Emergency Management
Status of School Districts' Planning and Preparedness Gao ID: GAO-07-821T May 17, 2007Events such as the recent shootings by armed intruders in schools across the nation, natural disasters, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and potential pandemics have heightened awareness for the need for school districts to be prepared to address a range of emergencies within and outside of schools buildings. Congress has raised concerns over school preparedness, with a particular interest in how federal agencies provide assistance to school districts. This testimony discusses preliminary findings related to GAO's review of emergency management in school districts, including (1) the roles of federal and state governments in establishing requirements and providing resources to school districts for emergency management planning, (2) what school districts have done to plan and prepare for emergencies, and (3) the challenges school districts have experienced in planning for emergencies, and communicating and coordinating with first responders, parents, and students. To obtain this information, GAO interviewed federal officials, surveyed a stratified random sample of all public school districts, surveyed state agencies that administer federal grants that can be used for school emergency management planning, conducted site visits to school districts, and reviewed relevant documents.
Federal and state governments have a role in supporting emergency management in school districts. While no federal laws require school districts to have emergency management plans, 32 states reported having laws or policies requiring school districts to have such plans. The Departments of Education and Homeland Security (DHS) provide funding for emergency management planning in schools. However, some DHS program guidance, for specific grants, does not clearly identify school districts as entities to which state and local governments may disburse grant funds. Thus, states receiving this funding may be uncertain as to whether such funding can be allocated to school districts or schools and therefore may not have the opportunity to benefit from this funding. States also provide funding and other resources to school districts to assist them in planning for emergencies. School districts have taken steps to plan for a range of emergencies, as most have developed multi-hazard emergency management plans; however some plans and activities do not address federally recommended practices. For example, based on GAO's survey of a sample of public school districts, an estimated 56 percent of all school districts have not employed any procedures in their plans for continuing student education in the event of an extended school closure, such as might occur during a pandemic, and many do not include procedures for special needs students. Fewer than half of districts with emergency plans involve community partners when developing and updating these plans. Finally, school districts are generally not training with first responders or community partners on how to implement their school district emergency plans. Many school district officials said that they experience challenges in planning for emergencies and some school districts face difficulties in communicating and coordinating with first responders and parents, but most said that they do not experience challenges in communicating with students. For example, in an estimated 62 percent of districts, officials identified challenges stemming from a lack of equipment, training for staff, and personnel with expertise in the area of emergency planning as obstacles to implementing recommended practices.
GAO-07-821T, Emergency Management: Status of School Districts' Planning and Preparedness
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-821T
entitled 'Emergency Management: Status of School Districts' Planning
and Preparedness' which was released on May 17, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, May 17, 2007:
Emergency Management:
Status of School Districts' Planning and Preparedness:
Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
GAO-07-821T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-821T, a testimony before the Committee on Homeland
Security, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Events such as the recent shootings by armed intruders in schools
across the nation, natural disasters, the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, and potential pandemics have heightened awareness
for the need for school districts to be prepared to address a range of
emergencies within and outside of schools buildings. Congress has
raised concerns over school preparedness, with a particular interest in
how federal agencies provide assistance to school districts.
This testimony discusses preliminary findings related to GAO‘s review
of emergency management in school districts, including (1) the roles of
federal and state governments in establishing requirements and
providing resources to school districts for emergency management
planning, (2) what school districts have done to plan and prepare for
emergencies, and (3) the challenges school districts have experienced
in planning for emergencies, and communicating and coordinating with
first responders, parents, and students.
To obtain this information, GAO interviewed federal officials, surveyed
a stratified random sample of all public school districts, surveyed
state agencies that administer federal grants that can be used for
school emergency management planning, conducted site visits to school
districts, and reviewed relevant documents.
What GAO Found:
Federal and state governments have a role in supporting emergency
management in school districts. While no federal laws require school
districts to have emergency management plans, 32 states reported having
laws or policies requiring school districts to have such plans. The
Departments of Education and Homeland Security (DHS) provide funding
for emergency management planning in schools. However, some DHS program
guidance, for specific grants, does not clearly identify school
districts as entities to which state and local governments may disburse
grant funds. Thus, states receiving this funding may be uncertain as to
whether such funding can be allocated to school districts or schools
and therefore may not have the opportunity to benefit from this
funding. States also provide funding and other resources to school
districts to assist them in planning for emergencies. School districts
have taken steps to plan for a range of emergencies, as most have
developed multi-hazard emergency management plans; however some plans
and activities do not address federally recommended practices. For
example, based on GAO‘s survey of a sample of public school districts,
an estimated 56 percent of all school districts have not employed any
procedures in their plans for continuing student education in the event
of an extended school closure, such as might occur during a pandemic,
and many do not include procedures for special needs students. Fewer
than half of districts with emergency plans involve community partners
when developing and updating these plans. Finally, school districts are
generally not training with first responders or community partners on
how to implement their school district emergency plans.
