First Responder Mapping System in K-12 Schools

In 2003, the Legislature directed the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) to create a first responder mapping system for public buildings. The intent was to provide emergency response agencies with the information they need to be successful when responding to disasters, criminal acts, and terrorism (RCW 36.28A.060).

Over time, state funding and additional statutory guidance have focused on K-12 schools. For example, RCW 28A.320.125 requires that schools adopt school safety plans "consistent with" the mapping program and that schools conduct at least one drill each year using the mapping system (Appendix C).

In 2019, the Legislature directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) to review how school districts and emergency response agencies are using the mapping system.

Exhibit 1.1: WASPC and school districts have statutory responsibilities for school mapping

Source: JLARC staff summary of key responsibilities in RCW 36.28A.060-070 and RCW 28A.320.125.

Mapping system includes floor plans, contact information, utilities, hazards, and other information about school buildings

When it directed WASPC to create the mapping system in 2003, the Legislature listed six types of information that the system must include: floor plans, fire protection information, evacuation plans, utility information, known hazards, and contact information.

In addition, the Legislature directed WASPC to work with a committee to develop standards for information, software, access, and training. The committee—which included representatives of fire, law enforcement, cities, counties, emergency management, information technology, and schools—adopted standards in 2005.

WASPC offers statewide mapping system with database and a mobile app

A private vendor owns and maintains the software and technology behind the mapping system. WASPC holds a license that allows school districts and emergency response agencies across the state to use it. Per contract with the vendor, the state owns the data within the system.

The system, called Rapid Responder, has three main components: a database, an emergency response interface, and a mobile interface called Easy Alert.

• Districts and schools enter information (e.g., floor plans, contact information) into the database. They also can store emergency plans, record drills, and document incidents.
• During an incident or drill, emergency response agencies and school/district officials access the information in the database using either the emergency response interface or Easy Alert.

Easy Alert allows users to initiate incidents, communicate through text messages, share photos, pin locations with GPS, and document incidents. It is a relatively new feature: WASPC started to introduce it to school districts in August 2017 and to emergency response agencies in August 2018.

Exhibit 1.2: Screen shots of Rapid Responder

Source: JLARC staff rendition of Rapid Responder interfaces.

At least 33 districts use other technologies for school mapping or real-time communication

School districts may use an alternative system that meets the information, software, access, and training standards set by WASPC.

Through interviews and a survey of districts70% response rate, see Appendix A., JLARC staff learned that at least 33 of the 295 school districts are using alternatives to the state mapping system. These alternative technologies have varying capabilities that include document templates and storage, live camera feeds, interactive maps, and real-time communication. Additional districts and agencies may be using alternative systems that they did not mention in the survey. See Appendix B for more detail.

Best practices for school safety technology suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to work due to differences across districts, including location, size, grade level, and building construction.

The most frequently cited alternative systems are offered through ESD 105's School Safety Operations & Coordination Center (SSOCC)

Educational Service District (ESD) 105 located in Yakima operates a School Safety Operations & Coordination Center (SSOCC) that focuses on helping districts meet state requirements and best practices for school safety. Participating districts choose their level of service. The basic services are support, training, and technical expertise. A full service package also includes data entry, assistance with drills and exercises, on-site training, and community engagement. SSOCC's four-person staff also provide templates for documents, hold monthly consultations with each district, and facilitate discussions between districts and emergency response agencies.

Like WASPC, the SSOCC also offers technology-based mapping and real-time communication tools with a product called SafePointe/InPointe. SSOCC reported to JLARC staff that it could provide support to a district for use of any mapping system, including the state's mapping system (i.e., Rapid Responder). Districts do not have to be part of ESD 105 to purchase the SSOCC's technology-based services and can do so without an SSOCC service package.

The primary intended users of all SSOCC services are schools and districts, rather than emergency response agencies. If a school or district gives emergency response agencies access to the information, the SSOCC will offer training and access to the agencies at no charge.

❮ Previous    Next ❯   

The Legislature has funded the statewide mapping system since state fiscal year 2004

There are two types of costs related to the mapping system: mapping and operations.

