PDA

View Full Version : USA City Security..How do you rate?


Guardian
Jan 3, 2007, 2:39 AM
AFTER 5 1/2 YEARS, SINCE 911, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS?

Only 6 of 75 cities get top disaster rating
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Only six of 75 U.S. metropolitan areas won the highest grades for their emergency agencies' ability to communicate during a disaster, five years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to a federal report obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.
A draft portion of the report, to be released Wednesday, gives the best ratings to Washington, D.C; San Diego; Minneapolis-St. Paul; Columbus, Ohio; Sioux Falls, S.D.; and Laramie County, Wyo.

The lowest scores went to Chicago; Cleveland; Baton Rouge, La.; Mandan, N.D.; and American Samoa. The report included large and small cities and their suburbs, along with U.S. territories.

In an overview, the report said all 75 areas surveyed have policies in place for helping their emergency workers communicate. But it cautioned that regular testing and exercises are needed "to effectively link disparate systems."

It also said while cooperation among emergency workers is strong, "formalized governance (leadership and planning) across regions has lagged."

The study, conducted by the Homeland Security Department, was likely to add fuel to what looms as a battle in Congress this year. Democrats who take over the majority this week have promised to try fixing the problem emergency agencies have communicating with each other but have not said specifically what they will do, how much it will cost or how they will pay for it

"Five years after 9/11, we continue to turn a deaf ear to gaps in interoperable communications," — the term used for emergency agencies' abilities to talk to each other, said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. "If it didn't have such potentially devastating consequences, it would be laughable."

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke would not comment on the report, saying only that in releasing it on Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff will "talk about nationwide assessments for interoperable communications."

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, revealed major problems in how well emergency agencies were able to talk to each other during a catastrophe. Many firefighters climbing the World Trade Center towers died when they were unable to hear police radio warnings to leave the crumbling buildings.

In New York now, the report said, first responders were found to have well-established systems to communicate among each other — but not the best possible. Thirteen U.S. cities scored better than New York.

Just over a year ago, Hurricane Katrina underscored communication problems when radio transmissions were hindered because the storm's winds toppled towers.

A separate report the Homeland Security Department released last month found that emergency workers from different agencies are capable of talking to each other in two-thirds of 6,800 U.S. communities surveyed.

But David Boyd, who heads the Homeland Security office that conducted the study, said in an interview that only about 10 percent of them have systems so fully developed that they can communicate with them routinely. That survey did not name the cities that provided data.

In the study to be released on Wednesday, communities were judged in three categories: operating procedures in place, use of communications systems and how effectively local governments have coordinated in preparation for a disaster.

Overall, 16 percent of the communities were given the highest score for the communications procedures they have in place and 1 percent got the lowest rating.

Nineteen percent got the top grade for their plans for coordinating during a disaster and 8 percent received the worst; and 21 percent got the best mark for how well they use their communications equipment while 4 percent got the bottom rating.

Most of the areas surveyed included cities and their surrounding communities, based on the assumption that in a major crisis emergency personnel from all local jurisdictions would respond.

Los Angeles got advanced grades in procedures and use of emergency communications systems and a well-developed grade in coordination of governance.

San Francisco, by comparison, received intermediate grades in governance and procedures, and a well-developed grade in use of systems.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, $2.9 billion in federal grant money has been distributed to state and local first responders for the improvement of their emergency communications systems.

Congress has ordered that the television broadcast industry vacate a portion of the radio spectrum to make it available for public safety communications. Lawmakers have also created a new office at the Homeland Security Department to oversee the issue, though they have yet to provide money for it.

The areas with the six best scores were judged advanced in all three categories. The cities with the lowest grades had reached the early implementation stage for only one category, and intermediate levels for the other two categories.

Chicago, Cleveland and Baton Rouge, for example, were judged to have accomplished the early stage of government coordination. Mandan, N.D., and the territory of American Samoa were both found to have gotten to the early stage of their actual usage of interoperable emergency communications and rated intermediate in governance and procedures.