Figure: Estimated Percentages of urban and Rural Districts' Multi-
Hazard Emergency Management Plans that Include Specific Types of
incidents:
[see PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
[A] Differences between urban and rural districts are not statistically
significant.
[End of figure]
Many school district officials said that they experience challenges in
planning for emergencies and some school districts face difficulties in
communicating and coordinating with first responders and parents, but
most said that they do not experience challenges in communicating with
students. For example, in an estimated 62 percent of districts,
officials identified challenges stemming from a lack of equipment,
training for staff, and personnel with expertise in the area of
emergency planning as obstacles to implementing recommended practices.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-821T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202)
512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss emergency management in public
school districts. The nation's more than 17,000 school districts are
responsible for maintaining the safety and security of approximately 49
million public school students. Events such as the recent shootings by
armed intruders in schools across the nation, natural disasters such as
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, and potential pandemics have heightened awareness of the need
for school districts to be prepared to address a range of emergencies
within and outside of school buildings.
My testimony today is drawn from ongoing work we have conducted for
this Committee and other congressional requesters on emergency
management in school districts. We anticipate completing the report in
June 2007. "Emergency management" refers to the range of efforts
involved in building the capacity to prevent, protect against, respond
to, and recover from an incident. Planning for such incidents varies by
the type and scale of the incident. The federal government's role in
emergency management is principally to support state and local
activities and develop the federal capabilities to respond effectively
when state and local governments require federal assistance. Some
federal support comes in the form of guidance and recommendations.
Because the federal government serves as a partner to all states, it is
uniquely positioned to observe and evaluate the range of emergency
management activities across states and local governments, including
school districts, and disseminate information on recommended practices
and successful strategies.
My testimony today will focus on (1) the role of the federal and state
governments in establishing requirements and providing resources to
school districts for emergency management planning, (2) what school
districts have done to plan and prepare for emergencies, and, briefly,
(3) the challenges school districts have experienced in planning for
emergencies and communicating and coordinating with first responders,
parents, and students. When discussing the federal government, I am
primarily referring to the three agencies included in our report--the
Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Education (Education), and
Health and Human Services (HHS).
To determine the role of the federal and state governments, planning
requirements for school districts and schools, and the types of
resources provided to districts, we conducted interviews with officials
representing DHS, Education, and HHS and reviewed relevant federal
laws. We also administered two surveys, one to state education agencies
and one to state administering agencies (the state agencies to which
DHS disburses emergency management funding) in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. To better understand how school districts plan
and prepare for emergencies, we administered a mail survey to a
stratified random sample of school districts in the 50 states and the
District of Columbia. Using a 95 percent confidence interval, all
percentage estimates included in this statement have a margin of error
of plus or minus 10 percent or less, unless otherwise noted. To further
understand the experiences districts have had in planning for
emergencies and communicating and coordinating with first
responders[Footnote 1], parents, and students, we visited selected
districts in the states of Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, Ohio, and Washington. In total, we conducted semi-structured
interviews, either in person or by telephone, with officials in 27
school districts. We are conducting the review in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
In summary, federal and state governments support emergency management
in school districts with a range of resources and most school districts
have developed emergency management plans despite facing challenges;
however not all of these plans incorporate recommended practices.
Federal and state governments provide funding, guidance, training, and
equipment; and many states require school districts to develop
emergency management plans or engage in other planning activities.
However, funding guidance for some federal grant programs does not
clearly identify school districts as entities to which state and local
governments may disburse these grant funds. Therefore, some states
receiving this funding may be uncertain as to whether such funding can
be allocated to school districts or schools; and as a result, school
districts may not have the opportunity to benefit from this funding. At
the local level, school districts have taken a number of important
steps to plan for a range of emergencies, most notably developing
emergency management plans; however, in many districts these plans, or
their implementation, do not align with federally recommended
practices. For example, many school districts do not include procedures
for special needs students in their plans and many districts have not
employed any procedures in their plans for continuing student education
in the event of an extended school closure, such as might occur during
a pandemic. Additionally, school districts are generally not training
with their first responders (i.e., law enforcement, fire, and Emergency
Medical Services [EMS]) and community partners (such as the local head
of government and local public health agency), which are both federally
recommended practices. Finally, many school district officials said
that they experience challenges in planning for emergencies due to a
lack of equipment, training for staff, and expertise and some school
districts face difficulties in communicating and coordinating with
first responders and parents, but most said that they do not experience
challenges in communicating emergency procedures to students. We are
currently considering recommendations that federal agencies clarify and
improve guidance to states and school districts to better enable school
districts to incorporate recommended practices for emergency
management.
Background:
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS and consolidated most of
the federal programs and agencies with responsibilities for emergency
management into that agency.[Footnote 2] DHS serves as a federal
partner to state and local governments in emergency
management.[Footnote 3] DHS provides technical assistance and homeland
security grant funding to states and local governments to enhance their
emergency management efforts. States and local governments have the
responsibility for spending DHS grant funds in accordance with DHS
guidelines to meet local emergency management needs. In fiscal year
2006, DHS awarded $1.7 billion to states, urban areas, and territories
to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks and other disasters.
