Training & Exercise Program

Information in this section includes planned exercises, training for emergency preparedness and response, after action reports, improvement plans, and other relevant information.

2026 Exercises

Spring 2026 Fire Drills AAR-IP

2025 Exercises

Fall 2025 Fire Drills AAR-IP
Spring 2025 Fire Drills AAR-IP
Summer 2025 Access Control Drill AAR-IP

2025 Events/Incidents

Spring 2025 Severe Weather Events AAR-IP

2024 Exercises

Jonesboro Fire Department Response Exercise
2024 Fall Fire Drills AAR-IP
Lab Sciences Fire TTX AAR-IP
2024 Spring Fire Drills AAR-IP

2023 Exercises

2023 Fall Fire Drills AAR-IP
2023 Spring Fire Drills AAR-IP

2026 Exercises

Spring 2026 Fire Drills AAR-IP

To view the formatted PDF, click here: Spring 2026 Fire Drills AAR-IP

----------------------------------------------------------------

Spring 2026 Fire Drills

After-Action Report/Improvement Plan

March 11, 2026

This After-Action Report/Improvement Plan (AAR/IP) aligns exercise objectives with preparedness doctrine and related frameworks and guidance. This AAR meets Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) guidelines. Exercise information required for preparedness reporting and trend analysis is included.

Exercise Overview

Exercise Name	Spring 2026 Fire Drills
Exercise Dates	February 16 & 17, 2026
Planning Date	February 3, 2026
Hotwash Date	N/A
Scope	This exercise is a drill, planned for approximately 5 minutes at each residence hall. Exercise play is limited to activating the fire notification system in each building, monitoring the receipt and response by occupants, examining the notification system for any failures, and documenting all observations.
Focus Areas[1]	Protection, Mitigation, Response
Capabilities[2]	§ Community Resilience § Infrastructure Systems § Operational Coordination § Planning § Public Information and Warning
Objectives	§ Determine the operational status of fire notification systems § Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging § Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging § Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts § Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs § Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence
Hazard	Uncontained Fire
Scenario	Fire alarm activation signals the potential for a fire in the respective residence hall or living quarters.
Sponsor	Arkansas State University
Participating Organizations	Office of Emergency Management, University Housing, University Police Department Dispatch
Point of Contact	Wyatt Reed, Emergency Operations and Occupational Safety Specialist Office of Emergency Management Arkansas State University WReed@AState.edu or (870) 972-3352

Analysis of Capabilities

Table 1 includes the exercise objectives, aligned capabilities, and performance ratings for each capability as observed during the exercise and determined by the evaluation team.

Objective	Capability[3]	Performed without Challenges (P)	Performed with Some Challenges (S)	Performed with Major Challenges (M)	Unable to be Performed (U)
Determine the operational status of fire notification systems	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Planning	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Planning	X
Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts	Community Resilience	X
	Operational Coordination	X
	Planning	X
Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs	Community Resilience	X
	Planning	X
	Operational Coordination	X
Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence	Community Resilience	X

Table 1. Summary of Core Capability Performance

Rating Definitions:

Performed without Challenges (P): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were completed in a manner that achieved the objective(s) and did not negatively impact the performance of other activities. The performance of this activity did not contribute to additional health and/or safety risks for the public or for emergency workers, and it was conducted in accordance with applicable plans, policies, procedures, regulations, and laws.

Performed with Some Challenges (S): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were completed in a manner that achieved the objective(s) and did not negatively impact the performance of other activities. The performance of this activity did not contribute to additional health and/or safety risks for the public or for emergency workers, and it was conducted in accordance with applicable plans, policies, procedures, regulations, and laws. However, opportunities to enhance effectiveness and/or efficiency were identified.

Performed with Major Challenges (M): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were completed in a manner that achieved the objective(s), but some or all of the following were observed: demonstrated performance had a negative impact on the performance of other activities; contributed to additional health and/or safety risks for the public or for emergency workers; and/or was not conducted in accordance with applicable plans, policies, procedures, regulations, and laws.

Unable to be Performed (U): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were not performed in a manner that achieved the objective(s).

The following sections provide an overview of the performance related to each exercise objective and associated capability, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

Capability Definitions:

Community Resilience: Enable the recognition, understanding, communication of, and planning for risk and empower individuals and communities to make informed risk management decisions necessary to adapt to, withstand, and quickly recover from future incidents.

Infrastructure Systems: Stabilize critical infrastructure functions, minimize health and safety threats, and efficiently restore and revitalize systems and services to support a viable, resilient community.

Operational Coordination: Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operational structure and process that appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders and supports the execution of core capabilities.

Planning: Conduct a systematic process engaging the whole community as appropriate in the development of executable strategic, operational, and/or tactical-level approaches to meet defined objectives.

Public Information and Warning: Deliver coordinated, prompt, reliable, and actionable information to the whole community through the use of clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally and linguistically appropriate methods to effectively relay information regarding any threat or hazard, as well as the actions being taken and the assistance being made available, as appropriate.

Residence Hall Breakdowns:

This area will identify the strengths and weaknesses of each residence hall as it relates to exercise objectives and core capabilities.

Living-Learning Communities (LLCs)

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #1

Time: 2:54 | Number Evacuated: 20

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #2

Time: 5:27 | Number Evacuated: 24

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #3

Time: 6:02 | Number Evacuated: 14

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #4

Time: 3:50 | Number Evacuated: 22

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #5

Time: 5:21 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #6

Time: 3:03 | Number Evacuated: 14

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Miscellaneous Residence Halls

Arkansas Hall

Time: 7:14 | Number Evacuated: 29

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Kays Hall

Time: 6:01 | Number Evacuated: 107

Observations: A student requested entry into the building during the drill to retrieve her service animal. Exercise personnel allowed this due to being uncertain if denying access is permissible/responsible. This will be discussed in the review/improvement plan.

University Hall

Time: 4:02 | Number Evacuated: 67

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Northpark Quads

Northpark Quad #1

Time: 5:38 | Number Evacuated: 36

Observations: Entry door mag lock not releasing.
Response: OEM will work with University Housing, ITS, and FM for corrections.

Northpark Quad #2

Time: 4:20 | Number Evacuated: 41

Observations: Entry door mag lock not releasing.
Response: OEM will work with University Housing, ITS, and FM for corrections.

Northpark Quad #3

Time: 5:31 | Number Evacuated: 63

Observations: Entry door mag lock not releasing.
Response: OEM will work with University Housing, ITS, and FM for corrections.

Northpark Quad #4

Time: 6:02 | Number Evacuated: 39

Observations: Entry door mag lock not releasing.
Response: OEM will work with University Housing, ITS, and FM for corrections.

Northpark Quad #5

Time: 3:56 | Number Evacuated: 43

Observations: Entry door mag lock not releasing.
Response: OEM will work with University Housing, ITS, and FM for corrections.

Pack Place

Pack Place #1

Time: 6:59 | Number Evacuated: 27

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Pack Place #2

Time: 5:42 | Number Evacuated: 47

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Red Wolf Den

Red Wolf Den #1

Time: 3:09 | Number Evacuated: 11

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Red Wolf Den #2

Time: 2:28 | Number Evacuated: 9

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Red Wolf Den #3

Time: 2:53 | Number Evacuated: 15

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Sorority Houses

Zeta Tau Alpha

Time: 1:56 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Alpha Gamma Delta

Time: 1:54 | Number Evacuated: 7

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Alpha Omicron Pi

Time: 1:28 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Chi Omega

Time: 1:24 | Number Evacuated: 9

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Delta Zeta

Time: 1:37 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

The Circle:

The Circle Building #1

Time: 5:47 | Number Evacuated: 25

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

The Circle Building #2

Time: 6:08 | Number Evacuated: 13

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

The Circle Building #3

Time: 4:55 | Number Evacuated: 16

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

The Circle Building #4

Time: 4:58 | Number Evacuated: 14

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Strengths

Strength 1 (Staff Leadership): University Housing staff effectively controlled the response to drills by directing residents, notifying UPD, and following established procedures. The facilitator rarely (if ever) had to assist in directing residents or assisting University Housing Staff. (Capability: Community Resilience, Operational Coordination, Planning)

Strength 2 (Knowledge of and Adherence to Procedures): Fewer issues are noted of failure to comply with established procedures and increased usage of assembly areas. No student conduct referrals were needed in this exercise. Staff were receptive and engaged in fulfilling exercise needs and requirements. (Capability: Community Resilience, Planning)

Areas for Improvement

Area for Improvement 1 (Access Control Integrations): It did not appear that access control systems were voluntarily released at certain residence halls without usage of a motion sensor. This could present a vulnerability if a condition existed that prohibited the motion sensor from working properly. This issue needs to be further addressed with relevant stakeholders. (Capability: Community Resilience, Infrastructure Systems, Planning)

Area for Improvement 2 (Policy Clarifications for ADA Considerations): A resident wanted to re-enter a residence hall to retrieve a service animal. Better clarification is needed on the proper way to handle this situation in the future, especially if this is for a non-drill scenario. (Capability: Community Resilience, Infrastructure Systems, Planning)

Appendix A: Improvement Plan

This IP is developed specifically for Arkansas State University as a result of the drills conducted in the Spring of 2026:

Area for Improvement	Corrective Item	Implementation Plan	Primary Responsible Organization	Organization POC
Access Control Integrations	Determine Appropriate Access Control Responses	Campus stakeholders need to meet and determine the standards around access control systems as they relate to applicable codes, laws, and desired outcomes. This will define the desired outcome of access control systems in given situations, such as a fire alarm.	ITS (Primary)	ITS: Scott Wheat or Designee
	Assess Current Access Control Integrations	Once the first corrective item of this area for improvement is completed, an assessment of current access control integrations should be completed to determine if they comply with the standard.	ITS (Primary)	ITS: Scott Wheat or Designee
	Identify Needed Repairs or Projects for Compliance	Once the second corrective item of this area for improvement is completed, the necessary corrective actions should be identified and assigned to the relevant campus stakeholders.	ITS (Primary)	ITS: Scott Wheat or Designee
Policy Clarifications for ADA Considerations	Determine Entry Policy for Drills	Stakeholders will work with campus stakeholders, such as Access & Accommodations and Legal, to determine the proper way to handle ADA considerations for drills and incidents.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed
Policy Clarifications for ADA Considerations	Training	Once the first corrective item under this area for improvement is completed, that knowledge will then be taken and used to train appropriate stakeholders.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed

[1] Selected from National Preparedness Goal’s Five Mission Areas (DHS, 2015)

[2] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[3] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

2025 Exercises

Fall 2025 Fire Drills AAR-IP

To view the formatted PDF, click here: Fall 2025 Fire Drills AAR-IP.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

Fall 2025 Fire Drills

After-Action Report/Improvement Plan

September 23, 2025

Exercise Overview

Exercise Name	Fall 2025 Fire Drills
Exercise Dates	September 22 & 23, 2025
Planning Date	August 11, 2025
Hotwash Date	N/A
Scope	This exercise is a drill, planned for approximately 5 minutes at each residence hall. Exercise play is limited to activating the fire notification system in each building, monitoring the receipt and response by occupants, examining the notification system for any failures, and documenting all observations.
Focus Areas[1]	Protection, Mitigation, Response
Capabilities[2]	§ Community Resilience § Infrastructure Systems § Operational Coordination § Planning § Public Information and Warning
Objectives	§ Determine the operational status of fire notification systems § Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging § Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging § Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts § Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs § Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence
Hazard	Uncontained Fire
Scenario	Fire alarm activation signals the potential for a fire in the respective residence hall or living quarters.
Sponsor	Arkansas State University
Participating Organizations	Office of Emergency Management, University Housing, University Police Department Dispatch
Point of Contact	Wyatt Reed, Emergency Operations and Occupational Safety Specialist Office of Emergency Management Arkansas State University WReed@AState.edu or (870) 972-3352

Analysis of Capabilities

Table 1 includes the exercise objectives, aligned capabilities, and performance ratings for each capability as observed during the exercise and determined by the evaluation team.

Objective	Capability[3]	Performed without Challenges (P)	Performed with Some Challenges (S)	Performed with Major Challenges (M)	Unable to be Performed (U)
Determine the operational status of fire notification systems	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Planning	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Planning	X
Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts	Community Resilience	X
	Operational Coordination	X
	Planning	X
Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs	Community Resilience	X
	Planning	X
	Operational Coordination	X
Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence	Community Resilience	X

Table 1. Summary of Core Capability Performance

Rating Definitions:

Unable to be Performed (U): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were not performed in a manner that achieved the objective(s).

The following sections provide an overview of the performance related to each exercise objective and associated capability, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

Capability Definitions:

Residence Hall Breakdowns:

This area will identify the strengths and weaknesses of each residence hall as it relates to exercise objectives and core capabilities.

Living-Learning Communities (LLCs)

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #1

Time: 2:47 | Number Evacuated: 24

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #2

Time: 2:40 | Number Evacuated: 26

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #3

Time: 3:45 | Number Evacuated: 27

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #4

Time: 3:40 | Number Evacuated: 33

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #5

Time: 5:24 | Number Evacuated: 21

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #6

Time: 3:27 | Number Evacuated: 29

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Miscellaneous Residence Halls

Arkansas Hall

Time: 8:10 | Number Evacuated: 34

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Kays Hall

Time: 6:01 | Number Evacuated: 80

Observations: A car was parked unattended in the fire lane. Additionally, heavy rain impacted the ability to safely exercise at the very end. The exercise was suspended due to safety, although most occupants had already exited.

University Hall

Time: 4:13 | Number Evacuated: 71

Observations: Residents had to be reminded several times to move to the correct assembly area, but staff did an excellent job of noticing this and implementing corrections without facilitator intervention!

Northpark Quads

Northpark Quad #1

Time: 6:12 | Number Evacuated: 38

Observations: Floor 1 both Center Mag, Floor 2 Center Stairwell, North Stairwell, and North Mag, Floor 3 South Stairwell doors not latching.
Response: OEM will work with University Housing and FM for corrections.

Northpark Quad #2

Time: 4:52 | Number Evacuated: 35

Observations: Floor 1 North Stairwell, Floor 2 South Stairwell, Floor 3 North Stairwell and Center Stairwell doors propped. Floor 1 North Mag and Floor 3 Center Stairwell doors are not latching. Floor 1 South Mag door bracket is missing. Floor 3 Mag doors did not release.
Response: OEM will work with University Housing and FM for corrections. OEM will work with Life Safety to correct the missing bracket/no release.

Northpark Quad #3

Time: 4:29 | Number Evacuated: 41

Observations: Floor 1 East Stairwell and West Mag door does not latch. Floor 2 West door is propped. Floor 3 Center Stairwell auto-closer broken.
Response: OEM will work with University Housing and FM for corrections.

Northpark Quad #4

Time: 4:23 | Number Evacuated: 52

Observations: All 3 Center Stairwell doors propped. Floor 1 South Stairwell, Floor 2 South & North Stairwell, and Floor 3 South Mag doors do not latch.
Response: OEM will work with University Housing and FM for corrections.

Northpark Quad #5

Time: 5:09 | Number Evacuated: 62

Observations: Floor 1 & 3 center stairwell fire doors propped. Floor 3 center door hangs on the door stop. Floor 2 South Mag, North Stairwell, and Floor 3 North Stairwell doors do not latch.
Response: OEM will work with University Housing and FM for corrections.