• Mapping includes the cost of adding a site to the system's database, including floor plans, evacuation plans, photos, and other critical data. A site is typically a school campus or complex, including all buildings. Under the current contract for the mapping software, up to 2,500 sites can be in the system. There are currently 2,193 K-12 sites and 300 other public sites (e.g., community colleges, critical infrastructure) in the system.
• Operations includes payments to the vendor for the system license and maintenance, as well as the cost of WASPC program management. In the 2019-21 biennium, WASPC's program costs were 30% of the $1.23 million appropriation, while the vendor costs were 70%.

Since the 2003-05 biennium, the Legislature has appropriated a total of $24 million for the mapping system. For the last six fiscal years (2016-2021), appropriations have totaled $3 million. The funds are provided for operations costs only, not for mapping new schools or updating information.

School districts are not required to update the information or to map new/remodeled buildings unless funding is available

State law requires that school districts:

• Annually update their safe school plan and upload it — along with current staffing information — to the state mapping system, if funds are available. If they are using an alternative system, they are to send the information to WASPC.
• Map new or remodeled buildings when funding is provided by WASPC or other sources.

JLARC staff surveyed school districts about their use of the mapping system. Of the 207 that responded, 54 districts reported spending time or money to use the system.

• The largest reported cost was for initial mapping of a new or remodeled building. Together, 30 districts reported spending a total of nearly $223,000 and 1,430 hours on mapping.
• In addition, 32 districts reported spending a total of $27,000 and 990 hours to update information.
• Other costs included time to train staff or enter information about drills and incidents.

The cost to map a new or remodeled school is based on the size of the building. Districts may hire WASPC to do the mapping for $0.16/square foot. Based on the median square feet for new schoolsAs published by the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. in the Pacific Northwest, the cost would range from $11,680 to $22,400 per school. Alternatively, a district could do the mapping on its own. In that situation, WASPC charges a fee of $1,000 to $1,500 $1,000 for schools up to 100,000 sq. ft.; $1,500 for larger schools. to help cover its costs for database administration.

Districts that opt to use an alternative system are responsible for the entire cost

As noted in section 1, the most common alternative system used is one managed by ESD 105's School Safety Operations & Coordination Center (SSOCC) in Yakima. Since districts choose from a range of services, and technology is charged per student, the costs vary. In the 2018-19 school year, for example, one district paid $1,000 for basic services at one school, while another paid $42,000 to have all services and technologies at every school and the district office. The average cost per district was $11,000.

Emergency response agencies can access information at no cost

Both the state mapping system and the alternative system offered through ESD 105 provide access to emergency response agencies at no cost.

❮ Previous    Next ❯   

JLARC staff used the following data sources to evaluate how the statewide system is being used.

• Data stored in the mapping system (see below).
• Survey of school districts (207 of 295 districts responded).
• Survey of law enforcement agencies (155 of 272 agencies responded).

Additional information about the surveys can be found in Appendix A.

School districts and emergency response agencies are logging into the state's mapping system

System data indicates that districts and emergency response agencies are accessing the state mapping system (i.e., Rapid Responder and/or Easy Alert).

• School districts: 253 of the 295 (87%) districts have had at least one school or district staff member log in since fiscal year 2016.
• Emergency response agencies: 271 agencies have logged into the system at least one time since fiscal year 2016. This includes 156 law enforcement agencies, 78 fire departments/districts, and 38 other agencies (e.g., emergency management, dispatch).

Exhibit 3.1: Some districts and emergency response agencies log into the system on a weekly or daily basis, but most log in less routinely

Source: JLARC staff analysis of login data (7/1/2015 through 10/10/2019).

The login information includes both Rapid Responder and the Easy Alert mobile app. As of October 2019, 84 districts and 38 emergency response agencies had logged into the Easy Alert app at least once.

It is unclear whether information in the state's mapping system is current

All 295 of Washington's school districts have uploaded information in the state's mapping system. The type of information varies by district and school, and there is limited detail on whether or not the information is current.

• Districts have the option of indicating a "current as of" date for two data elements in the mapping system: contact information and emergency plans. If a district opts to include it, emergency response agencies will see the date.
• For all other information entered, the mapping system records when the information was last changed, but the emergency response agencies cannot view these dates. Moreover, the dates don't reveal whether or not the information is current. For example, a floor plan uploaded in 2008 may be current or it may be outdated if the school was remodeled since then.