States and local governments may then provide a portion of this funding
to a range of entities, as specified in DHS's program guidance.
As we have noted in prior reports, emergency management requires
coordinated planning and implementation by a variety of participants.
Effective emergency management requires identifying the hazards for
which it is necessary to be prepared (risk assessments); establishing
clear roles and responsibilities that are effectively communicated and
well understood; and developing, maintaining, and mobilizing needed
capabilities, such as people, skills, and equipment.[Footnote 4] The
plans and capabilities should be tested and assessed through realistic
exercises that identify strengths and areas that need improvement, with
any needed changes made to both plans and capabilities.
The hazards that school districts may face will vary across the country
depending upon the natural hazards to which their particular areas are
prone and an assessment of other risks for which they need to be
prepared, such as pandemic influenza or the discharge of hazardous
substances from nearby chemical or nuclear plants. Similarly, who
should be involved in emergency planning and response for schools, and
the roles of the various participants will vary by type and size of the
emergency incident. For large-scale emergencies, effective response is
likely to involve all levels of government--federal, state, and local-
-nongovernment entities, such as the Red Cross, and the private sector.
Federal and State Governments Provide Resources to School Districts for
Emergency Management Planning, While Only States Have Laws that Require
School Emergency Management Planning:
Although no federal laws exist requiring school districts to have
emergency management plans, most states reported having requirements
for school emergency management planning; however, the federal
government, along with states, provides financial and other resources
for such planning. Education, DHS, and state governments provide
funding for emergency management planning in schools. However, DHS
program guidance does not clearly identify school districts as entities
to which states and local governments may disburse grant funds. Not all
states receiving DHS funding are aware that such funding could be
disbursed to school districts. In addition to providing funding, the
federal government assists school districts and schools in emergency
management planning by providing other resources such as guidance,
training, and equipment.
Although No Federal Laws Exist Requiring School District Emergency
Management Planning, the Majority of States Have Requirements:
Although there are no federal laws requiring school districts to have
emergency management plans, many states reported having laws or other
policies that do so. Congress has not enacted any broadly applicable
laws requiring all school districts to have emergency management plans.
While the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 provides that local
education agencies (LEAs or school districts) applying for subgrants
under the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program include in
their grant applications an assurance that either they or their schools
have "a plan for keeping schools safe and drug-free that includes.a
crisis management plan for responding to violent or traumatic incidents
on school grounds", Education has not issued any regulations imposing
such a requirement on all school districts.[Footnote 5] However, 32 of
the states responding to our survey of state administering agencies and
state education agencies reported having laws or other policies
requiring school districts or schools to have a written emergency
management plan (see fig. 1). Several state laws identify a broad range
of specific emergencies that schools or districts are required to
address in their plans, while many other states do not identify
particular kinds of crises or use more general language to refer to the
kinds of emergencies that plans must incorporate.
Figure 1: States That Reported Having Laws or Other Policies Requiring
School Districts or Schools to Have Emergency Management Plans:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
[End of figure]
Federal Agencies and States Provide Funding for School Districts'
Emergency Management Planning:
Education and DHS provided some funding to school districts for
emergency management. Education provides funding to some school
districts specifically for emergency management planning through its
Emergency Response and Crisis Management (ERCM) Grant Program.[Footnote
6] Since fiscal year 2003, Education dispersed $130 million in such
grants to over 400 of the over 17,000[Footnote 7] school districts in
the United States. These grant awards ranged from $68,875 to
$1,365,087.
DHS provides funding to states and local jurisdictions for emergency
management planning, some of which can be provided to school districts
or schools for emergency management planning. DHS officials told us
that such funds are available through the State Homeland Security
Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, and Citizen Corps
grants.[Footnote 8] Five states--Florida, Hawaii, Michigan,
Mississippi, and Wyoming--reported that they provided approximately $14
million in DHS funding directly to school districts in these states
during fiscal years 2003-2006. In addition, eight states and the
District of Columbia reported that they provided DHS funding to local
jurisdictions that then provided a portion of these funds to school
districts or schools for emergency management planning.[Footnote 9]
Although DHS officials told us that these three grant programs allow
for the use of funds at the district or school level, the department's
program guidance does not clearly specify that school districts are
among the entities to which state and local governments may disburse
funds.[Footnote 10] As a result, some states may not be aware of their
availability.
State governments also provide state funds to school districts. Eleven
of the 49 states[Footnote 11] responding to surveys we sent to state
education and state administering agencies reported providing state
funding to school districts for emergency management planning.
Federal Agencies and States Provide Guidance, Training, and Equipment
for Emergency Management in School Districts:
The federal government also provides guidance, training, and equipment
to school districts to assist in emergency management planning (see
table 1).
