, extreme weather / tornado, unlawful demonstrations / walkouts, snake bites, and Africanized honey-bees. In addition to calculating the percent of school plans that address the various emergencies listed, the number of situations anticipated per school was tallied. Individual schools ranged from planning for as few as two to as many as all 13 listed emergencies plus additional ones. The average number of incidents planned for was 9.26. A copy of the Plan is given to (please check all that apply): % % % District Office 97 Local Emergency Responders 30 OC Emergency Ops Center 11 School Admin 89 Others 21 OC Emerg Mgmt Bureau 9 Teachers 79 Parents 20 Students 7 Support Staff 77 PTA / PTO 20 School Volunteers 7 Additional entities, personnel, etc., to whom plan copies are provided included School Site Councils (SSC), school boards, OC Dept. of Education, “anyone who requests a copy,” and “noon supervisors.” Plan available in languages other than English? Twelve (8%) of the total number of surveys returned indicated Spanish, none in Vietnamese, and six (4%) indicated “Other.” The Other category consisted primarily of one elementary school district that provided a summary of the plan in English, Spanish, and Korean. One high school commented that part of their plan was available in nine languages. Is Plan reviewed / updated on a regular basis? How often? All respondents indicated their plans were reviewed regularly, with a high majority specifying annually (77%); other plan review periods included quarterly (4%), semi-annually (3%), other (6%), and left blank (10%). __________________________________________________________________________ 6 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 Who is responsible for Plan review and approval? For this “fill in the blank” question, the individuals or groups referred to for plan approval were categorized as follows. Most categories indicated a primary person in combination with others (e.g., a SSC plus a principal). % % % Principal alone or w/ Others 38 Left Blank 13 Crisis Team Leaders 3 School Administrators 19 Assistant Principals 7 School Boards 1 School Site Councils (SSC) 17 District Staff 3 Based on “other” comments, “Administrators” includes principals, assistant principals, and various directors. Who receives periodic training regarding the Plan (please check all that apply): % % % School Administrators 97 Students 68 Others 9 Teachers 95 Parents 24 Left Blank 1 Support Staff 87 School Volunteers 19 “Others” receiving periodic training not listed above included playground monitors and some after-school programs for children (e.g., “Think Together” and English Learner Advisory Committee – ELAC). How often is training / orientation provided? Sixty-seven per cent indicated emergency plan training is provided on an annual basis. Another 18% indicated semi-annually, and the remaining 22% chose “other” but left it unspecified. (The total exceeds 100% because some checked more than one response.) One respondent commented, “Training provided irregularly,” and another stated, “Additional training in the areas other than fire drills would be helpful.” Does the plan include all-school drills (e.g., fire / evacuation)?
• CO4
  If yes, how often? o Monthly was indicated 75% of the time; Quarterly, 11%; Semi- annually, 5%; Bi-monthly, 5%; “Varies”, 3%; Annually, 2%; and Other, 1%.
• CO5
  Parents invited? o Yes 35% o No 65% __________________________________________________________________________ 7 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 With respect to inviting parents to drills, elementary schools usually indicated parents were invited annually, and also those who happened to be on campus (i.e., volunteering, etc.) when drills occurred. When parents were not specifically invited, schools indicated parents were welcome to attend drills if they requested. With respect to the frequency of drills, those indicating “Varies” usually commented that different drills are conducted on different schedules. For example, monthly fire drills, evacuation drills perhaps quarterly, and earthquake drills annually. Does the school stock and maintain emergency supplies? Please check all that apply: % % % First Aid 99 Blankets 80 Cots 48 Two-way Radios 95 Food 70 Portable Generator 26 Flashlights 94 Facemasks 68 Other 20 Batteries 89 Temporary Toilets 57 Water (in containers) 84 Portable Radios 54 Twenty-nine schools reported additional emergency supplies kept on hand, not listed above, including search and rescue equipment, tarps / tents, stretchers, toilet paper, hygiene supplies, emergency utility shut-off tools, and automatic external defibrillators (AED). One school did not check First Aid supplies. In addition to calculating the percent of schools that stock each survey item, the number of items checked per school was tallied. Schools ranged from stocking as few as two to as many as all 12 items listed plus additional equipment and supplies. The average number of items stocked and maintained per school was 9.38 Does the plan anticipate the prescription medication needs of students / staff?