Law enforcement agencies report that the mapping information is useful if it is kept current

In response to JLARC staff's survey, law enforcement agencies indicated that the type of information districts enter into the mapping system is useful, particularly contact information (identified by 90% of responding agencies), floor plans (81%), site maps (79%), and interior/exterior photos (78%). Making this type of information available is consistent with best practices set forth in federal guidelines for school emergency operation plans.

Exhibit 3.2: The state's mapping system has information about schools in each district, but it may or may not be current

Source: JLARC staff analysis of system data as of October 10, 2019. Schools in the analysis include only those with a physical building housing K-12 students.

* Note: Information that has not been updated recently may be current. The system does not indicate when schools or districts last reviewed the information to ensure accuracy.

Among districts and agencies that reported using the system, 33%-53% intend to use it during an incident

In response to the JLARC survey, 165 districts (80% of survey respondents) and 109 law enforcement agencies (70% survey respondents) reported that they use the state's mapping system. This differs from the login data for a number of reasons, including survey respondent knowledge of how and when the system is used by their district or agency. Login data also includes other emergency response agencies (e.g., fire), while the survey was law enforcement only.

According to survey responses, the incidents that the mapping system is designed to support occur infrequently.

• Half of the law enforcement respondents said they happen "once every year or two" and another quarter said they occur "a few times per year."
• About one-third of districts reported that they have had an incident.

JLARC staff asked districts and agencies if they intend to use the system if an incident takes place. Some respondents said they would use it in certain types of incidents (see Exhibit 3.3). The most common way districts intended to use the system was documenting incidents (60%), followed by initiating a response (46%), and communicating with law enforcement (38%).

Exhibit 3.3: More districts than law enforcement agencies say they would use the system during incidents

Source: JLARC survey data.

Districts are more likely than law enforcement agencies to use the system for drills and planning

Best practices for school safety technology and emergency preparedness emphasize the importance of training, including drills and exercises to practice using the technology and to ensure that plans are effective. While statute states that schools must use the mapping system in at least one drill per year, law enforcement agencies are not required to drill or train with the system.

Exhibit 3.4: Percent of survey respondents that report using the system for drills or planning

* System data indicates that 62% of all districts have documented at least one drill in the system since fiscal year 2016. Districts are required to use the system in at least one drill per year, but they are not required to document their drills in the mapping system.

Source: JLARC survey data.

Few fire departments or fire districts use the system

System data shows that 78 of the 271 emergency response agencies that have logged into the system are fire departments or fire districts. Only nine of the fire departments/districts have logged in more than 10 times in the last two biennia.

The Washington Fire Chiefs Association reports that additional training and access to the system is needed. WASPC states that it added a part-time staff member in 2019 to begin providing training to fire departments and fire districts.

❮ Previous    Next ❯   

JLARC staff surveyed 295 school districts and 272 law enforcement agencies (see Appendix A for details). Survey respondents were asked to provide comments throughout the survey, including identifying advantages and limitations of technology-based mapping systems. Their opinions fell into one of three groups:

1. A small group of opponents to any mapping system.
2. A slightly larger group of strong proponents.
3. A majority that perceive both advantages and limitations.

The 20 respondents that do not need or want a technology-based system are mostly small districts and agencies that did not expect it to be useful during a response

Comments from 14 school districts and six law enforcement agencies indicate that they either do not need or do not want a technology-based mapping system. Many acknowledge that sharing information is a good practice, but do not believe they need a technology system to do so.

Districts cite small schools and rural locations as reasons a technology-based mapping system is not needed. Of the 14 districts, seven have fewer than 500 students, four have 500-999 students, and the remainder are from larger school districts.

• Sample comment: "This is a very rural district, served only by a volunteer fire district and the county sheriff. None of our responding agencies have any real-time access to Rapid Responder, as there is very spotty cell service in the area."

Three of the law enforcement agencies serve rural communities and three serve suburban or urban communities. Each report that technology-based systems will not facilitate response in their areas. Rather, officers with firsthand knowledge and non-web-based information are thought to be more useful.