Pack Place

Pack Place #1

Time: 4:37 | Number Evacuated: 50

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements. Scooter was being stored under the stairwell. This is a fire hazard and a violation of University Housing policy.
Response: A picture and report were sent to UPD, who will follow up with the REC to identify the owner and refer to OSC.

Pack Place #2

Time: 8:22 | Number Evacuated: 55

Observations: Resident did not evacuate. The resident and an involved person were reported to OSC by the REC.

Red Wolf Den

Red Wolf Den #1

Time: 3:10 | Number Evacuated: 16

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Red Wolf Den #2

Time: 4:43 | Number Evacuated: 19

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Red Wolf Den #3

Time: 3:36 | Number Evacuated: 13

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Sorority Houses

Zeta Tau Alpha

Time: 2:35 | Number Evacuated: 13

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Alpha Gamma Delta

Time: 1:08 | Number Evacuated: 6

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Alpha Omicron Pi

Time: 1:26 | Number Evacuated: 14

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Chi Omega

Time: 1:17 | Number Evacuated: 4

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Delta Zeta

Time: 2:10 | Number Evacuated: 7

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

The Circle:

The Circle Building #1

Time: 4:23 | Number Evacuated: 31

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

The Circle Building #2

Time: 4:13 | Number Evacuated: 13

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

The Circle Building #3

Time: 4:27 | Number Evacuated: 20

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

The Circle Building #4

Time: 3:47 | Number Evacuated: 12

Observations: 3 individuals reported due to failing to evacuate.

Strengths

Strength 2 (Knowledge of and Adherence to Procedures): Fewer issues are noted of failure to comply with established procedures and increased usage of assembly areas. Few student conduct referrals were needed in this exercise. Staff were receptive and engaged in fulfilling exercise needs and requirements. (Capability: Community Resilience, Planning)

Areas for Improvement

Area for Improvement 1 (Passive Systems Maintenance): Many passive fire protection systems are not being adequately maintained in residential facilities. Kays Hall was an example of this, and A-State facilitated a recent upgrade to come back into compliance. More buildings are at risk of this if adherence is not obtained soon. (Capability: Community Resilience, Infrastructure Systems, Planning)

Appendix A: Improvement Plan

This IP is developed specifically for Arkansas State University as a result of the drills conducted in the Fall of 2025:

Area for Improvement	Corrective Item	Implementation Plan	Primary Responsible Organization	Organization POC
Passive Systems Maintenance	Assess Status of Current Passive Systems	All passive fire protection systems in university-owned housing need to be assessed to determine their state.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Doug Mayhugh
	Identify Needed Repairs or Projects for Compliance	Based on the assessment performed, a plan for repairs or projects to repair to bring systems back in compliance should be created and carried out.	Facilities Management (Primary) Emergency Management (Secondary)	Facilities Management: Brian Lasey or Petree Buford Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed
	Create a Preventive Maintenance Program and Training Plan	Once compliance is ensured, attention to maintaining that compliance through preventive maintenance and training proper use of the systems should be done.	Facilities Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Facilities Management: Brian Lasey University Housing: Natalie Eskew and Jenny Keller

[1] Selected from National Preparedness Goal’s Five Mission Areas (DHS, 2015)

[2] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[3] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

2025 Exercises

Spring 2025 Fire Drills AAR-IP

To view the formatted PDF, click here: Spring 2025 Fire Drills AAR-IP.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

Spring 2025 Fire Drills

After-Action Report/Improvement Plan

March 18, 2025

Exercise Overview

Exercise Name	Spring 2025 Fire Drills
Exercise Dates	February 17 & March 10, 2025
Planning Date	August 15, 2025
Hotwash Date	March 18, 2025
Scope	This exercise is a drill, planned for approximately 5 minutes at each residence hall. Exercise play is limited to activating the fire notification system in each building, monitoring the receipt and response by occupants, examining the notification system for any failures, and documenting all observations.
Focus Areas[1]	Protection, Mitigation, Response
Capabilities[2]	§ Community Resilience § Infrastructure Systems § Operational Coordination § Planning § Public Information and Warning
Objectives	§ Determine the operational status of fire notification systems § Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging § Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging § Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts § Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs § Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence
Hazard	Uncontained Fire
Scenario	Fire alarm activation signals the potential for a fire in the respective residence hall or living quarters.
Sponsor	Arkansas State University
Participating Organizations	Office of Emergency Management, University Housing, University Police Department Dispatch
Point of Contact	Wyatt Reed, Emergency Operations and Occupational Safety Specialist Office of Emergency Management Arkansas State University WReed@AState.edu or (870) 972-3352

Analysis of Capabilities

Table 1 includes the exercise objectives, aligned capabilities, and performance ratings for each capability as observed during the exercise and determined by the evaluation team.

Objective	Capability[3]	Performed without Challenges (P)	Performed with Some Challenges (S)	Performed with Major Challenges (M)	Unable to be Performed (U)
Determine the operational status of fire notification systems	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Planning		X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Planning	X
Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts	Community Resilience	X
	Operational Coordination	X
	Planning	X
Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs	Community Resilience	X
	Planning	X
	Operational Coordination	X
Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence	Community Resilience	X

Table 1. Summary of Core Capability Performance

Rating Definitions:

Unable to be Performed (U): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were not performed in a manner that achieved the objective(s).

The following sections provide an overview of the performance related to each exercise objective and associated capability, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

Capability Definitions:

Residence Hall Breakdowns:

This area will identify the strengths and weaknesses of each residence hall as it relates to exercise objectives and core capabilities.

Living-Learning Communities (LLCs)

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #1

Time: 4:08 | Number Evacuated: 17

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #2

Time: 3:38 | Number Evacuated: 11

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #3

Time: 4:27 | Number Evacuated: 12

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #4

Time: 4:25 | Number Evacuated: 23

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #5

Time: 6:12 | Number Evacuated: 17

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #6

Time: 4:11 | Number Evacuated: 22

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Miscellaneous Residence Halls

Arkansas Hall

Time: 6:28 | Number Evacuated: 35

Observations: Residents struggled to use the identified assembly area.
Response: Reinforcement of the correct assembly area in post-drill communications should occur.

Kays Hall

Time: 6:26 | Number Evacuated: 111

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements. RAs did an outstanding job!

University Hall

Time: 3:37 | Number Evacuated: 48

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Northpark Quads

Northpark Quad #1

Time: 5:41 | Number Evacuated: 47

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Northpark Quad #2

Time: 3:18 | Number Evacuated: 21

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Northpark Quad #3

Time: 3:03 | Number Evacuated: 20

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Northpark Quad #4

Time: 4:07 | Number Evacuated: 38

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Northpark Quad #5

Time: 4:08 | Number Evacuated: 27

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Pack Place

Pack Place #1

Time: 7:38 | Number Evacuated: 49

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Pack Place #2

Time: 6:15 | Number Evacuated: 41

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Red Wolf Den

Red Wolf Den #1

Time: 3:58 | Number Evacuated: 19

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Red Wolf Den #2

Time: 3:47 | Number Evacuated: 16

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Red Wolf Den #3

Time: 4:21 | Number Evacuated: 8

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Sorority Houses

Zeta Tau Alpha

Time: 2:53 | Number Evacuated: 8

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Alpha Gamma Delta

Time: 2:32 | Number Evacuated: 6

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Alpha Omicron Pi

Time: 2:06 | Number Evacuated: 3

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Chi Omega

Time: 2:38 | Number Evacuated: 3

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Delta Zeta

Time: 3:02 | Number Evacuated: 7

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

The Circle:

The Circle Building #1

Time: 6:43 | Number Evacuated: 21

Observations: Two residents refused evacuation.
Response: Residents referred to Office of Student Conduct.

The Circle Building #2

Time: 7:25 | Number Evacuated: 3

Observations: Timing was close to unacceptable.
Response: Reinforcement of evacuation expectations in post-drill communications should occur for The Circle.

The Circle Building #3

Time: 8:02 | Number Evacuated: 20

Observations: Timing was close to unacceptable.
Response: Reinforcement of evacuation expectations in post-drill communications should occur for The Circle.

The Circle Building #4

Time: 3:20 | Number Evacuated: 9

Observations: Exercise exceeded all requirements.

Strengths

Strength 1 (Staff Leadership): Overall, leadership by Housing staff has improved concerning this exercise. It is noted that RAs are continually growing in their confidence in the appropriate action to take and the correct procedure to follow. Additional growth opportunities are available and will be explored, but overall this is a strength. (Capability: Community Resilience, Operational Coordination, Planning)

Strength 2 (Knowledge Of and Adherence to Procedures): Fewer issues are noted of failure to comply with established procedures and increased usage of assembly areas. Few student conduct referrals were needed in this exercise. Staff were receptive and engaged in fulfilling exercise needs and requirements. (Capability: Community Resilience, Planning)

Areas for Improvement

Area for Improvement 1 (Messaging): While public awareness campaigns in general have increased on campus, continuing to communicate not only response information but also policy expectations as well as good fire safety prevention habits should continue. (Capability: Planning, Community Resilience, Public Information and Warning)

Appendix A: Improvement Plan

This IP is developed specifically for Arkansas State University as a result of the drills conducted in February/March of 2025:

Area for Improvement	Corrective Item	Implementation Plan	Primary Responsible Organization	Organization POC
Messaging	Safety Messaging	Safety messaging and information campaigns should increase, both proactively and reactively. This includes sending a consistent stream of preparedness and preventative information to residents as well as corrective information and guidance as needed. Emails to The Circle and Arkansas Hall reinforcing expectations during evacuations should be explored.	University Housing (Primary) Emergency Management (Secondary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley

Area for Improvement

Corrective Item

Implementation Plan

Primary Responsible Organization

Organization POC

Messaging

Safety Messaging

Safety messaging and information campaigns should increase, both proactively and reactively. This includes sending a consistent stream of preparedness and preventative information to residents as well as corrective information and guidance as needed.

Emails to The Circle and Arkansas Hall reinforcing expectations during evacuations should be explored.

University Housing (Primary)

Emergency Management

(Secondary)

University Housing:

Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller

Emergency Management:

Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley

[1] Selected from National Preparedness Goal’s Five Mission Areas (DHS, 2015)

[2] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[3] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

2025 Exercises

Summer 2025 Access Control Drill AAR-IP

To view the formatted PDF, click here: Summer 2025 Access Control Drill AAR-IP.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

Summer 2025 Access Control Drill

After-Action Report/Improvement Plan

August 22, 2025

Non-Confidential (NC): This document does not contain sensitive and/or confidential information. It is available for public inspection.

Exercise Overview

Exercise Name	Access Control Drill
Exercise Date	June 24-26, 2025
Planning Date	None
Hotwash Date	August 6, 2025
Scope	This exercise is a drill and evaluates the ability of appropriate agencies to be able to effectively control access to campus buildings and spaces. The scope was limited to testing whether the intended result from the access restriction was successful at each applicable door. Participants utilized radio communications for reporting based on an Incident Radio Communications Plan (ICS 205).
Focus Areas[1]	Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response
Core Capabilities[2]	§ Access Control and Identity Verification § Infrastructure Systems § Interdiction and Disruption § Planning
Target Capabilities	§ Quickly restrict access to campus buildings and spaces § Quickly restore access to campus buildings and spaces § Ensure proper management, maintenance, and training of access control systems
After Action Report
Organization	Arkansas State University
Lead Agency	Office of Emergency Management
Participating Organizations	Blue Sky Technologies, Facilities Management, Information and Technology Services, University Housing, University Police Department Note: Multiple campus offices/departments assisted in the drill phase.
Point of Contact	Wyatt Reed, Emergency Operations and Occupational Safety Specialist Office of Emergency Management Arkansas State University WReed@AState.edu or (870) 972-3352

Analysis of Capabilities

Table 1 includes the exercise objectives, aligned capabilities, and performance ratings for each capability as observed during the exercise and determined by the evaluation team.

Target Capabilities	Core Capability[3]	Performed without Challenges (P)	Performed with Some Challenges (S)	Performed with Major Challenges (M)	Unable to be Performed (U)
Quickly restrict access to campus buildings and spaces.	Access Control and Identity Verification	X
	Interdiction and Disruption		X
	Planning	X
Quickly restore access to campus buildings and spaces.	Access Control and Identity Verification	X
Quickly restore access to campus buildings and spaces.	Planning	X
Ensure proper management, maintenance, and training of access control systems.	Access Control and Identity Verification		X
	Infrastructure Systems		X
	Interdiction and Disruption		X
	Planning		X

Table 1. Summary of Core Capability Performance

Rating Definitions:

Unable to be Performed (U): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were not performed in a manner that achieved the objective(s).

The following sections provide an overview of the performance related to each exercise objective and associated capability, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

Capability Definitions:

Access Control and Identity Verification: Apply and support necessary physical, technological, and cyber measures to control admittance to critical locations and systems.

Interdiction and Disruption: Delay, divert, intercept, halt, apprehend, or secure threats and/or hazards.

Exercise Design

Initial Design

The initial design of this exercise was executed by the A-State Campus Card Center, a division of Information Technology and Services. The goal of the exercise was to evaluate the performance of access control systems by evaluating the capabilities of the utilized software and evaluation of the physical hardware to respond to the software’s command.

Campus administration and safety personnel were notified of the testing plan roughly 8-10 days before the planned execution of the exercise. While this was a rapid turnaround, previous campus safety threats underscored the need to ensure the test was performed ahead of the Fall 2025 semester to evaluate the access control systems’ current efficacy and to mitigate any problems with the systems ahead of students’ arrival in August. However, this also offered little ability to significantly alter the design plan and to fully understand the design.

The initial design called for 15-minute testing periods within a 4-hour window. One building would be tested within that 15-minute testing period, except when the size of the building would justify including more buildings within the same testing period.

Resources needed included:

Contractors: Contractors from Blue Sky Technologies were on-site to assist with hardware and software-related issues.
Personnel: Personnel physically evaluated and verified the status of access control doors, as well as activating/deactivating software and responding to hardware issues.
Radios: The Chief of University Police procured radios to disperse to personnel assisting with the exercise. Additional portable radios were brought by certain participating departments that already had them.
Software: A software program was utilized to develop shortcuts (also known as “threat levels”) to quickly effect the desired outcome.
Temporary Card Access: Temporary cards had to be printed with basic all-access and with UPD-only all-access for personnel to assess the access control systems.
Transportation: While the exercise group often sought to test buildings near each other, ultimately, university and private vehicles, golf carts, etc., were utilized to move personnel from one test site to another.

Design Adjustments

The main initial design was adjusted to be performed in 3 days, not 2. Additionally, testing windows were moved from 15-minute periods to 20-minute periods (generally). As the drills were performed, the schedule was altered based on available personnel and needs.

Issues Identified:

Planning was not adequately performed for this exercise. A longer planning period was needed, and more stakeholders needed to be involved in that plan.
- Drill evaluation forms contained unclear or misleading questions that produced a likely bias and/or holes in the data.
- Personnel were not pre-identified or assigned. This caused scheduling issues. For example, when available personnel did not meet the demand for the number of doors being tested, time delays were created. When available personnel exceeded scheduled needs, the schedule was changed without advance notice, causing operational impacts to campus members.
- Respondents to the participant survey noted a lack of available transportation.
- There were too few resources, such as radios and access cards.
More periodic preventative maintenance checks on access-controlled doors are needed.
- While it would be unreasonable to expect the physical infrastructure of all access-controlled doors on campus to always function properly, more resources and planning seem needed to identify hardware issues as they occur on access-controlled doors.
Accessibility issues continue to plague campus access.
- ADA issues were prevalent – many ADA-type features were unable to be tested on access-controlled doors because ADA devices were not installed.