Table 1: Examples of Guidance, Training, and Equipment the Federal
Government Provides to School Districts:
Examples of guidance:
* Education publishes a guide for schools and communities titled
Practical Information on Crisis Planning, which explains, among other
things, how schools can prepare for an emergency;
* DHS created a Web site, How Schools Can Become More Disaster
Resistant, that provides guidance for teachers and parents regarding
how to prepare emergency management plans. The site also discusses
identifying and mitigating hazards, developing response and coping
plans, and implementing safety drills.
Examples of training:
* The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), within DHS, offers on-
line courses including one on emergency management planning for
schools;
* Education offers two 1-½ day Emergency Management for Schools
training sessions that provide school personnel with critical training
on emergency management issues, resources, and practices. Emphasis for
these trainings is placed on emergency management plan development and
enhancement within the framework of four phases of emergency
management: prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery.
Examples of equipment:
* With funding from DHS and support from Education, the Department of
Commerce's National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
distributed 96,000 NOAA radios to almost all public schools in the
United States in 2005 and 2006. These radios are intended to notify
school officials of hazards in their area 24 hours a day/7 days a week,
even when other means of communication are disabled.[A].
Source: Education, DHS, and HHS.
[A] Schools receiving NOAA radios included those in six states that,
according to DHS, mandate that public schools have radios. These states
are Washington, Tennessee, North Carolina, Maryland, Florida, and
Mississippi. DHS told us that they have procedures in place to allow a
school to request a radio if it did not receive one. DHS officials also
told us that they plan to distribute NOAA radios to non-public schools
(private, independent, and parochial and other faith-based
institutions), postsecondary education facilities, and district offices
in 2007.
[End of table]
Education, DHS, and HHS have collaborated and developed recommended
practices to assist in preparing for emergencies that can be applied to
school districts.[Footnote 12] Some of these practices are shown in
table 2.
Table 2: Selected Practices that Education, DHS, and HHS Recommend
School Districts Take to Prepare for Emergencies:
Recommended practices:
* Allocate time to emergency management planning;
* Conduct an assessment of vulnerabilities;
* Conduct regular drills;
* Identify and acquire equipment to mitigate and respond to
emergencies;
* Identify a storage location and replenish emergency supplies on a
regular basis;
* Develop an emergency management plan and update the plan on a regular
basis. In developing and updating this plan, school districts should:
- Identify and address a range of events and hazards specific to the
district or schools;
- Develop roles and responsibilities and procedures for school
community members;
- Develop roles and responsibilities for first responders and community
partners;
- Develop procedures for communicating with key stakeholders such as
parents and students, including those who are limited-English
proficient;
- Develop procedures for special needs students;
- Develop procedures in the plan for recovering from an incident,
including continuing student education during an extended school
closure;
- Determine lessons learned after an incident or training;
- Develop multi-purpose manuals, with emergency management information,
that can be tailored to meet individual school needs;
* Include community partners such as local government and public health
agencies in planning;
* Coordinate the school district's emergency procedures with state and
local governments;
* Practice the emergency management plan with first responders and
community partners on a regular basis.
Source: GAO analysis of Education, DHS, and HHS guidance and training
documents.
[End of table]
The type of guidance available from the federal government on topics
related to these recommended practices varies significantly; in some
instances, federal agencies provide detailed instructions on how to
implement recommended practices while, in other instances, guidance is
less detailed.
We have also recognized the importance of certain of these practices in
our prior reports on emergency management.[Footnote 13] We have noted
the importance of realistic training exercises followed by a careful
assessment of those exercises. Those with whom the school districts
should coordinate and train will vary by the type and size of the
emergency. For example, for a potential pandemic flu or other major
infectious outbreak, planning and working with local health authorities
is critical.
In addition to the federal government, states provide guidance and
training to school districts. Based on our survey of state
administrative agencies and state education agencies, 47 states
reported providing guidance and 37 states reported providing training.
Some states also reported providing online resources that include
guidance and training.
Most Districts Have Taken Steps to Prepare for Emergencies, but Some
Plans and Activities Do Not Address Recommended Practices:
Almost all school districts have taken steps to prepare for
emergencies, including developing written plans, but some plans do not
address federally recommended practices such as establishing procedures
for special needs students and procedures for continued student
education in the event of an extended closure. Additionally, many
school districts do not have procedures for training regularly with
first responders and community partners.
Most School Districts Have Undertaken Some Emergency Management
Activities:
Many school districts, those with and without emergency management
plans, have undertaken activities to prepare for emergencies. Based on
our survey of school districts, we estimate that 93 percent of all
school districts conduct inspections of their school buildings and
grounds to identify possible vulnerabilities in accordance with
recommended practices. Of those school districts, 87 percent made
security enhancements to their school facilities and grounds as a
result of these inspections. Security enhancements included adding or
enhancing equipment to communicate with school employees, strengthening
the perimeter security of the school, and enhancing access controls.
