Subscribe to RSS - confusion

confusion

Mega-disasters: "Are we as prepared as we can or should be, the answer to that is, no." What's FEMA's response?

 - 
Friday, March 18, 2011

As the crisis in Japan continues to worsen, there has been speculation about how prepared the United States is to deal with such a large-scale disaster. Yesterday, retired Department of Homeland Security inspector general Richard Skinner told a Senate hearing that the U.S. is not adequately prepared for such a "mega-disaster," according to this report.

"If you ask me if we as a nation are better prepared than we were 40 years ago, five years ago, the answer is yes," he said, "But if you ask me are we as prepared as we can or should be, the answer to that is, no, we're not."

Skinner went on to say that the events in Japan should serve as a reminder to the U.S. about the importance of catastrophic preparedness and it's not a matter of if, but more a matter of when. Skinner, in his testimony, was very critical of the general state of preparedness in this country, saying the U.S. should be "much better prepared than we are today" after events like Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 attacks.

I then read this transcript of testimony from Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In it, he discussed how FEMA was continuing to prepare for catastrophic disasters. The key issues, he said, were overall planning, coordination and support, emergency communications, logistics, evacuations, housing, disaster workforce, mission assignments, acquisition management and mitigation.

Among many things, Fugate discussed a new office, called the Office of Response and Recovery, which has a planning division dedicated to national, regional and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive catastrophic planning efforts. He also mentioned how FEMA established a National Credentialing Program in 2010 to coordinate activities, incorporate policies, and recommend guidance and standards for credentialing all FEMA personnel who require access to disaster areas or FEMA facilities during an emergency. That's also important to make sure everyone is properly trained and on the same page during an emergency.

In lieu of the Japanese situation and the fact that there are major fault lines throughout the U.S., Fugate also discussed the nation's earthquake preparedness:

As another example of our federal response efforts, national catastrophic planning also includes developing a Federal Interagency Operations Plan for Earthquakes. This plan is oriented toward response and short-term recovery, and will address federal capabilities supporting response efforts to a catastrophic earthquake occurring anywhere in the United States and its territories. FEMA's regions are also partnering directly with their states on joint planning efforts with a focus on specific fault zones or other hazards present within those regions.

Of course, all these elements are important, but the one that seems so critical (and solvable) is the issue of communication. The biggest lesson from all those catastrophes has been the breakdown in communication. Police, fire, federal and local entities, and first responders all know that the first thing to break down during this kind of catastrophe is the communication channels. But, ensuring that all entities have a means of communication has been a huge challenge and I still hear from many agencies that they're not satisfied with the solutions in place.

Also in his testimony, Fugate mentioned the importance of private sector collaboration:

The private sector is a key partner in our catastrophic planning efforts. Various companies and organizations have worked with FEMA at the state and regional levels to collaborate and help develop catastrophic plans. Key corporate and academic experts have provided essential resources and input, and we have established relationships to facilitate response and recovery in coordination with these entities.

How should FEMA be reaching out to those of you in the private sector to prepare for all levels of emergencies?

Congress gets a security review. Are more guns the answer?

 - 
Wednesday, January 12, 2011

When I wrote a story this week about the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords during a political event, one thing that stood out was how often security takes a backseat:

“If there’s any weaknesses when these things are planned, it’s often the security aspect that’s overlooked,” said James McGinty, vice president of training and safety for Covenant Security Services. “Security has to become a big part of the plan.”

Currently, members of Congress are being briefed about how to improve security measures to protect themselves. For example, Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. is requesting a 10 percent increase in member budgets for security measures because "members should have the resources and the latitude to take the appropriate security measures in order to protect themselves and their staffs," according to this article in the Washington Times. Some of those increased security measures could include hiring security personnel for public events, installing surveillance cameras at district offices and improving locks and entry systems in district offices, he said.

Other Congress members have suggested taking security into their own hands and carrying firearms when they attend such public events. However, this morning I watched an interview with Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance Gainer who emphasized that lawmakers shouldn't go to such lengths and should refrain from carrying weapons.

I don't necessarily think more guns are the answer to stopping such senseless violence, however, I can't help but argue that if someone had been carrying a gun during the event in Arizona, there would likely be less bodies to bury.

Somebody needs to sell Congress on video analytics

 - 
Wednesday, October 14, 2009

I just read this article by the Associated Press about a Congressional decision not to build 300 miles of tall fencing along the Mexico-U.S. border.

According to the article, members of Congress cited that funds could be better spent on alternative security measures such as virtual fencing, including the use of video surveillance and sensors. Of course, the article doesn't go into more depth about the type of video surveillance and sensors, but I would venture to say that this type of installation would involve some type of video analytics. What better technology to have in place than something that can alert border patrol when a human is detected crossing a designated zone?

But there are still some naysayers out there, namely the guy who sponsored the provision, U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint:

"Democrats are gutting the best tool we have to secure our borders," DeMint said in a prepared statement. "Virtual fencing won't solve the problem and we need a real fence to deter the real problems of illegal immigration, terrorism, drug trafficking and human trafficking."

Video analytic installations are fairly common these days, and while it's still a developing technology, I would say it's more or less proven at this point. Plus, it's gotta be a whole lot cheaper than the proposed 300 miles of fencing, which was estimated to cost $2.4 billion to construct and $6.5 billion to maintain during the next 20 years.

If I was a video analytic company, I think I'd start putting together a business proposition.