Successes Identified:

The planning within the software worked exactly as planned, and few (if any) software failures were noted throughout the drills.
The access-controlled capability worked exceptionally well, and the process to control spaces has been and is continuing to be drastically improved upon. UPD’s Dispatch Center will soon be able to activate and control these systems even quickly.
Campus involvement in the drill was outstanding, especially given the particularly busy time of the year, short notice, and last-second scheduling changes.

Data Categorization Process

The supporting sample data that informed the results presented in the next section was collected through evaluation forms that participants completed for each door and scenario. The data is classified as follows:

Working Appropriately: all features of the door worked as expected in permitting or restricting access in accordance with the expected result. A door that is working appropriately needs no further action at this time.
Partial Failures: a feature(s) of the door did not work as expected; however, the ability to control access remained intact, or at least maintained a fail-secure state.
ADA-Only Failures: the accessibility features of the door were the only feature of the infrastructure that did not meet the access control expectations.
Complete Failures: a feature(s) of the door did not work as expected and, as a result, the ability to control access was lost.
Unable to Test: an issue or fact existed that prevented the ability to effectively and/or fairly test the ability to control access.

NOTE: each door was only counted in one of these categories. For instances where more than one condition could apply, the most applicable category is applied.

Common Issues

Many of the same types of issues were noted within each respective category. 89 access-controlled spaces were logged as having issues. Of these 89, 52 (58.43%) required a work order to be fixed. The remaining doors were either fixed on site or another fact existed that did not require the submission of a work order. Of the 52 submitted, 27 (51.92%) have been closed while the rest remain open. Common issues included:

Physical failures (broken locks, broken doors, missing infrastructure, etc.)
- Most issues noted were due to some physical failure. These could be greatly reduced through more routine maintenance and proper usage by the campus community.
Technology failures (communication failures, glitches, etc.)
- These primarily existed when the hardware did not respond to the technology’s commands. The software, by and large, worked appropriately.
ADA failures (missing infrastructure, etc.)
- Data probably has a gap here, as the exercise was not intended to robustly test our ADA system’s integration and infrastructure.

Normal Access Mode

In the Normal Access Mode, access is granted based on the normal permissions of the door. Both the base all-access card and the UPD-only all-access card should grant entry.

Unadjusted Results:

Working Appropriately:
- Regular Card: 280 of 317 (88.33%)
- UPD-Only Card: 282 of 317 (88.96%)
Partial Failures:
- Regular Card: 8 of 317 (2.52%)
- UPD-Only Card: 3 of 317 (0.95%)
Complete Failures:
- Regular Card: 6 of 317 (1.89%)
- UPD-Only Card: 1 of 317 (0.32%)
Unable to be Tested:
- Regular Card: 23 of 317 (7.26%)
- UPD-Only Card: 31 of 317 (9.78%)

Discrepancies: Normal Access Mode results are based on the data from the Inclement Weather Access Mode test. As a result, there is no means in place to verify the correct starting state of the doors. It is assumed that the starting state of the doors was correct relative to those doors scheduled state. If a door was locked or unlocked when it was scheduled to be the opposite, that will not be reflected as a failure in the results.

Inclement Weather Access Mode

In the Inclement Weather Access Mode, access is granted based on the normal permissions of the door. Both the base all-access card and the UPD-only all-access card should grant entry. No other changes, EXCEPT: in the Student Union, all exterior doors with access control should unlock with no card required for entry.

Unadjusted Results:

Working Appropriately:
- Regular Card: 300 of 344 (87.21%)
- UPD-Only Card: 299 of 344 (86.92%)
Partial Failures:
- Regular Card: 8 of 344 (2.33%)
- UPD-Only Card: 3 of 344 (0.87%)
Complete Failures:
- Regular Card: 11 of 344 (3.20%)
- UPD-Only Card: 6 of 344 (1.74%)
Unable to be Tested:
- Regular Card: 25 of 344 (7.27%)
- UPD-Only Card: 36 of 344 (10.47%)

Discrepancies: There is no means in place to verify the correct starting state of doors. It is assumed that the starting state of the doors was correct relative to those doors scheduled state. If a door was locked or unlocked when it was scheduled to be the opposite, that will not be reflected as a failure in the results.

UPD-Only Access Mode

In the UPD-Only Access Mode, access is no longer granted based on the normal permissions of the door. The base all-access card should not grant entry. The UPD-Only all-access card should grant entry.

Unadjusted Results:

Working Appropriately:
- Regular Card: 259 of 344 (75.29%)
- UPD-Only Card: 215 of 344 (62.50%)
Partial Failures:
- Regular Card: 5 of 344 (1.45%)
- UPD-Only Card: 8 of 344 (2.33%)
Partial Failures (ADA Only):
- Regular Card: 29 of 344 (8.43%)
- UPD-Only Card: 58 of 344 (16.86%)
Complete Failures:
- Regular Card: 18 of 344 (5.23%)
- UPD-Only Card: 21 of 344 (6.10%)
Unable to be Tested:
- Regular Card: 33 of 344 (9.59%)
- UPD-Only Card: 42 of 344 (12.21%)

Discrepancies: 38 doors (Regular Card) and 0 doors (UPD-Only Card) were likely improperly biased during testing to be placed in the complete failures category when these doors most likely worked without issue. As a result, these doors were moved during data analysis to the working appropriately category. However, it is possible that a few of these doors should be in the complete failures category.

No Access Mode

In the No Access Mode, access is no longer granted based on the normal permissions of the door. The base all-access card and the UPD-Only all-access card should not grant entry.

Unadjusted Results:

Working Appropriately:
- Regular Card: 259 of 344 (75.29%)
- UPD-Only Card: 255 of 344 (74.13%)
Partial Failures:
- Regular Card: 3 of 344 (0.87%)
- UPD-Only Card: 4 of 344 (1.16%)
Partial Failures (ADA Only):
- Regular Card: 19 of 344 (5.52%)
- UPD-Only Card: 16 of 344 (4.65%)
Complete Failures:
- Regular Card: 16 of 344 (4.65%)
- UPD-Only Card: 15 of 344 (4.36%)
Unable to be Tested:
- Regular Card: 47 of 344 (13.66%)
- UPD-Only Card: 54 of 344 (15.70%)

Discrepancies: 38 doors (Regular Card) and 37 doors (UPD-Only Card) were likely improperly biased during testing to be placed in the complete failures category when these doors most likely worked without issue. As a result, these doors were moved during data analysis to the working appropriately category. However, it is possible that a few of these doors should be in the complete failures category.

Aggregated Results

The following are the aggregated results of all specific access modes combined.

Unadjusted Results:

Working Appropriately:
- Regular Card: 1,098 of 1,349 (81.39%)
- UPD-Only Card: 1,051 of 1,349 (77.91%)
Partial Failures:
- Regular Card: 24 of 1,349 (1.78%)
- UPD-Only Card: 18 of 1,349 (1.33%)
Partial Failures (ADA Only):
- Regular Card: 48 of 688 (6.98%)
- UPD-Only Card: 74 of 688 (10.76%)
Complete Failures:
- Regular Card: 51 of 1,349 (3.78%)
- UPD-Only Card: 43 of 1,349 (3.19%)
Unable to be Tested:
- Regular Card: 128 of 1,349 (9.49%)
- UPD-Only Card: 163 of 1,349 (12.08%)

Exercise Executive Notes

Overall Evaluation

Overall, the exercise was a success. This is especially true given all the specific parameters and circumstances surrounding it. More follow-up testing will be needed to verify the data collected, although it is likely a fair statistical overview.

Player Feedback

Overall Evaluation

Players overall provided positive feedback. 19 respondents completed the evaluation form out of 60 players who received the evaluation form link (a 31.67% response rate).

Player Evaluation Form

The Office of Emergency Management conducted evaluation polling via a Microsoft Form that was sent to each registered player. Respondents were given 7 days to respond to the evaluation, and responses were not compelled. The form is composed of two parts: a questionnaire utilizing the Likert Scale that was designed to collect more quantitative data, and a short answer/listing section designed to collect more qualitative data.

The success of the exercise based on the Part A evaluation results was determined using a combination of median and mode statistical analysis products (Success = x̄>3 AND Mo>3). The success formula was based on the idea that, on average (i.e., the mean), more people should feel better than neutral about the organization and results of the exercise. In addition to that, the category with the most responses (i.e., the mode) should be in an affirmative stance (“agree” or “strongly agree”) that corresponds to a positive outlook on the exercise design, results, and function.

Part A: Likert Scale Questionnaire

In all questions, the respondent was asked to rank their agreement with a statement regarding the exercise. The options were: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), and Strongly Agree (5). All questions were worded in a positive, affirmative stance.

Question #1: The exercise seemed well planned.

Results:

Mean: 4.21
Mode: 4

Question #2: The exercise seemed to be punctual and stayed on schedule.

Results:

Mean: 3.42
Mode: {5,4,3}

Question #3: Instructions by facilitators to you were clear and effective.

Results:

Mean: 4.26
Mode: 5

Question #4: You felt comfortable participating in the exercise.

Results:

Mean: 4.68
Mode: 5

Question #5: You felt comfortable providing your input to the exercise group.

Results:

Mean: 4.68
Mode: 5

Question #6: You felt able to quickly identify the next steps that should be taken while assisting in the exercise.

Results:

Mean: 4.42
Mode: 5

Question #7: The systems used (radio, forms, etc.) aided and were useful.

Results:

Mean: 4.42
Mode: 5

Question #8: The physical requirements (e.g., walking, stairs, etc.) were communicated and did not pose a challenge.

Results:

Mean: 4.47
Mode: 5

Response Distribution Overview

Aggregated Results:

Mean: 4.32 (x̄>3, SUCCESS)
Mode: 5 (Mo>3, SUCCESS)

Part B: Feedback Form

Question #1: Please list up to 3 areas of strength (things that you felt went well) noted from this exercise.

Responses included:

Fluidity of the exercise.
Patience, attentiveness, and flexibility of players.
System configuration was accurate and worked as expected.
Maintenance needs were identified, with many fixed in real-time.
Assistance available.

Question #2: Please list 3 areas of improvement (things that you feel we could do better) noted from this exercise.

Responses included:

More resources, including transportation and radios.
Clearer instructions and resources, such as forms and maps.
More comprehensive planning cycle.
Increase campus accessibility.

Question #3: What steps would you take to rectify concerns noted in question #2?

Responses included:

Procure more resources, including radios, transportation, and access cards.
Send a reminder email/communication.
Utilize the Office of Emergency Management expertise and resources in planning.
Adding in scheduled time and processes for “onboarding” volunteers.

Final Step: Please list any additional comments or concerns that you may have.

Responses included:

Appreciation for willingness to implement and test this system.
Everyone’s work, effort, and patience in participating in this exercise.

Areas of Strength

Strength 1 (Access-Control Capabilities)

One of the leading strengths that was noted from our exercise is our ability to access control so many doors across campus, especially in critical spaces. While a large amount of work remains, A-State is continuously making positive strides towards a safe and secure environment by investing money, time, and personnel into access-control infrastructure. After most active threat events at universities (including larger institutions, such as Michigan State and Florida State), access control is a major point of discussion. Our software and, to a great extent, our infrastructure, worked well during this exercise. (Capability: Access Control and Identity Verification, Infrastructure Systems, Interdiction and Disruption)

Strength 2 (Access-Control Training and Program Management)

The Access Team that works underneath A-State ITS has seemingly done a fantastic job of building our access-control systems into a comprehensive program. In addition to expanding capacity and capabilities, this team has also worked hard to create/update access policies as well as remediate pre-existing program issues. The ITS team is continuing to expand the program and include more campus partners and training. (Capability: Access Control and Identity Verification, Infrastructure Systems, Interdiction and Disruption, Planning)

Strength 3 (Campus Involvement)

Another strength noted from this exercise was the willingness of the A-State campus community to unite to meet the needs this exercise required for an effective test. Numerous personnel, including students, staff, and faculty, participated in the exercise directly. Virtually the entire campus was affected at some point by restricted access, yet the campus overwhelmingly welcomed the exercise. This commitment to campus safety and security is critical to building a resilient community. (Capability: Planning)

Areas for Improvement

Improvement Area 1 (Planning)

The greatest area of improvement for this exercise is in planning. Better and more reliable data could likely have been collected through differently worded questions, forms, and processes. Delays and other challenges could likely have been planned for and either mitigated or prepared for with advanced planning. Additionally, better exercise design and documentation could have been available with earlier involvement of the Office of Emergency Management. (Capability: Planning)

Improvement Area 2 (Maintenance)

More systematic preventative maintenance checks are needed for access-control infrastructure. It has to be understood that we will never be able to always prevent one of these systems from breaking. However, the exercise revealed that we could do a better job in planning preventative maintenance and preventing the quantity/downtime of impacted infrastructure. (Capability: Infrastructure Systems, Planning)

Improvement Area 3 (Accessibility)

Accessibility is a concern in multiple parts of our campus operations. In this context, we likely need to better understand our expectations of ADA systems and infrastructure if a particular access mode is needed, and then plan for a way to make the ADA systems compatible and responsive to that expectation. Many infrastructure and programming failures were noted in this drill in relation to ADA systems. Most of these failures would not compromise access-controlled spaces, but the systems are still not operating appropriately. (Capability: Infrastructure Systems, Planning)

Appendix A.1: Exercise Day 1 Schedule

Appendix A.2: Exercise Day 2 & 3 Schedule

Appendix B.1: Exercise Day 1 ICS 205 Form

Appendix B.2: Exercise Day 2 ICS 205 Form

Appendix B.3: Exercise Day 3 ICS 205 Form

Appendix C: Improvement Plan

This IP is developed specifically for Arkansas State University as a result of the Access Control Drill conducted in June of 2025:

Area for Improvement	Corrective Item	Implementation Plan	Primary Responsible Organization	Organization POC
Planning	Exercise Design Planning	For future exercises, a more robust exercise design plan needs to be created in conjunction with the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and other key partners.	ITS (Primary) Emergency Management (Secondary)	ITS: Heather Boothman or Bethany Adams Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed
Maintenance	Preventative Maintenance Checks	Increase preventative maintenance checks and documentation to ensure the university is limiting the number of doors that are in a “down” status, as well as the amount of time doors are in a “down” status.	ITS (Primary) Facilities Management (Secondary)	ITS: Tony Marshall or Dane Buck Facilities Management: Zone Maintenance
Accessibility	ADA & Access Control Expectations	Create a list of expectations for each related ADA system in normal and all other access mode states. Additionally, compare the results of this/future exercises to this list of expectations to determine the efficacy of ADA systems relative to access controls.	ITS (Primary)	ITS: Heather Boothman or Bethany Adams
Accessibility	Increasing ADA Access	Continuing to inventory ADA capabilities and target needs to identify gaps. Create plans and solutions to allocate resources to ADA compliance initiatives.	Facilities Management (Primary) ITS (Secondary)	Facilities Management: Brian Lasey ITS: Tony Marshall or Dane Buck

[1] Selected from National Preparedness Goal’s Five Mission Areas (DHS, 2015)

[2] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[3] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

2025 Events/Incidents

Spring 2025 Severe Weather Events AAR-IP

To view the formatted PDF, click here: Spring 2025 Severe Weather Events AAR-IP.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

Spring 2025 Severe Weather Events

After-Action Report/Improvement Plan

May 22, 2025

Unclassified (U): This document does not contain sensitive and/or confidential information. It is available for public inspection.