In addition to conducting vulnerability assessments, many school
districts carry out a number of other activities to prepare for
emergencies such as conducting some type of school drill or exercise
and maintaining a storage location for and replenishing emergency
supplies such as food, water, and first-aid supplies, as recommended.
Additionally, school districts took responsibility for a number of
activities to prepare for emergencies at the district level such as
negotiating the use of school buildings as community shelters and
identifying security needs in schools. These activities can vary by
locality depending on community needs and include oversight,
coordination with other entities, and training.
Most Districts Have Emergency Management Plans That Address Multiple
Hazards, but the Content of Plans Varies Significantly:
Most school districts have developed written emergency management plans
that address multiple hazards. Based on our survey of school districts,
we estimate that 95 percent of all school districts have written
emergency management plans with no statistical difference between urban
and rural districts.[Footnote 14] Of those school districts that have
written emergency plans, nearly all (99.6 percent) address multiple
hazards in accordance with recommended practices to prepare for
emergencies. However, the specific hazards addressed by plans vary.
(See fig. 2.) In some instances, the hazards included in emergency
plans are specific to local conditions, which is to be expected.
Figure 2: Estimated Percentages of Urban and Rural Districts' Multi-
Hazard Emergency Management Plans that Include Specific Types of
Incidents:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
[A] Differences between urban and rural districts are not statistically
significant.
[End of figure]
The extent to which school districts' emergency management plans and
planning activities are consistent with other recommended practices
varies:
Develop Roles and Responsibilities for School Community Members. Based
on our survey of school districts, most districts have written roles
and responsibilities in their plans for staff such as superintendents,
building engineers or custodians, principals, teachers, and nurses.
Develop Roles and Responsibilities for First Responders and Community
Partners. Based on our survey, we estimate that 43 percent of school
districts use the Incident Command System (ICS) established by DHS as
part of the National Incident Management System (NIMS)[Footnote 15]ó to
establish the roles and responsibilities of school district officials,
local first responders, and community partners during an emergency, in
accordance with recommended practices.
Develop Procedures for Communicating with Key Stakeholders. Central to
district emergency plans is the inclusion of procedures for
communicating with key stakeholders such as staff, parents, and
students, including those who are Limited-English Proficient. Our
survey finds that roughly three-quarters of all school districts have
not included written procedures in their plans for communicating with
Limited-English Proficient parents and students, in accordance with
federally recommended practices.
Develop Procedures for Special Needs Students. Although the number of
special needs students in the schools is growing, our survey finds that
an estimated 28 percent of school districts with emergency management
plans do not have specific provisions for them in their emergency
management plans. Education officials told us that because there is no
agreement among disability groups on what the best practices are for
special needs students in an emergency, districts usually devise their
own procedures. According to these officials, some of these procedures
such as keeping special needs students in their classrooms during some
emergencies may not ensure the students' safety in an emergency.
Develop Procedures for Recovering from an Incident. Over half of all
school districts with written emergency plans include procedures in
their plans to assist with recovering from an incident, in accordance
with recommended practices. School districts' plans include such
procedures as providing on-site trauma teams, restoring district
administrative functions, and conducting assessments of damage to
school buildings and grounds.
Develop Procedures for the Continuation of Student Education. Few
school districts' emergency plans contain procedures for continuing
student education in the event of an extended school closure, such as a
pandemic outbreak, although it is a federally recommended practice.
Based on our survey, we estimate that 56 percent of school districts do
not include any of the following procedures (see table 3) in their
plans for the continuation of student education during an extended
school closure. Without such procedures school districts may not be
able to educate students during a school closure that could last from
several days to a year or longer.
Table 3: Percentages of School Districts with Written Plans that
Include Certain Types of Procedures to Continue Student Educational
Instruction in the Event of an Extended School Closure:
Types of procedure to continue student educational instruction:
Electronic or human telephone trees to communicate academic information
to students;
Estimated percentage of school districts with written plans that
include procedure: 30.
Types of procedure to continue student educational instruction: Web-
based distance instruction;
Estimated percentage of school districts with written plans that
include procedure: 12.
Types of procedure to continue student educational instruction: Mailed
lessons and assignments;
Estimated percentage of school districts with written plans that
include procedure: 10.
Types of procedure to continue student educational instruction:
Academic instruction via local radio or television stations;
Estimated percentage of school districts with written plans that
include procedure: 7.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Note: Responses are not mutually exclusive.
[End of table]
Determine Lessons Learned. Based on our survey of school districts, we
estimate that 38 percent of districts have emergency management plans
that contain procedures for reviewing lessons learned to analyze how
well the plans worked in responding to a drill or emergency. Of the
remaining school districts, 53 percent indicated they have procedures
but those procedures are not included in their plans and 7 percent have
no such procedures.
