Vital Systems Security

Curbed, a New York urbanism and real-estate blog (there is a curbed LA as well), has a post today on a design competition in New York for innovative designs for emergency housing. Interestingly, the design competition is scenario based. Here is the description from the competition announcement:

The competition scenario focuses on a fictional neighborhood called Prospect Shore that has just been hit by a Category 3 hurricane, leaving 38,000 families without housing. Entrants are asked to design a provisional housing plan for the community that could be used by emergency planners in real life. The judging criteria recognize that traditional post-disaster housing, such as mobile homes, is not suitable for New York City’s high population density and concentrated infrastructure. The competition is being sponsored by OEM, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Architecture for Humanity – New York.

Among many things that are curious here is the suggestion that New York has needs that are different from the rest of the country (mobile homes need not apply — indeed, where would they go?) and that, therefore, specific local solutions are required.

The University of California Police Department, in cooperation with 

the City of Berkeley Police Department, is participating in Alameda 

County’s “Urban Shield” exercise from Friday, September 28 to Monday, 

October 1, 2007.  

Urban Shield, a multi-agency regional training event, will test and 

enhance the emergency preparedness and response abilities of local law 

enforcement in a wide variety of situations.  Tactical teams from 

approximately 25 departments across the country, including our own 

Negotiations and Entry Team, will be deployed around the clock to 

handle a variety of simulations and scenarios ranging from natural 

disasters to incidents of terrorism.  If you would like to learn more 

about this event, please see http://www.urbanshield.org/about.html for 

details.

Warren Hall will be the site of an “active shooter” simulation.  

Especially in light of the tragic events at Virginia Tech and other 

past incidents of campus violence, the University is committed to the 

highest level of preparation and prevention possible, and is proud to 

participate in this opportunity to provide realistic and valuable 

training to so many law enforcement agencies.  

Police personnel will begin staging equipment and preparing the 

building on the evening of Friday, September 28.  At 5:00 am on 

September 29 (Saturday) the exercise will begin.  Activity will 

include role-player movements on the first and ground floor of Warren 

Hall, the arrival and departure of personnel and vehicles in Mulford 

Hall parking lot, and some loud noises.  The scenario will repeat once 

every other hour for the entire weekend, day and night, ending before 

9:00 am on Monday, October 1.  

Thank you for your assistance with this important initiative.

Nathan Brostrom

Vice Chancellor–Administration

Anthony and I are developing some conceptual equipment around ‘biopreparedness’ in relation to Syn-BERC. One area where we are stumped relates directly to the recent posts on the National Response Framework, and I thought would make an interesting VSS discussion. The issue is about what kinds of thinking go into the design of scenario-based plans such as the NRF. As Dale noted, current DHS plans are oriented towards fifteen scenarios. The question is: what criteria are employed to develop the specific scenarios used in exercises? Dale wondered whether the number of scenarios (and apparently distinct response-assemblages for each scenario) meant a shift away from all-hazards planning. But assuming that all-hazards, or generic, planning is still the goal, how does one develop specific ’scenario-events’ in order to test generic preparedness? I think the answer might be that, in the language of the document, “The focus of the scenarios is on response capabilities and needs, not threat-based prevention activities.” That is, specific events can be used to test generic capabilities, not responses to that event itself. Still, there is a fundamental question of which specific events should be used that remains a question of criteria. Second question: given that the development of scenario plans, and their exercise in practice, involves many distinct and often incomensurable expert-groups (public health, international security, bioscience, etc), how are truth-claims adjudicated (i.e. this type of response is ‘realistic’, etc.)? Any thoughts would be much appreciated–including in particular “ethnographic” insights from discussions with actual scenario planners.

A quick follow on Dale’s post. I just wanted to direct attention to the nice posting from demfromct at dailykos on pandemic preparedness, emergency response, and related matters. A recent post addressing the National Response Framework included this choice graphic on pandemic flu authorities and responsibilities that seemed too good to let slip past. Note the dead bird in the upper left. (What is going on with that bird exactly? Maybe just resting? Hanging upside down? Etc.) Dynamic org. charts of emergency response certainly have come a long way since U.S. Civil Defense in 1950.

This was off my radar — like lots of things lately. So DHS has decided to whittle down the NRP, and turn it into the NRF. Ta-da! The problem is, apparently, that the very emergency managers who will be called on to implement it are *totally* against it. Why? In part, because it is oriented towards 15 scenarios around which are to be formed essentially 15 distinct assemblages. Wait a minute! What happened to all-hazards preparedness? Don’t ask DHS; it is figuring out how to ride out what will probably, in the end, not cause such a big brouhaha: the latest proclamation from the GAO on just how modest — or is it moderate? — progress has been in implementing necessary reforms in the nation’s newest Cabinet-level agency. Check it out here, but prepare yourself for a long read. A thread on either of these items is welcome and encouraged — especially the former, I think!

According to today’s Times the field of emergency management is burgeoning in the U.S. There are 144 college programs offering degrees in the field, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that there will be 28,000 emergency management specialists by 2012. What is the source of growth in the profession? The article cites increases in disaster losses in recent years, but does not discuss the source of this increase. Are communities more vulnerable to disaster? Are disasters more expensive to manage? Or are governments more inclined to declare events to be emergencies?

This summer the UN-initiated “Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction” met in Geneva. The event aimed at increasing political awareness and action on system-vulnerability questions at a global scale. It is interesting to think about this use of the term “platform.” It indicates a space that “brings together a wide range of actors in the various sectors of development and humanitarian work, and in the environmental and scientific fields related to disaster risk reduction.” However, it does not yet seem to point to a coherent way of organizing these diverse elements (including not only actors but also techniques and practices) toward a shared aim.