Incident Overview

Incident Type	Severe Weather (Tornado/High Wind/Rain/Etc.)
Incident Date	Spring 2025
Incident Location	Arkansas State University (entire campus)
Hotwash Date	May 1, 2025
Scope	This incident included multiple severe weather events, featuring primarily a high tornado and heavy rainfall threat for campus. The purpose of the After-Action Report is to assess the event, response decisions, and to identify areas for improvement highlighted in the Improvement Plan section of the report.
Focus Areas[1]	Protection, Mitigation, Response
Capabilities[2]	§ Community Resilience § Operational Communications § Operational Coordination § Planning § Public Information and Warning § Situational Assessment
Target Capabilities	§ Increase awareness of severe weather safety among campus members § Increase capacity of shelter space § Establish operational guidance and processes for severe weather incidents
After Action Review
Organization	Arkansas State University
Lead Agency	Office of Emergency Management
Participating Agencies	Office of Student Affairs, University Communications, University Housing, University Police Department
Point of Contact	Wyatt Reed, Emergency Operations and Occupational Safety Specialist Office of Emergency Management Arkansas State University WReed@AState.edu or (870) 972-3352

Analysis of Capabilities

Table 1 includes the objectives, aligned capabilities, and performance ratings for each capability as observed during the incident and determined by the after-action review team.

Target Capabilities	Core Capability[3]	Performed without Challenges (P)	Performed with Some Challenges (S)	Performed with Major Challenges (M)	Unable to be Performed (U)
Campus members are aware of severe weather threats and appropriate emergency actions.	Community Resilience		X
	Operational Communications		X
	Public Information and Warning		X
Provide adequate shelter for campus members seeking safety from severe weather.	Planning			X
Maintain operational guidance and processes that support campus members during severe weather incidents.	Operational Communications		X
	Operational Coordination		X
	Planning		X
	Situational Assessment	X

Table 1. Summary of Core Capability Performance

Rating Definitions:

Unable to be Performed (U): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were not performed in a manner that achieved the objective(s).

The following sections provide an overview of the performance related to each objective and associated capability, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

Capability Definitions:

Operational Communications: Ensure the capacity for timely communications in support of security, situational awareness, and operations by any and all means available, among and between affected communities in the impact area and all response forces.

Situational Assessment: Provide all decision-makers with decision-relevant information regarding the nature and extent of the hazard, any cascading effects, and the status of the response.

Incident Brief

Background

In the Spring of 2025, several severe storm systems brought destruction to the region. These storms brought a host of hazards to campus, including tornadic activity, hail, heavy rains, and high winds.

The first major storm system to impact the area was on Friday, March 14^th, 2025. This was a nocturnal storm system that featured multiple training supercells in a line. The greatest destruction from this system was to Cave City, AR and to Diaz, AR. More locally, significant damage was noted to Paragould, AR. While there was high confidence in a destructive storm system being possible, guidance on the location of this system was not well tuned until the early to midafternoon hours Friday. The forecast included a moderate (4/5) risk for the A-State area. A total of 39 tornado warnings were issued in Arkansas for this event. 4 tornado warnings were issued within 10 miles of the Reng Student Union during the event.

The next (and most major) storm in this system struck on Wednesday, April 2^nd, 2025, into Thursday, April 3^rd. This storm was upgraded from a moderate (4/5) risk to a high (5/5) risk on midnight Wednesday. A total of 53 tornado warnings were issued across Arkansas for this event. This was the first high risk in Arkansas since March 31, 2023 (Wynne Tornado Event). The most noteworthy tornado from this event occurred in Lake City and Monette from a tornado that started just outside the Jonesboro city limits near rural Harrisburg (Poinsett) and Bay (Craighead). 4 tornado warnings were issued within 10 miles of the Reng Student Union during the event.

Another storm system moved in during the late hours of Friday, April 4^th, 2025. While the primary threats were to the south of Jonesboro, campus was placed in a moderate (4/5) risk this day. No warning products ended up being issued within 10 miles of the Reng Student Union.

The final system of note occurred on Saturday, April 5^th, 2025. In addition to a tornado threat that increased with little advanced notice, multiple flood warnings were issued for this event. A total of 4 flash flood warnings and 1 tornado warning were issued within 10 miles of the Reng Student Union.

From January 1^st to May 1^st of 2025 a total of 11 tornado warnings and 8 flash flood warnings were issued within 10 miles of the Reng Student Union. Prior to this, the last tornado warning issued within 10 miles of the Reng Student Union was in April of 2022.[4]

After-Action Review

On May 1, 2025, the Arkansas State University Office of Emergency Management conducted a “hotwash” of the incident and performed an after-action review. Observations and recommendations of that review are compiled into this report. Members of this review committee included:

Martha Spack, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
Natalie Eskew, Director of University Housing
Ronnie Gilley, Emergency Management Coordinator
Wyatt Reed, Emergency Management Specialist
Randy Martin, Chief of University Police
Billy Branch, University Police Department Captain
Todd Clark, Chief Communications Officer
Rachel Anderson, Social Media Coordinator

The following pages of the after-action report and the corresponding improvement plan are based on the review of the above committee.

After-Action Report

Review Process

On May 1, 2025, members of the after-action review committee for this incident met and performed a hotwash of the incident along with the review. Members met in a closed environment and were encouraged to speak freely without fear of repercussion. Honesty and transparency are the pillars of affecting future change from incidents, including recognizing shortcomings and/or inefficiencies to better assess true capabilities and potential vulnerabilities. This review took place at approximately 11:30 a.m. in the Reng Student Union of Arkansas State University. All members listed as part of the review committee were present.

Overview

For each event (except for Saturday, April 5^th), multiple days of notice were available to indicate a significant weather event was likely to occur. Weather briefings were sent ahead of each event’s impact, and some had multiple days of briefings sent. The Reng Student Union was opened past regular business hours on days that featured tornado watches with expiration times that were after normal closing hours.

The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) coordinated with Facilities Management (FM) liaisons to ensure the Student Union was properly prepped for sheltering individuals. OEM used lessons learned after talking with University Police (UPD) and FM regarding the March 14^th incident to adjust shelter operations and accommodations.

University Housing worked alongside OEM and University Communications to make multiple notifications to residents alerting them to the potential for dangerous weather conditions and with resources to obtain safety information and shelter.

University Communications worked in collaboration with OEM and utilized the National Weather Service’s chat service to consistently disseminate information to campus members via social media platforms.

OEM monitored local school closings and worked with city/county emergency management officials to ensure situational awareness and information sharing.

Senior executives from A-State remained invested in the planning and response needs and moved to make decisions regarding public safety (such as early closure) in a timely manner.

Strengths

Strength 1 (Internal Communication): One key trend that showed after reviewing hotwash notes is the improved effort of campus decision makers to communicate with one another. This collaboration and coordination provide confidence to decision makers that the appropriate decisions were being made based on the available information at the time, especially in such unprecedented incidents. (Capability: Community Resilience, Operational Coordination, Planning, Situational Assessment)

Strength 2 (Senior Executive Buy-in): As they have in previous incident, the executive team of Arkansas State consistently stayed invested in the preparedness process and in making efforts to understand the anticipated outcomes/timing of the storm systems. This allowed OEM easy ability to share information and provide recommendations for campus safety needs or the need to impact normal operations, all of which were received well. (Capabilities: Community Resilience, Operational Coordination, Planning, Situational Assessment)

Strength 3 (Campus Preparedness): A final important note is that campus preparedness efforts related to general and severe weather preparedness seemed to have a positive effect. Thousands viewed public information resources shared in collaboration with OEM, University Communications, and University Housing. A large portion of campus sought shelter and were aware of the university’s expected emergency actions as the events approached. (Capabilities: Community Resilience, Planning, Public Information and Warning)

Areas for Improvement

Area for Improvement 1 (Shelter Space): A primary issue that recurred was a lack of adequate shelter space. The Reng Student Union was not designed with shelter in mind, and while areas can be used for shelter additional space is needed. Discussions on options and capabilities for future incidents were discussed in the AAR and will be included as part of a separate feasibility study (see Appendix B). (Capability: Community Resilience, Planning)

Area for Improvement 2 (Preparedness and Operational Planning): One other gap that was noted is the lack of a standard operating procedure for severe weather response. This has the potential to cause confusion, duplication of resources, and other obstacles within response. At times, the organization’s unity of effort struggled due to conflicting directives and procedures. There exists a need for a streamlined plan that involves all stakeholders. This will likely be resolved via updates to the A-State Emergency Operations Plan. Additional challenges in communication were observed due to the dated radio communications infrastructure of OEM. Additional projects will be presented soon for solutions to this. (Capabilities: Community Resilience, Operational Communication, Operational Coordination, Planning, Situational Assessment)

Area for Improvement 3 (Consistency in Emergency Operations): While this area could likely also fall underneath AOI 2, it is important that the university maintains unity of effort across its respective operations. For example, buildings that generally are not open for shelter were allowed to be opened during one or more severe weather incidents. This creates a host of operational challenges, such as security concerns, public information hurdles, response delays, etc. The university needs to ensure it is consistent in its implementation of policies and plans when incidents occur. If an alteration does need to be made, this needs to be discussed with key stakeholders to ensure there are no unforeseen consequences and so that these decisions can be appropriately communicated to campus members as needed. (Capabilities: Operational Coordination, Planning)

Appendix A: Improvement Plan

This IP is developed specifically for Arkansas State University as a result of the Severe Weather Events in Spring of 2025:

Area for Improvement	Corrective Item	Implementation Plan	Primary Responsible Organization	Organization POC
Shelter Space	Reng Student Union Shelter Spaces	The Reng Student Union will be evaluated to: a) Quantify existing shelter space b) Explore additional shelter space options	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
	Campus Shelter Options	Evaluate the effectiveness of current shelter options and operations. If gaps are identified, a study of potential solutions will be completed to remedy any gaps.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
	Parking Deck Overcrowding	Additional controls are needed for parking operations within the parking deck during severe weather incidents. The organizations responsible should work together to identify possible solutions for controls and enforcement.	Parking Services (Primary) University Police (Secondary)	Parking Services: Dr. Dave McKinney University Police: Randy Martin or Billy Branch
Preparedness and Operational Planning	Update Emergency Operations Plan	The A-State Emergency Operations Plan will contain guidance for operations during times of severe weather, to include shelter protocols and staffing. Update will be included in newest EOP (est. Fall 2025).	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Preparedness and Operational Planning	Communication Strategies	Upgrades to the A-State OEM’s radio system should be considered for better interoperability.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Consistency in Emergency Operations	Unity of Effort	Processes outlined in planning need to be closely adhered to.	All	All

[1] Selected from National Preparedness Goal’s Five Mission Areas (DHS, 2015)

[2] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[3] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[4] All data from Iowa State University’s Environmental Mesonet

2024 Exercises

Jonesboro Fire Department Response Exercise

To view the formatted PDF, click here: Jonesboro Fire Department Response Exercise AAR-IP.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

Jonesboro Fire Department Response Functional Exercise

After-Action Report/Improvement Plan

December 6, 2024

Exercise Overview

Exercise Name	Jonesboro Fire Department Response Functional Exercise
Exercise Date	November 12-14, 2024
Planning Date	October 31, 2024
Hotwash Date	November 12-14, 2024 (After Each Day)
Scope	This exercise is functional, and evaluated fire response capabilities to a fire situation in various locations at Arkansas State University. The scope was limited to response planning, responding, and on-scene staging. Participants utilized radio communications for reporting based on an Incident Radio Communications Plan (ICS 205).
Focus Areas[1]	Response
Capabilities[2]	Planning Operational Coordination On-Scene Security, Protection, and Law Enforcement
Objectives	§ Identify locations on campus on initial callouts; § Identify the best route to respond/stage at a given campus location; § Coordinate with other responding units to determine staging locations/routes; § Identify capabilities, target capabilities, and gaps.
Hazard	Various; Fire Department Response Needed
Scenario	A call for service originating from Arkansas State University’s Campus, either from notification of a fire alarm or a reported working structure fire. Injects are not cumulative, but rather are different incidents at different times to reflect various possibilities of the overall scenario
Sponsor	Arkansas State University
Participating Organizations	Office of Emergency Management (Wyatt Reed, Exercise Director & Ronnie Gilley); Jonesboro Fire Department (Ricky Howton, Lead Controller & E1/E3/E6/T1/B1 All Shifts),
Point of Contact	Wyatt Reed, Emergency Operations and Occupational Safety Specialist Office of Emergency Management Arkansas State University WReed@AState.edu or (870) 972-3352

Analysis of Capabilities

Table 1 includes the exercise objectives, aligned capabilities, and performance ratings for each capability as observed during the exercise and determined by the evaluation team.

Objective	Capability[3]	Performed without Challenges (P)	Performed with Some Challenges (S)	Performed with Major Challenges (M)	Unable to be Performed (U)
Identify locations on campus on initial callouts.	Planning		X
Identify locations on campus on initial callouts.	Operational Coordination	X
Identify the best route to respond/stage at a given campus location.	Planning		X
	Operational Coordination	X
Coordinate with other responding units to determine staging locations/routes.	Planning	X
	Operational Coordination	X
Identify capabilities, target capabilities, and gaps.	Planning	X
	Operational Coordination	X
	On-Scene Security, Protection and Law Enforcement				X

Table 1. Summary of Core Capability Performance

Rating Definitions:

Unable to be Performed (U): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were not performed in a manner that achieved the objective(s).

The following sections provide an overview of the performance related to each exercise objective and associated capability, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

Capability Definitions:

On-Scene Security, Protection, and Law Enforcement: Ensure a safe and secure environment through law enforcement and related security and protection operations for people and communities located within affected areas and also for response personnel engaged in lifesaving and life-sustaining operations.

Exercise Setup

Initial Training

The initial training portion of this event included a guided tour of campus along four legs (see map in Appendix A). This training allowed players to familiarize themselves with the response routes that may be used both in the exercise and in everyday responses. Additionally, the Exercise Director evaluated the ability of emergency vehicles and personnel to navigate these routes to identify areas of vulnerability or needed correction.

Units remained in service for calls while the training took place, and little impact was noted. Adequate command staff were present to assist A-State in performing the training and exercise in a effective manner. After the initial training portion of the event, all units breaked for a lunch sponsored by the A-State Office of Emergency Management.

Issues Identified:

Truck companies will be unable to utilize sidewalk access in the Northpark Quads due to inadequate space to swing into the turn.
Engine companies struggle to utilize sidewalk access in the Northpark Quads. Handicap spots prevent an adequate amount of space to swing.
Sorority houses present a challenge to both engine and truck companies due to the concrete median and bollards that are present.
A fire zone on the east side of Aggie Way needs to be established – the loading zone currently there could block a potential response.
Parking spaces near the curve on the east side of HPESS would prevent the ability of companies to negotiate the curve if a vehicle(s) are parked there.
Trees near the sculpture at the northwest corner of Lab Science West need to be trimmed to ensure access continuity.
Additional signage that is easily readable should be added across campus.
Maps need to be updated and divided by vehicle classification, not usage (e.g. truck company, engine company, ambulance, etc. versus a broadly encompassing map).
Additional information integration into FirstDue is needed, such as farm gate code.