Develop Multi-Purpose Manuals. Some school districts have multi-purpose
manuals that contain various types of information such as roles and
responsibilities for staff, descriptions of how to respond to different
types of emergencies, as well as site specific information for
individual schools to complete in order to tailor their plan. In
contrast, other districts provide less information. For example, one
district's plan consisted of a flipchart with contact information on
whom to call during an emergency.
Involve Local Government and Public Heath Agencies in Developing and
Updating Plans. School districts differed in the extent to which they
involve community partners in the development and updating of their
plans.[Footnote 16] Fewer than half of school districts with emergency
management plans involve community partners such as the local head of
government (43 percent) or the local public health agency (42 percent)
when developing and updating their emergency management plans, as
recommended by HHS.[Footnote 17] According to written guidance provided
by Education, those school districts that do not include community
partners in the development and updating of their plans may limit their
opportunity to exchange information with local officials, take
advantage of local resources, and identify gaps in their plan. More
than half (52 percent) of all school districts with emergency
management plans report regularly (i.e., at least once a year) updating
their emergency management plans in accordance with recommended
practices. However, 10 percent of all school districts had never
updated their plans.
Train with First Responders. Based on our survey, we estimate that 27
percent of all school districts with emergency management plans have
never trained with any first responders on how to implement the plans,
in accordance with federally recommended practices. The reasons why
school districts are not training with first responders are not readily
apparent. As we have previously reported, involving first responder
groups in training and exercise programs can better familiarize first
responders with and prepare first responders for their roles in an
emergency as well as assess the effectiveness of a school or district
emergency plan.[Footnote 18]
Train with Community Partners. School districts report training with
community partners such as local government and local public health
entities on activities to prepare for an emergency with similar
frequency. Specifically, we estimate that 29 percent of all school
districts train with community partners. As with first responders, the
reasons for the lack of training with community partners are not
readily apparent. In our work on Hurricane Katrina, we reported that
involving local community partners in exercise programs and training
could help prepare community partners and enhance their understanding
of their roles in an emergency as well as help assess the effectiveness
of a school districts' emergency plan.[Footnote 19] Without such
training, school districts and their community partners may not fully
understand their roles and responsibilities and could be at risk of not
responding effectively during a school emergency.
School Districts Report Challenges in Planning for Emergencies and
Difficulties in Communicating with First Responders and Parents:
In planning for emergencies, many school districts face challenges
resulting from competing priorities, a lack of equipment, and limited
expertise; some school districts experience difficulties in
communicating and coordinating with first responders and parents, but
most do not have such challenges with students.
Competing Priorities, Lack of Equipment, and Limited Expertise Are
Obstacles to Incorporating Recommended Practices in Emergency
Management Planning:
School district officials who responded to our survey reported
difficulty in following the recommended practice of allocating time to
emergency management planning, given the higher priority and competing
demand on their time for educating students and carrying out other
administrative responsibilities. Based on our survey of school
districts, we estimate that in 70 percent of all districts, officials
consider competing priorities to be a challenge to planning for
emergencies.
In an estimated 62 percent of districts, officials cited a lack of
equipment and expertise as impediments to emergency planning. For
example, officials in one Massachusetts school district we visited
reported that they do not have adequate locks on some of the doors to
school buildings to implement a lockdown procedure. In a North Carolina
district we visited, officials said a lack of two-way radios for staff
in the elementary schools hinders their ability to communicate with one
another and with first responders during an emergency.[Footnote 20] As
demonstrated in these school districts, the lack of equipment would
prevent districts from implementing the procedures in their plans and
hinder communication among district staff and with first responders
during emergencies. In addition to not having sufficient equipment,
school district officials we spoke with described a shortage of
expertise in both planning for and managing emergencies. These
officials said their districts lacked specialized personnel and
training with which to develop needed expertise. For example, district
officials in 5 of the 27 districts we interviewed noted that they do
not have sufficient funding to hire full-time emergency management
staff to provide such training or take responsibility for updating
their district plans. These officials noted that the lack of expertise
makes it difficult to adequately plan for responding to emergencies.
School districts we interviewed also reported challenges in
incorporating special needs students in emergency management planning.
According to officials in about half (13 of 27) of the districts in
which we conducted interviews, a lack of equipment or expertise poses
challenges for districts--particularly in the area of evacuating
special needs students. For example, an official in one school
district, said that the district tracks the location of special needs
students, but many of the district's schools do not have evacuation
equipment (e.g., evacuation chairs used to transport disabled persons
down a flight of stairs) to remove students from buildings and staff
need more training on how to operate the existing equipment:
Some School Districts Reported Difficulty in Communicating and
Coordinating with First Responders:
Based on our survey of school districts, an estimated 39 percent of
districts with emergency plans experience challenges in communicating
and coordinating with local first responders.[Footnote 21]
Specifically, these school districts experience a lack of partnerships
with all or specific first responders, limited time or funding to
collaborate with first responders on plans for emergencies, or a lack
of interoperability between the equipment used by the school district
and equipment used by first responders. For example, the superintendent
of a Washington school district we visited said that law enforcement
has not been responsive to the district's requests to participate in
emergency drills, and, in addition to never having had a districtwide
drill with first responders, competition among city, county, and
private first responders has made it difficult for the school district
to know with which first responder entity it should coordinate.
