This paper critically evaluates a university school emergency response and crisis management plan, assessing its effectiveness, comprehensiveness, and compliance with federal standards. The analysis examines whether the plan addresses contemporary threats such as gun violence, biological hazards, and natural disasters, comparing it against FEMA guidelines and the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The paper finds the plan fundamentally lacking in specifics, notes the absence of NIMS and Incident Command System (ICS) references, and argues that no emergency plan can be fully validated without rehearsal, testing, and alignment with federally mandated protocols.
On the surface, the Emergency Response and Crisis Management Plan reviewed here appears quite thorough. Comparing it to an emergency response plan on the FEMA website, however, it is lacking coverage of some potential eventualities. In any event, until the plan has been tested, no one — whether a principal, a school board member, or any other stakeholder — can know how effective it will truly be. For example, the plan takes pains to point out where teachers are to take their students: which hallway to use, which way to turn, and how to exit the building. That is all commendable.
But those directions have always been a standard feature of school safety based on the possibility of a fire. Every school in the United States conducts fire drills and has procedures in place for a fire emergency. We are living in an age, however, when fire is not the only emergency that might arise. There are a multitude of events that could occur with devastating consequences. These are dangerous times: at least once a month, if not more often, a troubled individual uses deadly force in a school or public place. The list of school shootings — incidents in which a gunman has entered a school and killed innocent students and teachers — is distressingly long. Given this reality, the answer is straightforward: the success of this emergency plan cannot be properly evaluated in its current form, and what can be said at the outset is that it appears fundamentally flawed and lacking in specifics.
There is no way to be certain that this plan would be effective unless it is actually activated during a real emergency. Short of that, the school should be rehearsing its plan regularly and updating it according to federal standards — standards that are discussed in greater detail below.
In the International Journal of Police Science & Management, Stone et al. assert that today's emergency plans for schools must be "multifaceted intricate documents" that include instructions for: (a) natural disasters; (b) terrorist attacks; (c) fire threats; (d) disruptive students; (e) flu pandemics; and (f) other eventualities driven by out-of-control or mentally imbalanced individuals (Stone et al., 2010). For the most part, these issues are not adequately addressed in the plan under review. On page 2, the plan includes a bulleted list of possible emergencies — including hazardous materials spills, weapons on school grounds, bomb threats, severe weather, and power outages — but that is the full extent of the attention paid to those issues: a brief list of bullet points with no accompanying procedures.
The plan does speak in considerable detail to where parents should go to reunite with their children, and it identifies teachers who can be counted on for leadership. Campus lockdown procedures are also discussed. However, nowhere in the plan is there any reference to the National Incident Management System (NIMS), which is the federal set of standards that all public schools in the United States are obligated to follow. Every school receiving federal funds — the vast majority of public schools — must comply with NIMS (Stone, 538). Within the NIMS framework there is coverage of "targeted violence," in which a known attacker selects a particular target prior to carrying out a violent attack. This concept is addressed in the Safe School Initiative, discussed on page 538 of the Stone article.
"Federal NIMS and ICS requirements schools must meet"
The plan reviewed here falls short of the multifaceted, federally aligned standard that today's school safety environment demands. Without explicit procedures for contemporary threats such as gun violence and biological hazards, and without any reference to NIMS or ICS compliance, the plan leaves students, staff, and parents inadequately protected. Regular rehearsals, ongoing updates aligned with FEMA guidelines, and full adoption of NIMS protocols are essential next steps for any school committed to genuine emergency preparedness.
You’re 83% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.