• Sample comment: "Rapid responder does not decrease response time... it only increases it. Not useful at all for a jurisdiction our size."

The 47 respondents that report liking and needing a mapping system cite advantages such as functionality, ease of use, and communication tools

Comments from 29 districts and nine law enforcement agencies indicate that they are strong proponents of the state mapping system. These respondents:

• Give specific examples of how they use the system or explain how it was important to them.

• Report liking the system's functions, central repository of information, and low cost.
• State that it is easy to document drills or incidents and retrieve information.
• Appreciate the real-time communication features in Easy Alert.
• Indicate that the advantages outweigh the limitations and hope that the Legislature continues to support the system.

In addition, ten school districts Three are proponents of both an alternative and the state mapping systems. and two law enforcement agencies are strong proponents of their alternative mapping systems. They cite advantages similar to those identified by users of the state system.

Respondents in the middle group identify both advantages and limitations of the state system

The respondents in the middle are from 144 districts and 128 law enforcement agencies. Their comments do not reflect strong overall opinions, and the limitations they identify are often attributable to program management rather than the mapping system platform. Within this group there are 17 districts and 12 agencies that would like to — or are actively taking steps to — increase their use of the system. Most survey respondents have an equal — or nearly equal — number of positive and negative comments.

As shown below, the top advantages and limitations according to these respondents are:

• Advantages: Availability of information, documentation, ease of use, and simultaneous access/communication.
• Limitations: Cost, data reliability, lack of training, and perceived system issues.

Many of their comments are echoed by those in the strong proponent and opponent groups.

Exhibit 4.1: Key advantages and limitations according to respondents in the middle group

* WASPC stated that many of the perceived system issues have been addressed. JLARC staff noted, however, that many users were unaware of the fixes.

Source: JLARC staff summary of survey responses. Numbers in the table indicate the number of districts or law enforcement agencies that identified these issues in their responses.

❮ Previous    Next ❯   

Some of the limitations identified by users, such as lack of training and system issues, are associated with WASPC's approach to program management.

The statewide mapping system is operated by 1.5 full-time employees

WASPC is a small organization with 19 total staff, and the mapping system is one of many programs it runs for the state.

The mapping system is staffed with 1.5 full-time employees: a full-time program manager and a part-time program assistant. The part-time position was added in 2019 following an increase in the state appropriation for operations of the mapping system. Together, they are responsible for conducting trainings, working with the system vendor, and performing outreach. WASPC reports that the number of staff limits its ability to reach all potential users. However, it is unclear what the appropriate staffing level should be without specific program plans, goals and targets.

WASPC's training approach has reached about 10% of all potential users in the last three years

Emergency management best practices emphasize that regular training is an important component of successfully preparing for and responding to incidents.

WASPC does not currently maintain detailed training records. During the course of this review, it compiled a list indicating that it conducted 180 trainings since August 2016. JLARC staff analysis found that these trainings were held at 64 school districts or ESDs, 32 law enforcement agencies, 2 fire agencies, and 10 other locations (e.g., conferences). This is about 10% of the nearly 1,000 districts and emergency response agencies295 school districts, 272 city, town, or county law enforcement, 474 fire departments. that could use the statewide mapping system. WASPC does not have any records of training conducted before that time. Its records do not include attendee lists, so it is not possible to determine how many users have been trained or if other districts participated.

In addition:

• All trainings are done in person. Given its small staff, the use of technology could make the training more readily available statewide, and could allow attendees to participate in multiple training sessions.
• WASPC has not developed formal training materials and does not provide documents that users can reference after training.
• Training is provided in response to a district or agency request. WASPC does not have a strategy to ensure that districts and agencies have been trained or receive regular training.
• There is not a strategy to train school districts and emergency response agencies that are located in the same geographic area. In order for the system to work as the Legislature intended, both districts and emergency agencies need to use the system.

WASPC does not use system data to manage and prioritize program activities

The database that stores school information also records information about how and when districts and responders use the system. WASPC has not used this system data for program management, communication, or prioritization.

For example, WASPC could review which districts and emergency response agencies are using the system, how often, and how the system is being used. It could use this information to target trainings to infrequent users or suggest that districts review potentially outdated information.