According to guidance provided by Education, the lack of partnerships,
as demonstrated in these school districts, can lead to an absence of
training that prevents schools and first responders from understanding
their roles and responsibilities during emergencies. Additionally, in 8
of the 27 districts we interviewed, officials said that the two-way
radios or other equipment used in their school districts lacked
interoperability with the radios used by first responders.[Footnote 22]
School Districts Have Methods to Communicate With Parents, but Face
Challenges in Ensuring Parents Receive Consistent Information during
Incidents:
In keeping with recommended practices that call for school districts to
have a way to contact parents of students enrolled in the district, all
of the 27 school districts we interviewed had ways of communicating
emergency procedures to parents prior to (e.g., newsletters), during
(e.g., media, telephone), and after an incident (e.g., letters). Eleven
of these districts have a system that can send instant electronic and
telephone messages to parents of students in the district. Despite
having these methods, 16 of the 27 districts we interviewed experience
difficulties in implementing the recommended practice that school
districts communicate clear, consistent, and appropriate information to
parents regarding an emergency. For example, officials in a Florida
school district said that with students' increased access to cellular
telephones, parents often arrive on school grounds during an incident
to pick up their children before the district has an opportunity to
provide parents with information. Thus, according to these officials,
the district experiences challenges in simultaneously maintaining
control of both the emergency situation and access to school grounds by
parents and others. Representatives of three education
associations[Footnote 23] also noted that school districts have much to
do to ensure that their emergency management efforts diffuse confusion
during emergencies and provide parents with consistent information.
Based on our survey of school districts, an estimated 39 percent of all
school districts provide translators to communicate with Limited-
English Proficient parents during emergencies, but fewer--an estimated
23 percent of all districts--provide translations of emergency
management materials. Officials in eight of the 27 districts we
interviewed discussed challenges in retaining bilingual staff to
conduct translations of the districts' messages or in reaching parents
who do not speak the languages or dialects the district translates. Our
findings, are consistent with the observations of some national
education groups that have indicated that districts, in part due to
limited funding, struggle to effectively communicate emergency-related
information to this population of parents.
Officials in all but one of the districts in which we conducted
interviews said that the district did not have problems communicating
emergency procedures to students. While some of these officials did not
provide reasons; as we previously discussed, most districts regularly
practice their emergency management plans with their students and
staff.
Concluding Observations:
The federal government plays a critical role in assisting school
districts to prepare for emergencies by providing funding, giving
states flexibility to target federal funding for emergency management
to areas of greatest need, disseminating information on best practices
and other guidance, and providing training and equipment. School
districts have taken a number of important steps to plan for a range of
emergencies, most notably developing emergency management plans;
however, in many districts these plans or their implementation do not
align with federally recommended practices. Given the challenges many
school districts face due to a lack of necessary equipment and
expertise, they do not have the tools to support the plans they have in
place and, therefore, school districts are left with gaps in their
ability to fully prepare for emergencies. Additional clarity regarding
access to federal resources and improved guidance may enhance the
ability of school districts to plan and prepare for emergencies. We are
currently considering recommendations to address these issues.
GAO Contacts:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me on
(202) 512-8403 or William O. Jenkins, Jr. on (202) 512-8757.
Individuals making contributions to this testimony include Kathryn
Larin, Debra Sebastian, Tahra Nichols, and Kris Trueblood.
FOOTNOTES
[1] In both our site visits and our survey of school districts, we
focused on the traditional definition of first responders--law
enforcement, fire, and EMS. However, the Homeland Security Act as
amended includes a broader definition of emergency response providers,
including "Federal, State, and local governmental and nongovernmental
emergency public safety, fire, law enforcement, emergency response,
emergency medical (including hospital emergency facilities), and
related personnel, agencies, and authorities." Homeland Security Act of
2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 2,(codified at 6 U.S.C. § 101(6)).
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 defined the term "first
responder" as "individuals who in the early stages of an incident are
responsible for the protection and preservation of life, property,
evidence, and the environment, including emergency response providers
as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
101), as well as emergency management, public health, clinical care,
public works, and other skilled support personnel (such as equipment
operators) that provide immediate support services during prevention,
response, and recovery operations."
[2] Pub. L. No. 107-296.
[3] The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act, Pub. L. No. 100-707, provides the legal framework for this
partnership. The Stafford Act is the principal federal statute
governing federal disaster assistance and relief and primarily
establishes the programs for and processes by which the federal
government may provide major disaster and emergency assistance to
states and local governments. The Stafford Act also provides emergency
assistance to tribal nations, individuals and qualified private non-
profit organizations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
the principal federal agency responsible for implementing the Stafford
Act.