• CO6
  No 15% “Other” comments about this item were, “working on it,” and “on a very limited basis for a few students who take meds during the school day”. The plan includes maps / diagrams indicating the location of: % % % Assembly Locations 99 First Aid Items 90 Supplies 84 Student/Parent Pickup Spots 94 Utility Shut-offs 90 Shelter 62 What is the biggest single constraint on your ability to plan for school site emergencies / disasters? __________________________________________________________________________ 8 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 This open-ended question drew 122 responses (81%); the cited constraints subsequently were categorized into the following issues. % % % Limited Time Issues 33 Supplies / Storage Space 7 “No Constraints” 6 Limited Funds / Money 21 Predicting the Unknown 6 Miscellaneous 5 Logistical Issues 17 Staffing / Personnel Issues 6 Logistical issues included such items as open campuses (e.g., adjoining parks), size of student population (as many as 3,000 students), and traffic congestion concerns. Seven schools (6%) reported they were experiencing no constraints regarding planning for emergencies or disasters. Please provide any explanatory comments to the above items: Twenty-three respondents added narrative comments, which were sorted into the following topic categories:
• CO7
  Six attached copies of sections of existing plans; this usually occurred when schools were in districts that had applied for and received large (approximately $925,000) grants to provide comprehensive emergency / disaster training and advanced technology.
• CO8
  Seven wrote several paragraphs of comments and information, most of which described in greater detail the amount of preparation that had gone into planning for disasters either at the school, or as a consequence of the district being a grant recipient.
• CO9
  A number of respondents commented on specific items, and noteworthy ones were added to the item results, above.
• CO10
  A small number of respondents commented on the difficulty of planning for the unknown. For example, one individual wrote, “In the event of a natural disaster impacting the greater community, the level of support available is unknown / unpredictable.”
• CO11
  Perhaps one comment sums up the attitude generally expressed: “It is difficult to come up with time needed to plan but we make it a priority.” School Site Visit Results By the final cutoff date, visits to 17 schools had been scheduled and completed, one that was scheduled had to be cancelled by the Grand Jury due to schedule changes, and two schools did not call for an appointment. The group of schools visited consisted of 10 elementary schools, five middle schools, and two high schools. Appendix A shows which schools received visitors. Principals were the main contact person and the individual responsible for the particulars of the visit. Several schools had campus emergency preparedness personnel and / or district representatives in attendance. __________________________________________________________________________ 9 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 Overall, the elementary schools visited were well prepared, although different degrees of preparation were noted. Elementary schools in districts that had obtained a Readiness and Emergency Management in Schools (REMS) grant from the U. S. Department of Education were very well prepared. These schools had a range of ample supplies, detailed school emergency plans and the resources to make necessary improvements where needed. Schools not in districts receiving a REMS grant generally were not as well situated and were having some difficulty in meeting reasonable levels of preparedness, especially with regard to date-stamped supplies on hand, and adequate, secure storage spaces. Some schools, due to severe budget restraints, have to rely on parents and local parent-teacher organizations for obtaining necessary supplies. In some districts, this has become a standard operating procedure. Five middle schools and only two high schools were visited, but many of the district-specific issues mentioned above for elementary schools were the same for them, i.e., well-funded districts have been able to achieve impressive preparations, especially in the area of technology. For example, one middle school visited displayed a software program that local law enforcement agencies would use in their patrol cars to picture various buildings on the campus. Because middle and high schools have older students, administrators face a different set of problems regarding controlling the student body. On campuses where many students have personal cars, it was anticipated that during an emergency, many would likely attempt to leave the campus on their own. Regardless of grade levels served, some schools visited were concerned about security issues related to relatively open campuses that do not or cannot utilize perimeter fencing. One middle school assistant principal said he worried most about a terrorist attack, because he viewed relatively open campuses as all too convenient “soft targets” for a weapon of mass destruction. Also, within the overall group of campuses visited, even in this age of ubiquitous two-way electronic communication devices, a wide range of radio-telephonic technology was found, from expensive UHF transceivers to outmoded public address systems. In one case, due to a lack of telephone or other communication device, one section of a campus was not adequately connected to others. In general, what was observed and learned by