Successes Identified:

Companies are able to navigate the entirety of Quapaw Way, including the sculpture at Lab Science West.
Engine companies are able to drive the entirety of the sidewalk in front of the Dean B. Ellis Library.
Positive feedback was given by JFD members as to the helpfulness and effectiveness of the training.

Inject 1

Companies were initially dispatched to Lab Science West for a fire alarm.

Noted Results:

Quapaw Street, which is no longer accessible from University Loop, shows as accessible on JFD’s Geospatial Information System (GIS) routing tool.
Although Lab Science is one building and address, it is referred to by the wings of the building (east and west). This caused understandable confusion among some responders.
Engine companies were able to navigate through the curve of Quapaw Way and exit via the south end of the library, which was not previously thought to be possible.

Inject 2

A single engine company was dispatched to a possible field fire. Once on scene, confirmed a working fire and initiated a full alarm assignment.

Noted Results:

Companies were able to navigate to the correct area with ease.
Only one shift identified the nearest hydrant and staged.

Inject 3

Inject 3 was not performed in order to preserve time.

Inject 4

Full alarm dispatch to the Dean B. Ellis Library for a fire alarm.

Noted Results:

Companies overall navigated to the area well and communicated.
One engine company took an unapproved path to obtain access to the area. The confusion seemed to stem from a communication breakdown in training. The driver believed that all double sidewalks on campus were approved emergency routes.
One engine company attempted to exit through the entrance gate in front of the Neil Griffin College of Business in wrong-way traffic.
A food delivery robot delayed the response of one engine company due to its inability to recognize the emergency response vehicle.

Exercise Director Notes

Overall Evaluation

The exercise overall appeared to be a success. The exercise was built on a mastery learning philosophy where players had to demonstrate skill and knowledge to achieve exercise objectives. Safety was ensured at all times through proper controls and public information campaigns. Because Arkansas State is essentially a community within a community, more frequent events and collaboration needs to occur to build on the success of the exercise. These opportunities include public engagement, professional development, and special operations such as hosting specialized training (high angle, confined space, etc.).

Response times seemed to be realistic and achievable, especially given the fact that companies were not running a full response. Additional data evaluation will be available in this report.

Player Feedback

Overall Evaluation

Overall, participants gave positive feedback on the ability to participate in this training and exercise. Many players highlighted the importance of performing both elements of the event during normal operational hours while campus was actively in session to provide a realistic training ground. More failueres and points-of-emphasis were able to be identified than would be possible in an empty-campus setting.

Participants did request for ongoing engagement from Arkansas State and the Office of Emergency Management in continuing to collaborate and train with each other.

Exercise Time Results

Day 1 (Tuesday) Results

Inject 1
Company	Response Time (in minutes)
Engine 1	4:00
Engine 3	3:00
Engine 6	7:00
Truck 1	4:00
Average Response Time	4:30

Inject 2
Company	Response Time (in minutes)
Engine 1	5:00
Engine 3	6:00
Engine 6	5:00
Truck 1	5:00
Average Response Time	5:15

Inject 4
Company	Response Time (in minutes)
Engine 1	3:00
Engine 3	3:00
Engine 6	3:00
Truck 1	3:00
Average Response Time	3:00

Exercise Day Overall Times
Source	Response Time (in minutes)
From CSA1	4:00
From CSA2	5:00
From CSA3	3:40
Engine 1	4:00
Engine 3	4:00
Engine 6	5:00
Truck 1	4:00

Day 2 (Wednesday) Results

Inject 1
Company	Response Time (in minutes)
Engine 1	4:00
Engine 3	3:00
Engine 6	5:00
Truck 1	4:00
Average Response Time	4:00

Inject 2
Company	Response Time (in minutes)
Engine 1	3:00
Engine 3	N/A
Engine 6	4:00
Truck 1	3:00
Average Response Time	3:20

Inject 4
Company	Response Time (in minutes)
Engine 1	4:00
Engine 3	N/A
Engine 6	4:00
Truck 1	4:00
Average Response Time	4:00

Exercise Day Overall Times
Source	Response Time (in minutes)
From CSA1	4:00
From CSA2	3:45
From CSA3	3:30
Engine 1	3:40
Engine 3	3:00
Engine 6	4:20
Truck 1	3:40

Day 3 (Thursday) Results

Inject 1
Company	Response Time (in minutes)
Engine 1	5:00
Engine 3	2:00
Engine 6	5:00
Truck 1	4:00
Average Response Time	4:00

Inject 2
Company	Response Time (in minutes)
Engine 1	3:00
Engine 3	6:00
Engine 6	3:00
Truck 1	3:00
Average Response Time	3:45

Inject 4
Company	Response Time (in minutes)
Engine 1	5:00
Engine 3	3:00
Engine 6	8:00
Truck 1	5:00
Average Response Time	5:15

Exercise Day Overall Times
Source	Response Time (in minutes)
From CSA1	5:00
From CSA2	4:45
From CSA3	2:40
Engine 1	4:20
Engine 3	3:40
Engine 6	5:20
Truck 1	4:00

Aggregated Time Results

Exercise Mean Times
Source	Response Time (in minutes)
From CSA1	4:20
From CSA2	4:30
From CSA3	4:16
To Inject 1	4:08
To Inject 2	4:13
To Inject 4	4:05
Overall Response	4:09
Engine 1	4:00
Engine 3	3:43
Engine 6	4:54
Truck 1	3:54

Time Results Summary

A review of the time results leads to the conclusion that mean response time of less than 5 minutes (of which all mean times exemplified) suggest exercise suggest and that response timing is able to achieve and exceed the target capability of response within five minutes. While the exercise pre-staged on the outskirts of campus areas, apparatus were not permitted to run a full emergency response with excess speeds, sirens, etc. due to safety concerns. Given this, the times are fairly accurate to what true responses would be from farther distances but quicker speeds.

Areas of Strength

Strength 1 (Planning)

One of the strengths identified by the exercise director and controller was the overall success and likelihood of effective response due to planning. The Office of Emergency Management and Jonesboro Fire Department maintain a close working relationship for effective interoperability. (Capability: Planning, Operational Coordination)

Strength 2 (Stakeholder Engagement)

Another identified strength is the engagement of key stakeholders in the process. The majority of campus stakeholders came together to welcome this training and help support it. This is a crucial component of an effect exercise program. (Capability: Operational Coordination)

Strength 3 (Resources)

Players appreciated the resources that the Office of Emergency Management was able to provide, such as subject matter expertise and planning documentation. Players now have a contact for additional aid and resources if the need arises in a planning or response cycle. (Capability: Planning)

Areas for Improvement

Improvement Area 1 (Database Integration)

As management information systems (MISs)are becoming increasingly complex and more common, additional care needs to be put in to ensuring these databases and their information are appropriately shared and integrated. This may require a capabilities meeting to determine what capabilities exist between stakeholders MISs and how that data may be useful to the other party. (Capability: Planning)

Improvement Area 2 (Training and Decision Support)

Additional revisions need to be made to the response and training plan as it relates to emergency response to the A-State campus. Maps and other resources need to be revised and simplified where possible to maximize the effectiveness of their information. Collaboration needs to be more frequent between A-State and response partners to ensure a more seamless interoperability and to provide decision support in pre-incident planning periods as well as in response. (Capability: Planning, Operational Coordination)

Improvement Area 3 (Infrastructure)

While adequate infrastructure exists to enact an effective response, the ability to identify and access this infrastructure is difficult at certain parts of campus. For example, players reported being unable to distinguish emergency sidewalk routes from non-emergency routes as well as having difficulty identifying the routes exist at certain portions of campus. Additionally, buildings and address markers are difficult to identify in many places. Certain portions of campus, such as the North Caraway division point in front of Eugene Smith, are difficult and/or impossible to access and present a vulnerability. (Capability: Planning)

Appendix A: Training Route

Appendix B.1: Exercise Day 1 Communications Plan (ICS 205)

Appendix B.2: Exercise Day 2 Communications Plan (ICS 205)

Appendix B.3: Exercise Day 3 Communications Plan (ICS 205)

Appendix C: Improvement Plan

This IP is developed specifically for Arkansas State University as a result of the JFD Response FE conducted in November of 2024:

Area for Improvement	Corrective Item	Implementation Plan	Primary Responsible Organization	Organization POC
Database Integration	Identification of Capabilities	Work with stakeholders to identify what MIS systems and other databases are being used to determine if internal data could support the database or if the stakeholder database could support internal plans/operations.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Database Integration	Systematic Review	Create guidelines internally to review databases and MIS systems, both internally and with external stakeholders, to ensure information is accurate and systems functional to inform planning.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Training and Decision Support	Training Schedule	Work to create a more uniform training schedule with JFD over a variety of subjects to maintain knowledge and working relationship.	Emergency Management (Primary) Jonesboro Fire Department (Secondary)	Emergency Management Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley Jonesboro Fire Department Division Chief Rickey Howton
Training and Decision Support	Decision Support Resource Maintenance	Evaluate the resources currently in place for decision support to ensure they have been shared and are accurate. Create additional maintenance plans for periodic reviews to ensure they still provide accurate decision support.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management (Primary) Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Infrastructure	Identification Markers	The Office of Emergency Management will work with Facilities Management and other university departments to evaluate options for updating markers of emergency routes and sidewalks for clearer communication.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Infrastructure	Existing Infrastructure Overhaul	Work with Facilities Management and Parking Services to determine if overhauls of existing access infrastructure and designs need to be performed, such as in front of Eugene Smith or in parking areas across campus.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley

[1] Selected from National Preparedness Goal’s Five Mission Areas (DHS, 2015)

[2] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[3] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

2024 Exercises

2024 Fall Fire Drills AAR-IP

To view the formatted PDF, click here: Fall 2024 Fire Drills AAR-IP.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

Fall 2024 Fire Drills

After-Action Report/Improvement Plan

November 4, 2024

Exercise Overview

Exercise Name	Fall 2024 Fire Drills
Exercise Dates	September 23 & 24, 2024
Planning Date	August 15, 2024
Hotwash Date	October 11, 2024
Scope	This exercise is a drill, planned for approximately 5 minutes at each residence hall. Exercise play is limited to activating the fire notification system in each building, monitoring the receipt and response by occupants, examining the notification system for any failures, and documenting all observations.
Focus Areas[1]	Protection, Mitigation, Response
Capabilities[2]	§ Community Resilience § Infrastructure Systems § Operational Coordination § Planning § Public Information and Warning
Objectives	§ Determine the operational status of fire notification systems § Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging § Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging § Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts § Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs § Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence
Hazard	Uncontained Fire
Scenario	Fire alarm activation signals the potential for a fire in the respective residence hall or living quarters.
Sponsor	Arkansas State University
Participating Organizations	Office of Emergency Management, University Housing, University Police Department Dispatch
Point of Contact	Wyatt Reed, Emergency Operations and Occupational Safety Specialist Office of Emergency Management Arkansas State University WReed@AState.edu or (870) 972-3352

Analysis of Capabilities

Table 1 includes the exercise objectives, aligned capabilities, and performance ratings for each capability as observed during the exercise and determined by the evaluation team.

Objective	Capability[3]	Performed without Challenges (P)	Performed with Some Challenges (S)	Performed with Major Challenges (M)	Unable to be Performed (U)
Determine the operational status of fire notification systems	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems		X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Planning	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Planning	X
Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts	Community Resilience	X
	Operational Coordination	X
	Planning	X
Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs	Community Resilience	X
	Planning	X
	Operational Coordination	X
Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence	Community Resilience	X

Table 1. Summary of Core Capability Performance

Rating Definitions:

Unable to be Performed (U): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were not performed in a manner that achieved the objective(s).

The following sections provide an overview of the performance related to each exercise objective and associated capability, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

Capability Definitions:

Residence Hall Breakdowns:

This area will identify the strengths and weaknesses of each residence hall as it relates to exercise objectives and core capabilities.

Living-Learning Communities (LLCs)

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #1

Time: 3:20 | Number Evacuated: 24

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #2

Time: 2:37 | Number Evacuated: 16

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #3

Time: 3:12 | Number Evacuated: 21

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #4

Time: 2:15 | Number Evacuated: 26

Observations: The assembly area was not well utilized.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #5

Time: 3:52 | Number Evacuated: 19

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #6

Time: 3:32 | Number Evacuated: 22

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Miscellaneous Residence Halls

Arkansas Hall

Time: 5:15 | Number Evacuated: 56

Observations: Additional staff would be beneficial. Some residents struggled to use the identified assembly area.
Response: Reinforcement of the correct assembly area in post-drill communications should occur. Staffing needs will be better planned for in the exercise design phase.

Kays Hall

Time: 6:45 | Number Evacuated: 76

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements. RAs did an outstanding job!

University Hall

Time: 4:45 | Number Evacuated: 80

Observations: One resident entered after the drill commenced.
Response: Residents should not reenter the building for any reason. Identify appropriate messaging to residents to reinforce this.

Northpark Quads

Northpark Quad #1

Time: 4:31 | Number Evacuated: 61

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quad #2

Time: 5:18 | Number Evacuated: 76

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quad #3

Time: 3:47 | Number Evacuated: 57

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quad #4

Time: 4:53 | Number Evacuated: 53

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quad #5

Time: 5:35 | Number Evacuated: 65

Observations: A resident entered the building after the drill commenced to check on a relative. Additionally, UPD Dispatch reported challenges with receiving the alarm from this building.
Response: Residents should not reenter the building for any reason. Identify appropriate messaging to residents to reinforce this. Resets were done on the building and UPD software and a test alarm was eventually received. Should follow up with Life Safety to verify all issues are corrected. Use as an example in future training sessions as a reason to have redundant alarming (caller + FA panel).

Pack Place

Pack Place #1

Time: 4:30 | Number Evacuated: 37

Observations: Evacuation assembly areas are not fully utilized.
Response: Continue to educate on the importance of utilizing the nearest exits in conjunction with assembly areas.

Pack Place #2

Time: 5:20 | Number Evacuated: 53

Observations: Evacuation assembly areas are not fully utilized.
Response: Continue to educate on the importance of utilizing the nearest exits in conjunction with assembly areas.

Red Wolf Den

Red Wolf Den #1

Time: 2:47 | Number Evacuated: 20

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Red Wolf Den #2

Time: 1:51 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements. Some residents reported challenges hearing alarm systems.
Response: An issue with the fire alarm system has been identified and reported to Life Safety for repair.

Red Wolf Den #3

Time: 2:58 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Sorority Houses

Zeta Tau Alpha

Time: 2:35 | Number Evacuated: 8

Observations: A resident reentered the building and then evacuated again.
Response: Residents should not reenter the building for any reason. Identify appropriate messaging to residents to reinforce this.

Alpha Gamma Delta

Time: 1:31 | Number Evacuated: 3

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Alpha Omicron Pi

Time: 2:15 | Number Evacuated: 14

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Chi Omega

Time: 1:39 | Number Evacuated: 6

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Delta Zeta

Time: 0:43 | Number Evacuated: 7

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

The Circle:

The Circle Building #1

Time: 6:43 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise evacuation timing is slow for this building.
Response: Identify ways to encourage quick evacuation of buildings.