WASPC has not formally communicated with districts or emergency response agencies about user needs or system updates

Emergency management best practices suggest that technology tools need to be periodically re-evaluated to ensure they are consistent with current needs.

• WASPC created system standards in 2005. Since then, both technology (e.g., smart phones) and protocols for responding to incidents (e.g., active shooter standard operating procedures) have changed. While the vendor has updated its technology to now include mobile apps, WASPC has not updated its own standards.
• WASPC receives informal user feedback, and passes it to the system vendor, but it has not developed a process to identify user needs, problems users are experiencing, and training opportunities. Many of the system issues reported through the JLARC survey are examples of the types of information that could be used by WASPC and the vendor to address user needs and improve their experiences.

The mapping system sends automated notices and has reference documents that users can access when they are logged in. However, WASPC does not have a formal way to communicate updates, resolution of problems, and new features to users who are not regularly logging in.

Survey results demonstrate that not all users are aware of system features. For example, 65% of law enforcement survey respondents report being unaware of Easy Alert, which WASPC considers to be the most important new feature of the system.

There are no automated mechanisms to upload data from alternate systems

Statute requires school districts to forward initial mapping information and annual updates to WASPC, if funding is available. WASPC is required to make the information available electronically to emergency response agencies. If the district uses Rapid Responder, the information is available in the system. However, for districts that use alternative systems, it is unclear whether and how often the districts have submitted information, and there are no automated mechanisms in place to add it to the mapping system.

Legislative Auditor makes two recommendations to improve WASPC's program management

1. WASPC should develop and implement detailed training and outreach strategies that have measurable goals and targets.
2. WASPC should periodically review technology standards, address user feedback about technology issues, and use system data to inform its program management decisions.

You can find additional information on the Recommendations tab.

❮ Previous    Next ❯   

The information in the state and alternative mapping systems is part of overall school safety and security

Statute requires that each school district adopt and implement a safe school plan consistent with the school mapping system. The mapping system and information contained within it are part of safe school planning (RCW 28A.320.125). Additional statutes require districts and schools to address other safety issues such as bullying, weapons, gang activity, suicide, and threat assessment.

School safety best practices recommend that districts and schools:

• Work with community partners (e.g., emergency management staff, law enforcement, fire departments, public officials, and mental health experts) to address school safety and security, develop emergency plans, and conduct regular training.
• Integrate security technology into broader prevention and intervention measures, ranging from security and emergency response plans to crisis response drills and a positive school climate.

Legislature established school safety centers within the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and each of the nine Educational Service Districts (ESDs)

The 2019 Legislature codified a network of school safety centers with specific roles and responsibilities, subject to specific funding availability. Many of these centers existed before the codification.

Exhibit 6.1: State and regional school safety centers have complementary responsibilities

Source: JLARC staff analysis.

These roles and responsibilities are consistent with national standards documented by the National School Safety Alliance (NSSA) and the National Institute of Justice. The NSSA also suggests that state centers evaluate the effectiveness of school safety programs.

The 2019 Legislature further directed OSPI to monitor compliance with the requirements for safe school plans, threat assessments, and behavioral health. Subject to specific funding, OSPI must conduct the review no less than once every five years. Information contained within the state's mapping system could support the review, if OSPI worked with WASPC and the system vendor to develop relevant queries of system data.

A majority of districts reported that it would help to have their local ESD coordinate use of the mapping system

The nine ESDs operate their school safety centers differently, with focuses and service models that reflect local needs, budgets, and priorities. In interviews, six stated that they already provide support with safety training or help with drills and exercises.

As required by the study mandate, JLARC staff asked school districts about ESD coordination of the mapping system.

• 70% of districts reported that it would help to have their local ESD coordinate use of the mapping system.
• Broken out by size of district, 76% of small or very small districtsUnder 1,000 students, 69% of medium districts1,000 to 10,000 students, and 52% of large districts Over 10,000 students supported ESD coordination.

The districts were also asked to identify advantages and limitations of ESD coordination. The two most commonly mentioned advantages and limitations are shown in the tables below.

Exhibit 6.2: School districts identified advantages and limitations of ESD coordination

Source: JLARC survey data.

❮ Previous    Next ❯