visiting schools was reflected in the written survey results data, but it was meaningful and instructive to see first hand both truly impressive preparations, and also many examples of what would be considered completely adequate. In a few cases, deficiencies that needed to be addressed immediately were pointed out to appropriate personnel. For example, in one case, a large, steel storage container could be opened by only one person on campus, the custodian. __________________________________________________________________________ 10 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 School District Survey Results All but one of the 27 districts returned surveys in time for their responses to be included. As with the individual school surveys, the results for districts are organized by responses to the nine survey questions, plus “other” and narrative responses. The questions reproduced here are the same as those found on the surveys. In most cases the results are in terms of comparative percentages, based on data from 26 districts. With respect to emergency preparedness on individual school campuses in your district, how is the district involved? (Please check all that apply) % % % Training / Exercises 96 Interpret Codes / Reg’s 73 Inventory Sch Supplies 58 Plan Review/Approval 96 Critical Incident Debriefing 69 Apply for Funds / Grants 58 Plan Development 92 Provide Equip / Supplies 69 Info on District Website 50 Coordinate Resources 88 Incident Post Study 62 Coord w/ Other Dist’s 38 Periodic Meetings 88 Bulletins / Updates 65 Other 23 Provide Written Mat’l 81 School Site Inspections 62 Additional involvement provided by districts, not listed above, included district- wide coordination of disaster drills, and coordinating efforts with cities and other agencies, including OC Department of Education, the OC Fire Authority, San Onofre, etc. Your district-wide emergency plans address the following (please check all that apply): % % % Earthquake 100 Power Failure (blackout) 88 Other 46 Active Shooter 100 Hazardous Material 88 Nuclear Incident 35 Fire 92 Evacuations 88 Tsunami 23 Intruder on Campus 92 Epidemic 73 Bomb Threat 92 Flood / Landslide 65 Nine districts reported additional emergency situations addressed by their plans, not listed above, including hostage situation, poisoning, rape, suicide, snake bites, abduction, falling aircraft, wildfires, high winds / tornado. School site plans are reviewed, updated, and approved how often: All of the districts responding indicated school site plans are reviewed and approved annually. Are school site plans evaluated against certain minimum requirements or governmental regulations? What are they? __________________________________________________________________________ 11 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 Almost all districts (92%) replied “Yes” to this question, with two responding “No.” Those affirming the question indicated they use the following standards; four districts did not specify which criteria. % % % SEMS and / or NIMS 46 District-developed Criteria 8 Grantor Requirements 8 CA Education Code 12 Liability Insurance Concerns 8 FEMA 4 Left Blank 15 SEMS refers to California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), FEMA is the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and NIMS stands for the National Incident Management System. (See Interpretation section, below, for more information on these standards and regulatory systems.) Does the district have a designated individual in charge of emergency preparation? All districts responding answered “yes” to this item. Does the district provide emergency supplies for schools? Please check all that apply: % % % Portable Two-way Radios 69 Flashlights 46 Portable Toilets 27 Face Masks 62 Batteries 42 Cots / Inflatable Beds 15 First Aid 58 Blankets 38 Portable Generators 15 Portable Radios 46 Other 38 Prescription Medication 8 Water In Containers 46 Food (canned, etc.) 35 Ten districts reported supplying schools with emergency supplies or material not listed above, including search and rescue equipment, automated external defibrillators (AED), water drums with purification tablets, UHF “private line” two-way radios, and classroom lockdown kits. The item “Prescription Medication” was an error; however, two districts indicated they provide this item. With which larger emergency planning / coordinating systems or agencies does the district communicate with? (Please check all that apply): % % % OC Emergency Ops Center 73 Other 61 FEMA 11 OC Fire Authority 69 OC Emergency Mgmt Bureau 58 AlertOC 65 Red Cross 58 Sixteen districts reported being in communication with agencies or entities in addition to the above, including with city-level emergency operations centers, the OC Sheriff’s Department, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), __________________________________________________________________________ 12 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 or combinations of these. (FEMA is the Federal Emergency Management Agency.) What is the biggest single constraint on your efforts to plan for emergencies / disasters within your school district? All districts responding cited constraints that could be categorized into four issues. The top two concerns, limited Funding (46%) and Time (27%), accounted for 73% of the four. The remaining constraints were limited Resources / Supplies (15%) and Logistical challenges (12%). Logistical challenges, for example, included a district located in a hilly area with limited ingress / egress for emergency