The Circle Building #2

Time: 3:23 | Number Evacuated: 3

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

The Circle Building #3

Time: 2:38 | Number Evacuated: 3

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

The Circle Building #4

Time: 3:15 | Number Evacuated: 17

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Strengths

Strength 2 (Knowledge Of and Adherence to Procedures): Fewer issues are noted of failure to comply with established procedures and increased usage of assembly areas. No student conduct referrals were needed in this exercise. Staff were receptive and engaged in fulfilling exercise needs and requirements. (Capability: Community Resilience, Planning)

Areas for Improvement

Area for Improvement 1 (Re-Entry): One issue noted numerous times was residents re-entering the building. It should be communicated to residents the expectation for them to evacuate the building promptly and remain evacuated until cleared by appropriate response personnel. (Capabilities: Community Resilience, Public Information and Warning)

Area for Improvement 2 (Fire Safety Systems): While fire safety systems in residential areas are generally well-maintained and invested in, vulnerabilities in monitoring systems have been noted during this drill. Relevant stakeholders should work to review the effectiveness of monitoring systems, while the importance of notifying a public safety answering point or the on-campus dispatch center should continue to be stressed among residents and resident staff. (Capabilities: Planning, Public Information and Warning)

Area for Improvement 3 (Messaging): While public awareness campaigns in general have increased on campus, continuing to communicate not only response information but also policy expectations as well as good fire safety prevention habits should continue. (Capability: Planning, Community Resilience, Public Information and Warning)

Appendix A: Improvement Plan

This IP is developed specifically for Arkansas State University as a result of the Fall 2024 drills conducted in September of 2024:

Area for Improvement	Corrective Item	Implementation Plan	Primary Responsible Organization	Organization POC
Re-Entry	Communication of Expectations	Communication with residents about expectations regarding appropriate procedures should be communicated during initial resident meetings and followed up with reminders throughout the year.	University Housing (Primary) Emergency Management (Secondary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Fire Safety Systems	Inspection, Testing, & Maintenance Plan	Evaluate plans and programs for the inspection and maintenance of fire alarm systems; specifically, evaluate testing plans of monitoring capabilities.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Fire Safety Systems	Fire Safety Training	Continue explaining the importance of notifying UPD by phone of fire alarms to RAs and other University Housing staff.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Messaging	Safety Messaging	Safety messaging and information campaigns should increase, both proactively and reactively. This includes sending a consistent stream of preparedness and preventative information to residents as well as corrective information and guidance as needed.	University Housing (Primary) Emergency Management (Secondary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley

[1] Selected from National Preparedness Goal’s Five Mission Areas (DHS, 2015)

[2] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[3] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

2024 Exercises

Lab Sciences Fire TTX AAR-IP

To view the formatted PDF, click here: Lab Sciences Fire TTX AAR-IP.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

Lab Sciences Fire TTX

After-Action Report/Improvement Plan

December 2, 2024

Exercise Overview

Exercise Name	Lab Sciences Fire TTX
Exercise Date	July 17, 2024
Planning Date	N/A
Hotwash Date	July 17, 2024
Scope	This exercise is a tabletop, designed to evaluate internal response capabilities only. Exercise play is limited to general administrative incident management, although certain on-scene incident management strategies were evaluated.
Focus Areas[1]	Response, Recovery
Capabilities[2]	§ Planning § Operational Coordination § Fatality Management § Environmental Response § Situational Assessment
Objectives	§ Feel comfortable with incident management processes and structure; § Understand how to apply incident management processes and plans to a scenario; § Consider how similar events might impact standard daily operations; § Identify capabilities, target capabilities, and gaps.
Hazard	Uncontained Fire, Hazardous Materials Release
Scenario	A fire alarm reported in the Lab Sciences building, compounded by following injects of a working structure fire, hazardous materials release, and likely mass casualty incident.
Sponsor	Arkansas State University
Participating Organizations	Office of Emergency Management (Wyatt Reed, Facilitator & Ronnie Gilley), Disaster Preparedness & Emergency Management Program (Jon Carvell, Evaluator), Environmental Health & Safety (Melissa Dooley), Facilities Management (Brian Lasey & Petree Buford), Risk Management (Sandra Bramblett), Student Affairs (Dr. Martha Spack), University Communications (Todd Clark), University Police Department (Randy Martin & Billy Branch)
Point of Contact	Wyatt Reed, Emergency Operations and Occupational Safety Specialist Office of Emergency Management Arkansas State University WReed@AState.edu or (870) 972-3352

Analysis of Capabilities

Table 1 includes the exercise objectives, aligned capabilities, and performance ratings for each capability as observed during the exercise and determined by the evaluation team.

Objective	Capability[3]	Performed without Challenges (P)	Performed with Some Challenges (S)	Performed with Major Challenges (M)	Unable to be Performed (U)
Feel comfortable with incident management processes and structure	Planning	X
	Operational Coordination	X
	Situational Assessment	X
Understand how to apply incident management processes and plans to a scenario	Planning	X
	Operational Coordination	X
	Situational Assessment	X
Consider how similar events might impact standard daily operations	Planning	X
	Environmental Response	X
Identify capabilities, target capabilities, and gaps	Planning	X
Identify capabilities, target capabilities, and gaps	Fatality Management	X

Table 1. Summary of Core Capability Performance

Rating Definitions:

Unable to be Performed (U): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were not performed in a manner that achieved the objective(s).

The following sections provide an overview of the performance related to each exercise objective and associated capability, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

Capability Definitions:

Fatality Management: Provide fatality management services, including decedent remains recovery and victim identification, working with local authorities to provide temporary storage and sharing information with mass care services for the purpose of reunifying family members and caregivers with missing persons/remains, and providing counseling to the bereaved.

Environmental Response: Conduct appropriate measures to ensure the protection of the health and safety of the public and workers, as well as the environment, from all-hazards in support of responder operations and the affected communities.

Situational Assessment: Provide all decision-makers with decision-relevant information regarding the nature and extent of the hazard, any cascading effects, and the status of the response.

Evaluator Notes

Initial Scenario

Initial evacuations and alarm confirmations are likely to go smoother in the busier hours of the day than less busy. Reports of fire and/or a fire alarm may go to various places, such as the University Police’s dispatch center, administrative staff, the Facilities Management Work Order Center, etc. It is important to not only direct people to notify University Police, but also to anticipate these other entities that may receive reports and direct them to notify University Police as well.

To mitigate initial impacts, proper response protocols (including evacuation procedures) must be accessible both before and during the incident. This may include tools from marketing campaigns to signage.

Inject 1

Short of physically being present, confirming a fire can be difficult. Cameras may be used, but in this particular building, the infrastructure is likely not present for real-time confirmation. Discussed ways to add credibility to threat, including volume/specificity of reports.

Inject 2

Appropriate campus stakeholders such as Environmental Health and Safety did well to identify initial areas of concern. Additional access to these databases likely needs to be expanded, including CampusOptics’ Hazardous Materials portal. After confirmation of the threat, UPD appropriately highlighted the importance of triggering the campus emergency notification system as well as notifying the chain of command. Adding cameras to buildings for real-time confirmation of threats and hazards in addition to general surveillance would be beneficial.

Inject 3

Highlighted the question of integrating Jonesboro E911 into aiding campus dispatch. Likely, E911 will already be getting numerous calls since cellular 911 calls from campus are routed to their center. Consider who should be notified and at what level: this could include building-level staff, such as safety committees. Emergency Operations Center needs to be prepared for activation as well as the campus incident management team. The university likely needs to evaluate readiness for promptly establishing an EOC and activating a campus IMT. At this stage, prompt public information activities should be started.

Inject 4

Constant evaluation of stakeholders and incident objectives needs to occur as the scene unfolds. Consider rescheduling classes or canceling – a discussed advantage of canceling would be prompting a voluntary evacuation, much in the way that inclement weather closures prompt this, without having to publicize it as such. Notifying area hospitals and the Craighead County Office of Emergency Management is necessary to ensure operational coordination remains in place and a common operating picture exists. Utilize MoU with St. Bernard’s for counseling services and evaluate if this capability meets target capabilities. Fill gaps with campus resources and potentially outside consultants. Start the recovery process with the insurance company through the Office of Risk Management to preserve scene integrity. Evaluate plans to move communications from UPD to the Division of Communications, as well as a devolution plan in accordance with notification policies.

Inject 5

Fatality management may present challenges due to the infrequency of handling this on campus. However, in general, follow Student Affairs protocols for a death on campus. University Police can assist in notifications to next-of-kin. Mortuary assistance can be utilized through ADEM but is likely not needed for a localized incident such as this. The Chancellor and President should be made aware of fatalities. An identified challenge is the delay in reporting fatalities until a NOK and university officials are notified. Work with media to release information but respect the privacy and integrity of the investigation.

Final Inject

The recovery process starts quickly. Not only does this building contain space, but it likely has unique assets such as chemicals and experiments that cannot be quickly replaced. Ensure the focus is not just on immediate response and the tragedy itself but also on recovery and business continuity. Players properly identified the importance of involving structural engineers, insurance adjusters, and worker's compensation providers for employees injured.

Facilitator Notes

Overall Evaluation

The exercise overall was a success in the eyes of the facilitator. Players did an exceptional job in allowing appropriate stakeholders to be responsible for answering questions within their subject matter expertise. Additional stakeholder buy-in would have likely offered additional perspectives from key decision-makers that would have guided the conversation along. The Office of Emergency Management can improve upon future exercises by continuing to expand the stakeholders involved as players. An area that needs additional evaluation in the future is the ability to quickly activate an Incident Management Team (IMT) and Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Additionally, meetings with policymakers would likely help set the vision for incident response and management. This is necessary to define who is responsible for certain aspects of the response, as well as ensuring internal agencies are aware of these policies and abiding by them.

To end on a positive note, all players integrated into an EOC-like environment and were able to effectively communicate and respond to the injects. Collectively, the group was able to answer the most challenging situations thoughtfully and effectively.

Participant Evaluation Form Results

Form Setup

The evaluation form had two parts: Part A consisted of a Likert formatted questionnaire. Part B consisted of a qualitative assessment in a short answer format to certain prompts.

Evaluation

Part A

The evaluation of Part A was determined based on selecting a level of agreement from 1-5, where 1 was strongly disagree, 3 was neutral, and 5 was strongly agree. All questions were created where a higher selection represented a more favorable view of the exercise in relation to the question being asked. The exercise would be deemed successful if the mean aggregate of all respondents' selections was greater than 3.2 on a 5.0 scale. The complete mean aggregate was 4.26, indicating a 1-point deviation positively from the success marker.

Part B

The evaluation of Part B is subjective both in terms of the respondent's answers to the prompts and the interpretation of the response by the facilitator.

Response #1: Please list 3 areas of strength from this exercise.

Respondents noted that A-State’s readiness for emergency response seems to be in a good state, with key stakeholders well-trained and knowledgeable. Relationships with external partners are good, and internal partners seem to be able to collaborate on incident management objectives well. Players noted the campus emergency notification system as a key piece of infrastructure for response, and they evaluated that it would likely perform well in this scenario. Respondents appreciated the realism of the scenario and the ability to not be overwhelmed by injects. The guidebook was a good tool for players in the exercise.

Response #2: Please list 3 areas for improvement noted from this exercise.

Respondents noted the staffing for crowd control as an issue, as well as emergency access to the facility. Additionally, campus partners who would likely be part of an incident management team need additional training in preparation for an EOC activation. One respondent noted the potential benefit of having building liaisons to verify information and help in response operations. Many noted that additional departments/agencies should be involved in future exercises. Another player would like to see improvements in checking in on students/staff to verify safety. Improving communication plans to include a devolution/reconstitution plan between emergency officials and the Division of University Communications. Finally, improvements in collaboration with officials charged with response to hazardous materials incidents on campus as well as an increase in surveillance tools.

Response #3: What steps would you take to improve on issues identified in Response #2?

Respondents noted the importance of mutual aid to meet the resource needs of an incident, as well as expanding/outlining campus evacuation routes. Another recommends reviewing the incident management team at least once annually, as well as a meeting/exercise of those expected to staff the EOC. Additionally, we need to evaluate access to campus databases such as CampusOptics for emergency response personnel.

Areas of Strength

Strength 1 (Integration and Communication)

One of the strengths identified numerous times by players and the evaluator is the ability of campus leaders to quickly come together and offer their subject matter expertise in a helpful manner. Players were able to quickly integrate and effectively respond to the scenario/injects in a timely manner. (Capability: Planning, Operational Coordination, Situational Assessment)

Strength 2 (Emergency Notification System)

Another identified strength is the capabilities and redundancy of the campus emergency notification system, especially in its infrastructure design. The system can use numerous vehicles, both conventional and integrated, to be able to deliver a uniform message in a timely manner. (Capability: Planning, Operational Coordination, Environmental Response, Situational Assessment)

Strength 3 (Exercise Planning)

Respondents felt that this exercise was well planned and that the tools provided (e.g. presentation, guidebook, etc.) were helpful aids in navigating the exercise. The scenario and injects were realistic and achievable, while also stimulating thought and conversation. (Capability: Planning)

Areas for Improvement

Improvement Area 1 (EOC and IMT Integration Readiness)

An area that needs improvement is the maintenance of a campus Incident Management Team (IMT) as well as ongoing integration exercises and conversations surrounding an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) activation. The campus IMT needs to be identified and trained, and investments into a practical EOC need to be made. (Capability: Planning, Operational Coordination)

Improvement Area 2 (Communications Devolution and Reconstitution Plan)

Another area that needs improvement is crisis communications. While players were able to effectively identify the system and key stakeholders in crafting and delivering crisis communications, the university needs to evaluate at what point (if any) that communication duties transfer from the alerting authority to the Division of University Communications during incident management and then back based on incident needs and objectives. Additionally, the university must evaluate if this transition not only is needed but is feasible from an infrastructure standpoint. (Capability: Planning, Operational Coordination, Situational Assessment)

Improvement Area 3 (Stakeholder Communications)

An integral part of campus response and readiness is the ability of internal and external stakeholders to be equipped with the information needed to seamlessly transition into a multi-agency response. A major tool (especially for hazardous materials response) that is utilized on campus is CampusOptics. However, this database also contains sensitive information that does not need to be publicly accessible. The university needs to identify agencies and agency leaders with a need-to-know for access to this database, as well as other campus response plans. (Capability: Planning, Situational Assessment)

Improvement Plan

This IP is developed specifically for Arkansas State University as a result of the Lab Sciences Fire TTX conducted in July of 2024:

Area for Improvement	Corrective Item	Implementation Plan	Primary Responsible Organization	Organization POC
EOC and IMT Integration Readiness	Identification and Credentialing	Identify members of the campus IMT and work to provide credentials for these individuals. Set up a recurring process to evaluate the IMT for turnover.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
	EOC Infrastructure	Work with ITS and Facilities Management to evaluate EOC infrastructure needs and gaps to obtaining target capability. Request funding to achieve the target capability.	Emergency Management (Primary) ITS & Facilities (Secondary)	Emergency Management Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley ITS & Facilities Scott Wheat or Brian Lasey
	EOC Exercise	Once the first two corrective items are implemented, exercise to evaluate if the target capability can be met.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Communications Devolution and Reconstitution Plan	Evaluate Notification Infrastructure for Portability	Evaluate the campus emergency notification systems to see if the infrastructure can be moved, transferred, or operated remotely.	Emergency Management (Primary) University Police Department (Secondary)	Emergency Management Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley University Police Department Randy Martin or Billy Branch
Communications Devolution and Reconstitution Plan	Policy Development	Evaluate the need (if any) for devolution and reconstitution of university emergency communications. If needed, draft policy and procedures into a plan.	University Communications (Primary) University Police Department (Secondary) Emergency Management (Tertiary)	University Communications Todd Clark University Police Department Randy Martin or Billy Branch Emergency Management (Tertiary) Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Stakeholder Communications	Data Sharing	The Office of Emergency Management will identify stakeholders that need access to internal data/databases. Access will be given after any necessary university security concerns are identified and mitigated or accepted.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley

[1] Selected from National Preparedness Goal’s Five Mission Areas (DHS, 2015)

[2] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[3] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

2024 Exercises

2024 Spring Fire Drills AAR-IP

To view the formatted PDF, click here: Spring 2024 Fire Drills AAR-IP.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

Spring 2024 Fire Drills

After-Action Report/Improvement Plan

April 17, 2024

Exercise Overview

Exercise Name	Spring 2024 Fire Drills
Exercise Dates	February 26-28, March 6, 2024
Planning Date	February 23, 2024
Hotwash Date	April 16, 2024
Scope	This exercise is a drill, planned for approximately 5 minutes at each residence hall. Exercise play is limited to activating the fire notification system in each building, monitoring the receipt and response by occupants, examining the notification system for any failures, and documenting all observations.
Focus Areas[1]	Protection, Mitigation, Response
Capabilities[2]	§ Community Resilience § Infrastructure Systems § Operational Coordination § Planning § Public Information and Warning
Objectives	§ Determine the operational status of fire notification systems § Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging § Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging § Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts § Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs § Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence
Hazard	Uncontained Fire
Scenario	Fire alarm activation signaling the potential for a fire in the respective residence hall or living quarter.
Sponsor	Arkansas State University
Participating Organizations	Environmental Health & Safety, Office of Emergency Management, University Housing
Point of Contact	Wyatt Reed, Emergency Operations and Occupational Safety Specialist Office of Emergency Management Arkansas State University WReed@AState.edu or (870) 972-3352

Analysis of Capabilities

Table 1 includes the exercise objectives, aligned capabilities, and performance ratings for each capability as observed during the exercise and determined by the evaluation team.

