Colorado School Safety Resource Center (CSSRC) (2012).
This checklist, alongside the CSSRC Comprehensive School Safety Planning Elements, was modeled after the USDOE (2007) four-phase model of emergency planning: Prevention / Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery. In addition, this checklist is a resource for schools seeking to be in compliance with the Colorado Safe Schools Act CRS 22-32-109.1.
Finley, M. D., Ullman, B. R., Trout, N. D., Park, E. S. (2012). (0-6407-1)
This report describes the methodology and results of analyses performed to determine motorist understanding, as well as the operational and safety effectiveness, of automated flagger assistance devices (AFADs) relative to the use of flaggers at lane closures on two-lane, two-way roadways. Based on the motorist survey and field study findings, researchers recommended the use of both types of AFADs (stop/slow and red/yellow lens) in Texas. Researchers did not make any specific recommendations regarding the red/yellow lens AFADs, since the research findings supported the current language in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). For stop/slow AFADs, researchers recommended that a gate arm and alternative symbol supplemental signs be required to reduce violations and improve motorist understanding. In addition, researchers made various recommendations regarding the use of both types of AFADs. This report also describes the methodology and results of analyses performed to determine the effectiveness of 1) five stop paddles with embedded lights compared to a standard, un-lit stop paddle and 2) a prototype, portable, remotely operated, instreet school children crossing sign with flashing light emitting diodes (LEDs) around the border of each sign face. Based on the research findings, researchers recommended the use of one of the following to improve the conspicuity of crossing guards without negatively impacting a motorist's ability to recognize the three critical characteristics of a stop sign (i.e., red background color, octagon shape, and white STOP legend): A stop paddle containing flashing red lights arranged in an octagonal pattern at the eight corners of the paddle. A stop paddle containing a series of steady-burn red lights around the border arranged such that the lights clearly convey the octagonal shape of the paddle. A stop paddle containing a series of flashing red lights around the border arranged such that the lights clearly convey the octagonal shape of the paddle.
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and US Deptartment of Homeland Security (2012).
A new publication series, aimed at engineers, architects, building owners, city planners, and emergency managers, makes available years of government, industry, and academic research on designs and materials to make buildings and tunnels terror-resistant and terror-resilient. The Building and Infrastructure Protection Series (BIPS) provides architects and engineers a set of aids for designing critical infrastructure to withstand all kinds of hazards…at a cost that won’t break the budget. “This series lays the foundation for designing a new generation of resilient buildings,” says Mila Kennett, who oversees the series in S&T’s Infrastructure Protection and Disaster Management Division, where she leads the Structural Resilience Branch. An architect by training, Kennett came from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), where she edited a similar publication series after 9/11. Several of the BIPS guides expand upon and update her highly regarded FEMA guides The primer provides school designers and administrators a set of guidelines to design a school where children, faculty and staff will be safe during a physical attack or targeted shooting.
National Center for Safe Routes to School (2012).
This document provides information on how to understand walking and bicycling safety issues in and around school facilities. Physical environment characteristics and behaviors to observe are listed.
Satterly, S. (2012). Retrieval Location
This article is a refresher of current best practices for tornado sheltering for schools, as well as an explanation of why they have become best practices. The process to change protocals so changes are made in a thoughtful and logical manner are described.
National Center for Safe Routes to School, America Walks, Coaching Action Network (2012).
Improving the condition of commuter routes to schools is important. Deciding which infrastructural improvements will have the greatest benefits is ideal before investing time and funds. This webinar will help prioritize projects at various schools. Examples from two communities are discussed to show how this prioritization process has been implemented.
Rob Jackson, P.E. (2012).
Every child has the right to attend school in safe buildings. Designing and constructing, seismically safe school facilities, is essential in order to mitigate the effects of a natural earthquake hazard. Using a four phase emergency process of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, designers of schools as well as school administration may lessen the impact of substantial damage incurred during an earthquake.
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) (2011).
FEMA 74 explains the sources of earthquake damage that can occur in nonstructural components and provides information on effective methods for reducing risk associated with nonstructural earthquake damage. This fourth edition of the FEMA 74 document updates both the content and the format of the report. A considerable amount of new information now exists as a result of ongoing National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) activities, local and state government programs, private sector initiatives, and academic work focused on reducing the potential for nonstructural earthquake damage.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). (NCES 2011-320)
This report presents findings on crime and violence in U.S. public schools, using data from the 2009-10 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2010).
Schindler, K., Dorris, D., Morgan, L., & Ortiz, H. (2011).
This article is intended to spark conversation between school officials concerning safety at school board meetings, in an earnest effort to prevent tragedies similar to the event on December 14, 2010 in Panama City, Florida. The article encourages school officials to 1) examine school board meeting facilities through a lens of the four phases of emergency management, 2) assess the current level of preventative elements present in the facilities through design, furnishings, and security technologies, and 3) prepare meeting facilities and school personnel through training.