vehicles, especially fire trucks. Another challenge for a joint district was the cost of coordinating and collaborating with four different cities, each with its own geographic and demographic characteristics. Please provide any explanatory comments to the above items: Approximately half of the districts provided additional narrative comments. Of these, the most common theme was the negative impact of limited money and / or time for training (e.g., the cost of removing teachers from classrooms for training, the cost of replenishing supplies for schools, and increased workloads and responsibilities for administrators). ANALYSIS In broad overview, Orange County public schools are well prepared for an increasing number of disasters and emergency situations. Preparation and planning takes place on a regular basis, plans are developed and reviewed by a number of stakeholders, and with reference to several governmental and district-developed standards. Drills, training, and other exercises are carried out on regular schedules, and most schools have been able to find funding and resources for material, supplies, and equipment. School officials and district administrators take emergency preparedness seriously, and rank it high on a scale of importance, even though it competes for staff time and money. Most districts prioritize their efforts to provide macro services such as help with plan development, coordination of resources, district-wide training and exercises, and school site plan review and approval. Most provide specialty services such as the interpretation of codes and regulations, critical incident debriefing, and written resource materials, but only a little over half of the districts report being involved in applying for grants or outside funding to help with emergency planning. The results show fairly wide differences across the county and between districts with regard to a number of emergency preparedness issues, including the amount and kind of support available to schools from district offices, __________________________________________________________________________ 13 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 schools’ abilities to develop community support for their plans, districts’ abilities to obtain outside funding and grants for emergency planning, and the amount of coordination, integration, and communication with larger local disaster planning agencies, such as the Orange County Emergency Operations Center. The main underlying factor that seems to explain large discrepancies between well-equipped and well-prepared districts and those that are adequately prepared is, of course, money. Fortunately, some districts have developed the ability to access large governmental grants specifically for emergency preparedness, and these successes may provide a model or at least examples of what is possible. Individual school districts communicate with from two to six or more agencies or networks designed to assist during disasters or emergencies. The average district works with four. For the most part, the different emergency agencies are complementary, in that they work with different aspects of disasters; there doesn’t appear to be unnecessary duplication or disorganization. It is not clear whether all districts have a comprehensive overview of the different emergency response networks available to them, or whether each district has managed to assemble the best match of response agencies or services for their jurisdiction. Plan Development, Review and Approval Both school and district emergency planning efforts now include responding to an expanding list of disasters. Due to increasing concerns regarding high- profile on-campus shootings, by students or intruders, school plans address Intruder on Campus, Lockdown, and Evacuation at least 95% of the time. Although school plans address Active Shooter only 78% of the time, it appears that planning for lockdowns and evacuations covers “shots fired” on campus. (Planning for Fire and Earthquakes still tops lists at 99-100%.) Planning for two possible disasters that would affect only some areas of Orange County – a Nuclear Incident and a Tsunami – was apparent in plans of schools near the coast and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Looking only at the number of emergency or disaster situations plans address, without respect to the kind of emergency or level of threat, some school plans anticipate as few as two or three of the 13 listed in the survey. (The average number of situations checked was 9.26.) A closer examination of the data shows that when only a few items were checked, they were the “traditional” ones: fire and earthquake, with one or two of the now more common additions of intruder / lockdown, and evacuations. Plans with a minimal number of situations expected possibly are becoming outdated. Districts and schools develop plans with respect to a number of different yet overlapping regulations, guidelines and standards. Almost half of the districts made reference to using or modeling plans on California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and / or the National Incident Management System (NIMS). Others made reference to the California __________________________________________________________________________ 14 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 Education Code. If a district had received a grant, then their plan and preparations were obligated to meet certain requirements specific to the funder. Some districts made no mention of these frameworks and cited completely different criteria, such