Objective	Capability[3]	Performed without Challenges (P)	Performed with Some Challenges (S)	Performed with Major Challenges (M)	Unable to be Performed (U)
Determine the operational status of fire notification systems	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Planning	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Planning	X
Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts	Community Resilience	X
	Operational Coordination		X
	Planning		X
Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs	Community Resilience	X
	Planning	X
	Operational Coordination	X
Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence	Community Resilience	X

Table 1. Summary of Core Capability Performance

Rating Definitions:

Unable to be Performed (U): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were not performed in a manner that achieved the objective(s).

The following sections provide an overview of the performance related to each exercise objective and associated capability, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

Capability Definitions:

Residence Hall Breakdowns:

This area will identify the strengths and weaknesses of each residence hall as it relates to exercise objectives and core capabilities.

Living-Learning Communities (LLCs)

Honors #1

Time: 3:04 | Number Evacuated: 8

Observations: One resident did not evacuate.
Response: Report will be made by University Housing to OSC.

Honors #2

Time: 3:14 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #3

Time: 3:32 | Number Evacuated: 11

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Honors #4

Time: 4:05 | Number Evacuated: 24

Observations: Assembly area was not well utilized.

ROTC/STEM

Time: 2:45 | Number Evacuated: 11

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Griffin Business

Time: 3:01 | Number Evacuated: 8

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Miscellaneous Residence Halls

Arkansas Hall

Time: 6:40 | Number Evacuated: 34

Observations: The timing was better than the previous semester. Assembly area usage seems to be improving.
Response: Continue to improve communication with residents, especially since this is a building with “alarm fatigue”.

Kays Hall

Time: 6:10 | Number Evacuated: 65

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements. RAs did an outstanding job!

University Hall

Time: 5:28 | Number Evacuated: 45

Observations: One resident didn’t evacuate.
Response: Resident will be reported to OSC by University Housing.

Northpark Quads

Northpark Quad #1

Time: 5:10 | Number Evacuated: 50

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quad #2

Time: 5:03 | Number Evacuated: 31

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quad #3

Time: 4:49 | Number Evacuated: 40

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quad #4

Time: 5:17 | Number Evacuated: 47

Observations: Assembly area was not well utilized by residents.
Response: Expectations of assembly areas will continue to be communicated to residents and University Housing staff. Additionally, additional assembly areas/signage may be implemented in the future.

Northpark Quad #5

Time: 6:18 | Number Evacuated: 22

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Pack Place

Pack Place #1

Time: 6:57 | Number Evacuated: 46

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements. RAs did an outstanding job!

Pack Place #2

Time: 7:24 | Number Evacuated: 52

Observations: Timing is bordering on an unacceptable range. Some residents refused to evacuate. A few residents did not evacuate to the correct assembly area and had to be corrected by the RAs, although most were compliant after being confronted.
Response: Increased outreach should be performed so that students understand where their assembly point is and the importance of being prudent in reaching it. Housing officials should send an email out to Pack Place #2 residents highlighting the appropriate evacuation procedures, the identified assembly area, and the consequences for not following procedures.

Red Wolf Den

Red Wolf Den #1

Time: 4:20 | Number Evacuated: 12

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Red Wolf Den #2

Time: 2:37 | Number Evacuated: 2

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Red Wolf Den #3

Time: 6:11 | Number Evacuated: 11

Observations: Most participants excelled exercise requirements. A few did not evacuate and will be reported to OSC by University Housing.

Sorority Houses

Zeta Tau Alpha

Time: 3:10 | Number Evacuated: 7

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Alpha Gamma Delta

Time: 1:53 | Number Evacuated: 8

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Alpha Omicron Pi

Time: 2:17 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Chi Omega

Time: 2:16 | Number Evacuated: 5

Observations: Not all residents utilized the assembly area to the north of the house after evacuating.

Delta Zeta

Time: 2:20 | Number Evacuated: 4

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

The Circle:

The Circle Building #1

Time: 2:47 | Number Evacuated: 3

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

The Circle Building #2

Time: 2:53 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

The Circle Building #3

Time: 3:12 | Number Evacuated: 12

Observations: Resident re-entered the building to retrieve her dog.
Response: University Housing will refer the resident to the Office of Student Conduct for this matter to be handled internally.

The Circle Building #4

Time: 3:33 | Number Evacuated: 8

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Strengths

Strength 1 (Fire Notification Systems): The fire alarm systems used in residence halls are generally high-quality systems that are well-maintained. The investment made by the University in upgrading and maintaining these systems leads them to be a reliable and fully operable mitigation and response tool, which leads to overall resilience. Most are integrated into the University Police dispatch center. (Capabilities: Community Resilience, Infrastructure Systems, Public Information and Warning)

Strength 2 (Staff Leadership): Overall, leadership by Housing staff has improved in relation to this exercise. It is noted that RAs are continually growing in their confidence in the appropriate action to take and the correct procedure to follow. Additional growth opportunities are available and will be explored, but overall this is a strength. (Capability: Community Resilience, Operational Coordination, Planning)

Strength 3 (Procedural Response): Fewer issues are being noted of failure to comply with established procedures and increased usage of assembly areas (Capability: Community Resilience, Planning)

Areas for Improvement

Area for Improvement 1 (Fire Prevention): Many fire prevention issues are continuing to be noticed or growing, including policy and code violations. From this drill, improper use of fire doors was noted which can lead to an overall failure of that safety system. Electric devices like scooters that are prohibited were documented during this drill and ultimately created a hazard that could be mitigated. (Capabilities: Community Resilience, Infrastructure Systems)

Area for Improvement 2 (Assembly Area): While the implementation of an assembly area has been a much-needed improvement, additional steps can be taken to ensure residents are aware of this area and to provide ease of access. Signage at the assembly area could be a helpful reminder, and for certain buildings, two assembly areas may be beneficial to residents. (Capabilities: Planning, Public Information and Warning)

Area for Improvement 3 (Communication): While public information and communication capabilities and follow-through have improved, there is additional work to be done to achieve the target capability. Increasing safety messaging in pre-established communication modes is vital, as is sending targeted reminders to areas identified as problematic in the hotwash. (Capability: Community Resilience, Operational Coordination, Public Information and Warning)

Appendix A: Improvement Plan

This IP is developed specifically for Arkansas State University as a result of the Fall 2023 drills conducted in October of 2023:

Area for Improvement	Corrective Item	Implementation Plan	Primary Responsible Organization	Organization POC
Fire Prevention	Code Compliance Checks	Certain basic fire code standards from the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code should be identified as most critical and be monitored by Housing staff in pre-established rounds. Any compliance issues can be remediated or reported as needed.	University Housing (Primary) Emergency Management (Secondary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
	Policy Compliance Enforcement	University Housing policy on the mitigation of hazards should be enforced, including the usage of cooking materials, open flames, and electric devices. Corrective actions include increasing documentation during Fire, Health, and Safety inspections as well as reporting violations to the Office of Student Conduct when appropriate.	University Housing (Primary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
	Fire Safety Training	Fire safety training can increase for both residents and University Housing staff, both for fire prevention and response. Emergency Management will work alongside Housing and external partners to increase these.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
	Safety Messaging	Safety messaging and information campaigns should increase, both proactively and reactively. This includes sending a consistent stream of preparedness and preventative information to residents as well as corrective information and guidance as needed.	University Housing (Primary) Emergency Management (Secondary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Assembly Area	Additional Signage	While maps currently exist to communicate appropriate evacuation assembly areas, additional external signage would likely be beneficial. Emergency Management will coordinate with Facilities Management and Housing partners to evaluate this.	Emergency Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
Assembly Area	Evaluation of Additional Assembly Areas	Adding one additional assembly area for certain buildings would likely make evacuations simpler, safer, and more accessible. Emergency Management will coordinate with Housing to evaluate this need and add any areas necessary.	Emergency Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
Communication	Fire, Health, and Safety Blurbs	As identified in the previous AAR, increasing communication through the preexisting FHS emails would be helpful. Housing should coordinate with Emergency Management to determine the content of these reminders.	Emergency Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
Communication	Post-Drill Communications	Areas that were identified as having significant issues (especially procedurally) in the hotwash should be sent a follow-up email from Housing communicating expectations and applicable policy/procedures.	University Housing (Secondary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller

[1] Selected from National Preparedness Goal’s Five Mission Areas (DHS, 2015)

[2] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[3] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

2023 Exercises

2023 Fall Fire Drills AAR-IP

To view the formatted PDF, click here: Fall 2023 Fire Drills AAR-IP.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

Fall 2023 Fire Drills

After-Action Report/Improvement Plan

November 09, 2023

Exercise Overview

Exercise Name	Fall 2023 Fire Drills
Exercise Dates	October 9, October 19, October 24, 2023
Planning Date	September 20, 2023
Hotwash Date	October 30, 2023
Scope	This exercise is a drill, planned for approximately 5 minutes at each residence hall. Exercise play is limited to activating the fire notification system in each building, monitoring the receipt and response by occupants, examining the notification system for any failures, and documenting all observations.
Focus Areas[1]	Protection, Mitigation, Response
Capabilities[2]	§ Community Resilience § Infrastructure Systems § Operational Coordination § Planning § Public Information and Warning
Objectives	§ Determine the operational status of fire notification systems § Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging § Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging § Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts § Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs § Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence
Hazard	Uncontained Fire
Scenario	Fire alarm activation signaling the potential for a fire in the respective residence hall or living quarter.
Sponsor	Arkansas State University
Participating Organizations	Environmental Health & Safety, Office of Emergency Management, University Housing
Point of Contact	Wyatt Reed, Emergency Operations and Occupational Safety Specialist Office of Emergency Management Arkansas State University WReed@AState.edu or (870) 972-3352

Analysis of Capabilities

Table 1 includes the exercise objectives, aligned capabilities, and performance ratings for each capability as observed during the exercise and determined by the evaluation team.

Objective	Capability[3]	Performed without Challenges (P)	Performed with Some Challenges (S)	Performed with Major Challenges (M)	Unable to be Performed (U)
Determine the operational status of fire notification systems	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Planning	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience	X
	Planning		X
Examine the ability of staff to encourage and guide evacuation efforts	Community Resilience		X
	Operational Coordination		X
	Planning		X
Evaluate the effectiveness of previous public information programs	Community Resilience	X
	Planning	X
	Operational Coordination	X
Examine for hazards that may compound fire risk/consequence	Community Resilience	X

Table 1. Summary of Core Capability Performance

Rating Definitions:

Unable to be Performed (U): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were not performed in a manner that achieved the objective(s).

The following sections provide an overview of the performance related to each exercise objective and associated capability, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

Capability Definitions:

Residence Hall Breakdowns:

This area will identify the strengths and weaknesses of each residence hall as it relates to exercise objectives and core capabilities.

Living-Learning Communities (LLCs)

Honors #1

Time: 2:45 | Number Evacuated: 12

Observations: Stairwell doors with a fire rating were propped open.
Response: Work with stakeholders to prevent the propping of these doors.

Honors #2

Time: 2:07 | Number Evacuated: 19

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #3

Time: 3:06 | Number Evacuated: 19

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Honors #4

Time: 3:01 | Number Evacuated: 24

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements. RAs did an outstanding job!

ROTC/STEM

Time: 3:50 | Number Evacuated: 14

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements. RAs did an outstanding job!

Griffin Business

Time: 2:57 | Number Evacuated: 22

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements. RAs did an outstanding job!

Miscellaneous Residence Halls

Arkansas Hall

Time: 6:53 | Number Evacuated: 64

Observations: The timing was better than the previous semester. However, residents did not evacuate to the correct assembly area. Residents were observed exiting with electric scooters, which are prohibited by policy in residential areas due to the fire hazard they pose.
Response: Residents do not seem to be comprehending where their evacuation assembly area is for this complex. Hotwash participants identified sending an email to Arkansas Hall residents with the assembly area map attached as a proactive solution. As for scooters, additional reminders should be included in Fire, Health, & Safety emails.

Kays Hall

Time: 5:13 | Number Evacuated: 97

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements. RAs did an outstanding job!

University Hall

Time: 4:43 | Number Evacuated: 93

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quads

Northpark Quad #1

Time: 6:30 | Number Evacuated: 51

Observations: Bedroom was noted as having a smoke detector detached from the base, and this is a recurring issue.
Response: Will follow up with FM and the Office of Student Conduct as needed.

Northpark Quad #2

Time: 6:10 | Number Evacuated: 34

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quad #3

Time: 6:52 | Number Evacuated: 41

Observations: Resident was observed exiting with electric scooter, which is prohibited by policy in residential areas due to the fire hazard they pose. Numerous individuals did not use the evacuation assembly area, and Housing staff did not redirect them to the correct area. Many were sitting on the tailgate of a pickup truck near the building.
Response: Individuals observed violating safety policy should be referred to the Office of Student Conduct. Procedural violations should be attempted to be corrected by Housing staff members. Hotwash participants identified sending an email to Northpark Quad #3 residents with the assembly area map attached as a proactive solution. As for scooters, additional reminders should be included in Fire, Health, & Safety emails.

Northpark Quad #4

Time: 6:40 | Number Evacuated: 53

Observations: A resident was observed entering with an electric scooter, which is prohibited by policy in residential areas due to the fire hazard they pose.
Response: Individuals observed violating safety policy should be referred to the Office of Student Conduct. As for scooters, additional reminders should be included in Fire, Health, & Safety emails.