Tammy Lapp, the emergency coordinator for Mandan and Morton County, N.D., said she was not surprised by the low ranking.

"We knew with our limited funds, we were going to fall short," she said.
___

Associated Press writer Beverley Lumpkin contributed to this report.
___
On the Net: Report can be downloaded at:

(The below link report shows grading, ie, Full Circle, 3/4 Circle, 1/2 Circle, 1/4 Circle, Empty Circle).

http://wid.ap.org/documents/dhs.pdf

Rise To The Top
Jan 3, 2007, 2:53 AM
no suprise about LA, but im suprised taht NY hasent gotten better with this stuff.

bmfarley
Jan 3, 2007, 2:55 AM
I have mixed feelings on this.

One, the general population will clamor for improvements in this thing or that. But when it comes to paying for it through necessary taxes, they fold. ...for the most part.

Two, natural disasters occur. Terrorism occurs. There's little that can be done to prepare for them.

In the end, what's needed is better leadership.

MayorOfChicago
Jan 3, 2007, 3:04 AM
every disaster is so completely different, or has the possibility of being different. I don't really a ton of attention to these things when the variety of things that could go wrong are SO diverse. I think I just have an overly optimistic view in my mind how well our cities are prepared communication wise for a meltdown of normal life. It happens SO rarely in this country I don't think anyone can be totally prepared - people have no clue what it's really like in 95% of the cases of our cities.

ColDayMan
Jan 3, 2007, 4:00 AM
I understand Columbus as it has the DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER but Cleveland? Tsk tsk.

wong21fr
Jan 3, 2007, 4:47 AM
Good to see that Sioux Falls and Cheyenne are fully prepared, must be that disproportionant amount of funds going to those low-profile districts that Homeland Security has deemed vital for some god-known reason.

Sheer idiocy.

BnaBreaker
Jan 3, 2007, 5:18 AM
Good to see that Sioux Falls and Cheyenne are fully prepared, must be that disproportionant amount of funds going to those low-profile districts that Homeland Security has deemed vital for some god-known reason.

Sheer idiocy.

They're Republican cities. That's why they're important.

Derek
Jan 5, 2007, 4:15 AM
i guess its cool to know SD is pretty safe...

adam-machiavelli
Jan 5, 2007, 4:33 AM
If North Dakota were to secede from the USA right now, it would be the world's most nuclear armed country relative to its size.

passdoubt
Jan 5, 2007, 8:31 AM
I aint afraida terrists.

Dr Nevergold
Jan 5, 2007, 9:45 AM
We're not prepared to prevent another attack, but we're okay with dealing with the aftermath as best as we can in my opinion.

Neither political party can offer blanket protection against a future terrorist attack. All we can do is try the best we can and be prepared with first responders as if an attack is imminent.

AZheat
Jan 7, 2007, 12:09 AM
It really isn't possible to prepare for every conceivable scenario so we've tried to cover some of the obvious ones and of course the airline industry since we've already been attacked using airplanes. Any place where large numbers of people are concentrated in one area is a potential target like open football stadiums, racecar tracks, etc. but there's so many possible ways that terrorists could find vulnerabilities and exploit them that our best course of action is to be fully prepared for dealing with mass casualties after we've been attacked. Much of the spending we hear about for unlikely targets probably is a waste of money but I honestly don't fault anyone for trying to protect those places. The really worrisome threat is the possibility of getting in a nuclear device into one of our ports or maybe a biological weapon. I'm afraid that we will get hit sooner or later no matter how hard we try to defend ourselves.

brian_b
Jan 7, 2007, 1:54 AM
There was an article in the paper containing the lead Chicago guys response to these ratings.

He was furious about it, and said he was demanding an explanation from DHS. Apparently, the DHS evaluators were in Chicago for a few hours, viewed part of an emergency drill, said "looks good" and then left.

If this is true, then more cities probably had the same poor (non existent?) evaluations and thus the ratings are highly suspect.

found the link:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/197110,CST-NWS-emer04.article