as liability insurance requirements. If degree of compliance with existing laws or regulations regarding disaster preparedness was a concern, it would be somewhat difficult to decipher which regulations apply to which schools. For the most part, school plans are reviewed and approved at least annually by principals in conjunction with others, including a site administrator, a School Site Council (SSC), a district administrator, or others from the community (e.g., a local first responder). In this regard, there is ample opportunity for input and review by various stakeholders, including parents. Interestingly, although 96% of the districts responding indicated they provide plan review and approval, only 16% of the schools responding cited district review and approval, either primarily or in conjunction with approval from others. Equipment, Supplies, and Technology Both survey results and visits to schools showed most schools are at least adequately equipped. Districts provide some supplies and equipment to schools, although one third of districts commented that emergency supplies are a part of individual school budgets, or have become the responsibility of local communities, parents, and parent-teacher organizations. Most schools have systems in place to maintain a range of essential emergency supplies that are appropriate for the grade levels they cover (e.g., first aid supplies, flashlights, walkie-talkies, batteries, water, etc.), but there is a huge discrepancy between those schools in grant-funded districts and those that are not. For example, some districts have purchased for their schools dedicated-channel UHF transceivers, or sophisticated software programs that provide local first responders with digital images of the buildings on their campuses, to help police locate and apprehend a campus intruder or student with a gun. Another was able, with grant funds, to produce a sophisticated training DVD that documented a SWAT team arriving on campus during a school lockdown. In overview, regardless of the differences found between various schools and districts regarding supplies and equipment, only seven percent of schools surveyed indicated this issue was a “constraint” on emergency preparedness. Another way differences between schools and districts can be seen is in the array of emergency or disaster items stored on campus, without respect to the priority or expense of the different item. Some schools report stocking only a few of the 12 items listed in the survey, while others checked all items and then added a list of additional items. One school did not check “First Aid Supplies” as an item stocked. (The average number of items checked was 9.38.) __________________________________________________________________________ 15 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 Remaining Issues In terms of perceived constraints, or circumstances that have proved to be obstacles in the way of planning effectively for emergencies and disasters, survey results from both schools and districts identified two main limitations – time and money. For schools, these two items accounted for 54% of all responses to that item. Districts had a different order – they ranked money over time, but these same two items accounted for 73% of all of their responses. A small number of schools (only 6%) indicated they were experiencing “no constraints” on emergency planning. Twenty-nine (19%) schools left the item blank, which probably should not be interpreted as “no constraints,” but at least the opportunity to list something was not taken. On the other hand, none of the districts left the item blank, and none volunteered “no constraints” as an answer. Many principals are concerned about asking teachers to trim in-classroom time in order to attend any training not germane to improving academic achievement. District level staff persons complain good disaster training turns out to be an “unfunded mandate.” One described a sort of double-bind: “The primary role of a school teacher is instruction…their regularly scheduled workday does not allow them to be out of the classroom for training, unless we hire a substitute teacher…We are contractually obligated to pay teachers for any training held after their scheduled workday. Either way, there is an additional cost to provide [disaster] training for teachers…” Again, the availability of grant funds goes a long way to solve this time-money dilemma for those districts fortunate enough to have obtained them. Few schools have plans or emergency preparation information available in languages other than English. Given the growing number of predominately Spanish- and Vietnamese-speaking households in the county, this finding at first seems problematic. However, wholesale translations of comprehensive disaster plans would be of doubtful utility. It would be more feasible to translate only critical sections of plans, or updates, summaries and bulletins into other prevalent languages for parents and guardians, rather than comprehensive, district-wide plans. Twenty, or 15% of schools surveyed indicated they have not anticipated the prescription medication or other special medical needs of students in the case of a major disaster or extended emergency. Another 15 schools left this item blank, which can be interpreted to mean an additional unknown number may be unprepared countywide. __________________________________________________________________________ 16 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011

Agency Responses 14

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.