Northpark Quad #5

Time: 6:36 | Number Evacuated: 35

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Pack Place

Pack Place #1

Time: 4:27 | Number Evacuated: 39

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements. RAs did an outstanding job!

Pack Place #2

Time: 6:50 | Number Evacuated: 36

Observations: Timing is bordering on an unacceptable range. Some residents refused to evacuate. A few residents did not evacuate to the correct assembly area and had to be corrected by the RAs, although most were compliant after being confronted.
Response: Increased outreach should be performed so that students understand where their assembly point is and the importance of being prudent in reaching it. Housing officials should send an email out to Pack Place #2 residents highlighting the appropriate evacuation procedures, the identified assembly area, and the consequences for not following procedures.

Red Wolf Den

Red Wolf Den #1

Time: 3:36 | Number Evacuated: 16

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Red Wolf Den #2

Time: 3:43 | Number Evacuated: 12

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Red Wolf Den #3

Time: 5:18 | Number Evacuated: 13

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Sorority Houses

Zeta Tau Alpha

Time: 1:42 | Number Evacuated: 4

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements. Residents utilized the assembly area well!

Alpha Gamma Delta

Time: 1:48 | Number Evacuated: 9

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Alpha Omicron Pi

Time: 0:47 | Number Evacuated: 0

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Chi Omega

Time: 1:12 | Number Evacuated: 1

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Delta Zeta

Time: 0:47 | Number Evacuated: 3

Observations: Residents did not use evacuation assembly areas.
Response: Increased outreach should be performed so that students understand where their assembly point is and the importance of being prudent in reaching it.

The Circle:

The Circle Building #1

Time: 5:01 | Number Evacuated: 7

Observations: Some residents reported trouble hearing the alarm.
Response: Increased monitoring of issues from this residence should be followed up on in the Spring 2024 drill.

The Circle Building #2

Time: 5:15 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

The Circle Building #3

Time: 7:00 | Number Evacuated: 14

Observations: Resident did not initially evacuate and refused to follow procedures when requested.
Response: University Housing reported the resident to the Office of Student Conduct for this matter to be handled internally.

The Circle Building #4

Time: 4:30 | Number Evacuated: 11

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Strengths

Areas for Improvement

Appendix A: Improvement Plan

This IP is developed specifically for Arkansas State University as a result of the Fall 2023 drills conducted in October of 2023:

Area for Improvement	Corrective Item	Implementation Plan	Primary Responsible Organization	Organization POC
Fire Prevention	Code Compliance Checks	Certain basic fire code standards from the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code should be identified as most critical and be monitored by Housing staff in pre-established rounds. Any compliance issues can be remediated or reported as needed.	University Housing (Primary) Emergency Management (Secondary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
	Policy Compliance Enforcement	University Housing policy on the mitigation of hazards should be enforced, including the usage of cooking materials, open flames, and electric devices. Corrective actions include increasing documentation during Fire, Health, and Safety inspections as well as reporting violations to the Office of Student Conduct when appropriate.	University Housing (Primary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
	Fire Safety Training	Fire safety training can increase for both residents and University Housing staff, both for fire prevention and response. Emergency Management will work alongside Housing and external partners to increase these.	Emergency Management (Primary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
	Safety Messaging	Safety messaging and information campaigns should increase, both proactively and reactively. This includes sending a consistent stream of preparedness and preventative information to residents as well as corrective information and guidance as needed.	University Housing (Primary) Emergency Management (Secondary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley
Assembly Area	Additional Signage	While maps currently exist to communicate appropriate evacuation assembly areas, additional external signage would likely be beneficial. Emergency Management will coordinate with Facilities Management and Housing partners to evaluate this.	Emergency Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
Assembly Area	Evaluation of Additional Assembly Areas	Adding one additional assembly area for certain buildings would likely make evacuations simpler, safer, and more accessible. Emergency Management will coordinate with Housing to evaluate this need and add any areas necessary.	Emergency Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Emergency Management: Wyatt Reed or Ronnie Gilley University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
Communication	Fire, Health, and Safety Blurbs	As identified in the previous AAR, increasing communication through the preexisting FHS emails would be helpful. Housing should coordinate with Emergency Management to determine the content of these reminders.	Emergency Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
Communication	Post-Drill Communications	Areas that were identified as having significant issues (especially procedurally) in the hotwash should be sent a follow-up email from Housing communicating expectations and applicable policy/procedures.	University Housing (Secondary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller

[1] Selected from National Preparedness Goal’s Five Mission Areas (DHS, 2015)

[2] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[3] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Core Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

2023 Exercises

2023 Spring Fire Drills AAR-IP

To view the formatted PDF, click here: Spring 2023 Fire Drills AAR-IP.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

Spring 2023 Fire Drills

After-Action Report/Improvement Plan

April 4^th, 2023

Exercise Overview

Exercise Name	Spring 2023 Fire Drills
Exercise Dates	March 8-10, 2023
Scope	This exercise is a drill, planned for approximately 5 minutes at each residence hall. Exercise play is limited to activating the fire notification system in each building, monitoring the receipt and response by occupants, examining the notification system for any failures, and documenting all observations.
Focus Areas[1]	Mitigation, Response
Capabilities[2]	§ Community Resilience § Infrastructure Systems § Planning § Public Information and Warning
Objectives	§ Determine the operational status of fire notification systems § Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging § Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging § Examine the ability of staff in encouraging and guiding evacuation efforts
Hazard	Uncontained Fire
Scenario	The fire notification system was activated via pull stations. This drill verified the panel received this notification, activated the remainder of the system automatically, and notified the designated public safety answering point (PSAP). The drill also monitored the recognition and response of occupants in identifying a potential hazard and responding using appropriate emergency procedures pre-designated by Safety & Emergency Management.
Sponsor	Arkansas State University
Participating Organizations	Environmental Health & Safety, Safety & Emergency Management, University Housing
Point of Contact	Wyatt Reed, Emergency Operations and Occupational Safety Specialist Office of Safety & Emergency Management Arkansas State University wreed@astate.edu or (870) 972-3352

Analysis of Capabilities

Aligning exercise objectives and capabilities provides a consistent taxonomy for evaluation that transcends individual exercises to support preparedness reporting and trend analysis. Table 1 includes the exercise objectives, aligned capabilities, and performance ratings for each capability as observed during the exercise and determined by the evaluation team.

Objective	Capability[3]	Performed without Challenges (P)	Performed with Some Challenges (S)	Performed with Major Challenges (M)	Unable to be Performed (U)
Determine the operational status of fire notification systems	Community Resilience	X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the ability of occupants to recognize hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience		X
	Infrastructure Systems	X
	Public Information and Warning	X
Examine the occupant’s response to hazard communication messaging	Community Resilience		X
	Planning		X
Examine the ability of staff in encouraging and guiding evacuation efforts	Planning		X
	Community Resilience	X

Table 1. Summary of Core Capability Performance

Rating Definitions:

Unable to be Performed (U): The targets and critical tasks associated with the capability were not performed in a manner that achieved the objective(s).

The following sections provide an overview of the performance related to each exercise objective and associated capability, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

Residence Hall Breakdowns:

This area will identify the strengths and weaknesses of each residence hall as it relates to exercise objectives and core capabilities.

Living-Learning Communities:

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #1

Time: 5:19 | Number Evacuated: 26

Observations: Residents were unfamiliar with evacuation points.
Response: Promote the newly created Residence Hall Assembly Points map.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #2

Time: 3:22 | Number Evacuated: 12

Observations: Previously identified assembly point was incorrect.
Response: Corrected the Residence Hall Assembly Points map to reflect the change.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #3

Time: 4:07 | Number Evacuated: 7

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #4

Time: 4:03 | Number Evacuated: 10

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #5

Time: 4:48 | Number Evacuated: 8

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Living-Learning Community (LLC) #6

Time: 4:39 | Number Evacuated: 13

Observations: Previously identified assembly point was incorrect.
Response: Corrected the Residence Hall Assembly Points map to reflect the change.

Miscellaneous Residence Halls:

Arkansas Hall

Time: 7:40 | Number Evacuated: 68

Observations: Timing was notably longer compared to the previous semesters (5:25).
Response: The most likely explanation identified in the hotwash was “alarm fatigue”, or the acceptance of an emergency alarm as identifying a non-emergency scenario. RA’s will continue to exemplify each future alarm’s potential importance to influence residents to take all alarms as potential emergencies.

Kays Hall

Time: 6:15 | Number Evacuated: 128

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

University Hall

Time: 5:30 | Number Evacuated: 59

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quads:

Northpark Quad #1

Time: 4:15 | Number Evacuated: 38

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quad #2

Time: 5:47 | Number Evacuated: 38

Observations: At least one resident did not evacuate.
Response: Increased awareness to residents on the importance of timely evacuations, followed up with student conduct referral.

Northpark Quad #3

Time: 4:42 | Number Evacuated: 22

Observations: Corridor doors did not properly latch.
Response: Will be referred to the work order center.

Northpark Quad #4

Time: 3:32 | Number Evacuated: 25

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Northpark Quad #5

Time: 4:45 | Number Evacuated: 19

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Pack Place:

Pack Place #1

Time: 5:50 | Number Evacuated: 61

Observations: Timing is bordering on an unacceptable range. Students did not uniformly evacuate to the identified assembly point directly west of the building.
Response: Increased outreach should be performed so that students know where their assembly point is and the importance of being prudent in reaching it.

Pack Place #2

Time: 6:52 | Number Evacuated: 61

Observations: Timing is bordering on an unacceptable range. Concurrent to that, residents largely did not evacuate to the identified assembly point. Some residents refused to evacuate. Some residents either waited in their vehicles or left the scene.
Response: Increased outreach should be performed so that students understand where their assembly point is and the importance of being prudent in reaching it. Students should be discouraged from leaving the assembly sight to either sit or exit in their vehicles. A new procedure will be drafted to address this.

Sorority Houses:

Zeta Tau Alpha

Time: 3:07 | Number Evacuated: 3

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Alpha Gamma Delta

Time: 3:07 | Number Evacuated: 7

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Alpha Omicron Pi

Time: 2:41 | Number Evacuated: 7

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Chi Omega

Time: 2:45 | Number Evacuated: 5

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

Delta Zeta

Time: 2:37 | Number Evacuated: 3

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

The Circle:

The Circle Building #1

Time: 7:22 | Number Evacuated: 17

Observations: The evacuation time for this building was unacceptable. Residents are repeatedly unwilling to evacuate in a timely manner.
Response: Stricter regulations may need to be enforced, but a rigorous education campaign will be attempted first.

The Circle Building #2

Time: 6:17 | Number Evacuated: 11

Observations: Timing is close to being unacceptable for this building.
Response: Increased awareness among residents on the importance of timely evacuations.

The Circle Building #3

Time: 4:23 | Number Evacuated: 12

Observations: Exercise excelled all requirements.

The Circle Building #4

Time: 7:24 | Number Evacuated: 12

Observations: The evacuation time for this building was unacceptable. Residents are repeatedly unwilling to evacuate in a timely manner.

Response: Stricter regulations may need to be enforced, but a rigorous education campaign will be attempted first.

Strengths

Strength 1: The fire alarm systems used in residence halls are generally high-quality systems that are well-maintained. The investment made by the University in upgrading and maintaining these systems leads them to be a reliable and fully operable mitigation and response tool, which leads to overall resilience. (Capabilities: Community Resilience, Infrastructure Systems, Public Information and Warning)

Strength 2: The staff did an exceptional job in helping coordinate the drills. Some hiccups were found in understanding full evacuation plans and procedures, but overall staff adapted quickly to changes and met the situation with competence. (Capability: Community Resilience)

Areas for Improvement

Area for Improvement 1 (Public Outreach): Many residence halls are seeing the same or similar issues repeating across numerous drill cycles. In the hotwash, participants identified the repeating issues to possibly stem from an education gap between residents and University officials. Residents may fail to understand the statutory requirements of these drills, or may simply not understand fully what to do. It seems there has been a lack of uniform communication from Safety & Emergency Management which could also lead to an ununiform response. (Capabilities: Community Resilience, Planning, Public Information and Warning)

Area for Improvement 2 (Hazard Communication and Response): One identified issue is that important emergency information may not be adequately available to residents and University staff within residence halls. One such identified component is each building's evacuation plan, along with the corresponding assembly points. This might aid in evacuation, although “alarm fatigue” has also been identified as a possible reason for poor or otherwise uncoordinated response. When the fire system is activated, it should be further impressed upon students that the system is communicating a potential hazard and must be taken seriously. (Capabilities: Community Resilience, Planning, Public Information and Warning)

Area for Improvement 3 (Policies and Procedures): It seems as though the policies and procedures regarding evacuation may be disjointed. This can be fixed through a more consistent and collective approach to laying out appropriate procedures and corresponding policies. Two areas that need to be reviewed are residents’ habits to leave the drill in their vehicles, or otherwise disengage from the drill by sitting in them through the duration. Residents who fail to evacuate need to be held accountable, and this should be outlined in greater detail in University policies and procedures. (Capability: Planning)

Appendix A: Improvement Plan

This IP is developed specifically for Arkansas State University as a result of the Spring 2023 conducted on March 8th-10th of 2023:

Area for Improvement	Corrective Item	Implementation Plan	Primary Responsible Organization	Organization POC
Public Outreach	Follow-up Emails	Whenever issues are identified that seem consistent either across all of the campus or a specific residence hall, emails should be sent to the residence hall(s) residents with corrective action instructions.	Safety & Emergency Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
	Fire, Health, and Safety Blurbs	Fire safety information can be implemented into the periodic FHS emails sent by housing.	University Housing (Primary) Safety & Emergency Management (Secondary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed
	Move-in Information	Fire safety and other emergency information can be given by SEM during move-in.	Safety & Emergency Management (Primary)	Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed
	Balcony Usage	Residents should be educated during move-in meetings on why utilizing the balcony during a fire event is a poor choice.	University Housing (Primary)	University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
	Alarm Fatigue	Residents in some halls seem to become complacent when fire alarms sound. Residents should be reminded of the importance of treating every alarm as real.	Safety & Emergency Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
Hazard Communication and Response	Evacuation Routes	Residents need to understand how to respond to a communicated hazard. In a fire, this includes appropriate evacuation routes and assembly points. These should be posted in conspicuous, highly traveled areas and on digital platforms.	Safety & Emergency Management (Primary)	Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed
Hazard Communication and Response	Alarm Fatigue	Strengthen understanding that alarm is communicating a hazard and response actions must be taken on each separate occasion. Any issues should be reported to Emergency Management.	Safety & Emergency Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
Policy and Procedure	Vehicle Usage	The usage of vehicles to leave the scene should result in either a student conduct referral or campus citation. Identify plate numbers of these vehicles in future drills. Sitting in vehicles should be met with an initial correction request, followed by a referral to student conduct if non-compliant. This should be implemented in University Housing policy once approved.	Safety & Emergency Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller
Policy and Procedure	Failure to Evacuate	University procedure should be to explain to residents upon move-in both evacuation plans and requirements. In the future, all students found to not evacuate in a timely manner will be reported to student conduct. What constitutes a timely manner will be determined by EM for each residence hall.	Safety & Emergency Management (Primary) University Housing (Secondary)	Emergency Management: Ronnie Gilley or Wyatt Reed University Housing: Natalie Eskew or Jenny Keller

[1] Based on 4 stages of Disaster Management

[2] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Capabilities (DHS, 2015)

[3] Selected from National Preparedness Goal List of Capabilities (DHS, 2015)