[4] GAO, Homeland Security: Preparing for and Responding to Disasters,
GAO-07-395T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2007); and Catastrophic
Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, Capabilities, and Accountability
Controls Will Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation's Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery System, GAO-06-618 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6,
2006).
[5] 20 U.S.C. § 7114(d)(7)(D). However, these plans are not required to
address multiple hazards; therefore, for purposes of this report, we do
not consider this to be a requirement for an emergency management plan.
[6] The purpose of the ERCM grant program is to provide funds for local
education agencies to improve and strengthen their emergency response
plans. School districts receiving grant funds under this program may
use them to develop improved plans that address all four phases of
crisis response: prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery. In April 2007, Education announced that it was renaming the
ERCM grant as the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools grant
program (REMS) to reflect terminology used in the emergency management
field. 72 Fed. Reg. 17,139 (April 6, 2007)
[7] As reported by the states to the Department of Education and
contained in the Common Core Data (CCD), there were over 17,000 school
districts in the United States in school year 2003-04. This number
includes school districts in Puerto Rico; four outlying areas (American
Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands); the
Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the Department of Defense, which were
eligible for funds but we excluded from the sample for our survey of
school districts. Department of Defense schools are included in the CCD
count of school districts, but according to Education officials, such
schools are not eligible to receive funding under the ERCM/REMS grant
program.
[8] The State Homeland Security Program provides funds to enhance the
emergency preparedness of state and local governments. The Urban Areas
Security Initiative grant is awarded to some states with high threat
and high density urban areas that need planning, exercises, equipment,
and training to respond to acts of terrorism. Citizen Corps funds are
provided to states to promote volunteer efforts.
[9] A ninth state distributed DHS funding to its state education
agency, which then provided the funding to public schools in its state.
[10] DHS guidance for these grant programs provides that state
administering agencies are the only agencies eligible to apply for
funding and that they are responsible for disbursing grant funds to
local units of government and other designated recipients. The guidance
identifies a definition of "local unit of government" that was used in
the Conference Report accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act of 2006,
and which includes "any county, city, village, town, district, borough,
parish, port authority, transit authority, intercity rail provider,
commuter rail system, freight rail provider, water district, regional
planning commission, council of government, Indian tribe with
jurisdiction over Indian country, authorized Tribal organization,
Alaska Native village, independent authority, special district, or
other political subdivision of any State."
[11] We included the District of Columbia in our state education and
state administering agency surveys.
[12] Education, for example, also obtained input from state and local
school and emergency management officials and associations in
developing these recommended practices.
[13] See GAO-07-395T and GAO-06-618.
[14] Those school districts that did not have a written emergency
management plan cited several reasons for the lack of such plans that
included (1) no requirement to have a written plan, (2) inadequate
resources for experienced personnel to develop emergency plans, and (3)
schools, not the district, have individual plans.
[15] The Incident Command System is a standard incident management
system to assist in managing all major incidents. The Incident Command
System also prescribes interoperable communications systems and
preparedness before an incident happens, including planning, training,
and exercises. The Incident Command System was developed in the 1970s
following a series of catastrophic fires. Specifically, researchers
determined that response problems were more likely to result from
inadequate management rather than from any other reason. The Incident
Command System was designed so that responders from different
jurisdictions and disciplines could work together better to respond to
natural disasters and emergencies, including acts of terrorism. NIMS
includes a unified approach to incident management: standard command
and management structures, and emphasis on preparedness, mutual aid,
and resource management.
[16] In our survey, community partners included representatives from
public health, mental health, local head of government, transportation,
hospitals, Red Cross, faith-based community, and the business
community.
[17] Twelve percent of school districts do not know whether public
health agencies were included in the development and update of plans.
Thirteen percent of districts do not know whether the local head of
government was included in the development and update of plans.
[18] See GAO-06-618.
[19] See GAO-06-618.
[20] Two-way radios, commonly known as walkie-talkies, are radios that
can alternate between receiving and transmitting messages. Cellular
telephones and satellite telephones are also two-way radios but, unlike
walkie-talkies, simultaneously receive and transmit messages.
[21] Thirteen percent of school districts reported not knowing whether
the district has challenges related to first responders.
[22] GAO has reported on the range of issues associated with the lack
of interoperability among first responders and the implications of
these issues for emergency management. For a fuller discussion of these
issues see the following GAO reports: First Responders: Much Work
Remains to Improve Communications Interoperability, GAO-07-301
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 2007); Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced
Leadership, Capabilities, and Accountability Controls Will Improve the
Effectiveness of the Nation's Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
System, GAO-06-618 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2006); and Homeland
Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required
to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications. GAO-04-740
(Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004).
[23] National Education Association, American Association of School
Administrators, and National Association of Secondary School
Principals.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
