Method and system for assessing a community's preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling crisis situations

• US 20060009992A1
• Filed: 07/02/2004
• Published: 01/12/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 07/02/2004
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: New Visions Networks, LLC
• Original Assignee: New Visions Networks, LLC
• Inventors: Ledlow, Gerald R., Cwiek, Mark A.
• Application Number:
  US10/884,677
• Publication Number:
  US 20060009992A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/10
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0635 Risk analysis of enterprise or organisation activities
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 50/265 Personal security, identity or safety
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 99/00 Subject matter not provided for in other groups of this subclass

Abstract

A method and/or system is provided for assessing a community'"'"'s preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling crisis situations. Numerical values representing answers to a series of questions pertaining to a crisis situation preparation domain and a crisis implementation domain are provided. A combined score of the domains is determined based on the numerical values. The combined score is ranked on a scale ranging between poor capability and very good capability for handling crisis situations.

Claims

1. A method for assessing a community'"'"'s preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling crisis situations, the method comprising the steps of:

providing numerical values that represent answers to a series of questions divided into a crisis situation preparation domain and a crisis situation implementation domain;

determining a combined score of the domains based on the numerical values provided; and

ranking the combined score on a scale ranging between poor capability and very good capability for handling crisis situations.

2. The method as defined in claim 1, further comprising the step of determining at least one of a present plan and a future plan for the community to adjust their capability for handling crisis situations based on the ranking of the combined score.

3. The method as defined in claim 2, wherein the at least one of the present plan and the future plan comprises at least one of goals, objectives, actions, and target completion dates for the community to follow in order to adjust their capability for handling crisis situations.

4. The method as defined in claim 3, further comprising the step of generating at least one report based on the at least one of goals, objectives, actions, and target completion dates.

5. The method as defined in claim 4, further comprising the step of communicating the at least one report to at least one appropriate level of leadership.

6. The method as defined in claim 5 wherein the at least one appropriate level of leadership comprises at least one of police personnel, fire fighters, medical professionals, hospital personnel, public health officials, emergency response teams, and government officials.

7. The method as defined in claim 5, further comprising the step of following up with the at least one appropriate level of leadership after a period of time to rank the community'"'"'s progress in adjusting their capability for handling crisis situations.

8. The method as defined in claim 2, further comprising the step of using the combined score to determine a resource requirement sheet for the at least one of the present plan and the future plan for adjusting the community'"'"'s capability for handling crisis situations.

9. The method as defined in claim 1 wherein the crisis situations comprise at least one of acts of terrorism/war, natural disasters, and outbreaks of disease.

10. The method as defined in claim 1 wherein the crisis situation preparation domain includes categories comprising at least one of community risk assessment;

screening and identification for a potential threat of crisis situations;

ability to prevent, deter and plan for crisis situations; and

available level of training, awareness and application in the community.

11. The method as defined in claim 10, further comprising the steps of:

determining a score for each of the categories within the crisis situation preparation domain; and

determining an urgency of activity required by the community by comparing the score of the community risk assessment category to a community composite risk assessment table.

12. The method as defined in claim 1 wherein the crisis situation implementation domain includes categories comprising at least one of current planning level for activation and response to crisis situations;

and current leadership, authority and communication ability within the community to deal with crisis situations.

13. The method as defined in claim 12, further comprising the step of determining a score for each of the categories within the crisis situation implementation domain.

14. The method as defined in claim 1 wherein the community'"'"'s preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling two or more crisis situations are assessed simultaneously.

15. The method as defined in claim 1 wherein two or more communities'"'"' preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling crisis situations are assessed simultaneously.

16. The method as defined in claim 1 wherein the numerical values are recorded on a scorecard adapted to determine the combined score.

17. The method as defined in claim 1 wherein the series of questions varies in accordance with the crisis situation being assessed.

18. The method as defined in claim 1, further comprising the step of comparing the combined score with a simulation scenario of a community impacted by a similar crisis situation.

19. The method as defined in claim 1, further comprising the step of comparing the combined score with a combined score of a second community.

20. A method for assessing a community'"'"'s preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling crisis situations, comprising the steps of:

providing numerical values that represent answers to a series of questions divided into a crisis situation preparation domain and a crisis implementation domain, each of the domains having one or more categories therein;

determining a score for each of the categories within the crisis situation preparation domain and the crisis implementation domain based on the numerical values provided;

determining a combined score of the domains using the scores for each of the categories;

ranking the combined score on a scale ranging between poor capability and very good capability for handling crisis situations; and

determining at least one of a present plan and a future plan for the community to adjust their capability for handling crisis situations based on the ranking of the combined score.

21. The method as defined in claim 20, wherein the at least one of the present plan and the future plan comprises at least one of goals, objectives, actions, and target completion dates for the community to follow in order to adjust their capability for handling crisis situations.

22. The method as defined in claim 20, further comprising the steps of:

generating at least one report based on the at least one of goals, objectives, actions, and target completion dates; and

communicating the at least one report to at least one appropriate level of leadership.

23. The method as defined in claim 22 wherein the at least one appropriate level of leadership comprises at least one of police personnel, fire fighters, medical professionals, hospital personnel, public health officials, emergency response teams, and government officials.

24. The method as defined in claim 22, further comprising the step of following up with the at least one appropriate level of leadership after a period of time to rank the community'"'"'s progress in adjusting their capability for handling crisis situations.

25. A system for assessing a community'"'"'s preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling one or more crisis situations, comprising:

a processor;

a memory coupled to the processor; and

a computer program application located within the memory and executable by the processor, the computer program including an analysis scorecard adapted to receive numerical values that represent answers to a series of questions pertaining to one or more crisis situations, and to produce at least one score based on those values, the at least one score representing the community'"'"'s preparedness, deterrence and response capability for handling the one or more crisis situations.

26. The system as defined in claim 25 wherein the score is adapted to help the community determine at least one of a present plan and a future plan to adjust their capability for handling the one or more crisis situations.

27. The system as defined in claim 26, wherein the at least one of the present plan and the future plan is recorded in the form of a report including at least one of goals, objectives, actions, and target completion dates for the community to follow in order to adjust their capability for handling the one or more crisis situations.

28. The system as defined in claim 27 wherein the report is adapted to be communicated to at least one appropriate level of leadership.

29. The system as defined in claim 28 wherein the at least one appropriate level of leadership comprises at least one of police personnel, fire fighters, medical professionals, hospital personnel, public health officials, emergency response teams, and government officials.

30. The system as defined in claim 25 wherein the one or more crisis situations comprise at least one of acts of terrorism/war, natural disasters, and outbreaks of disease.

31. The system as defined in claim 25 wherein the analysis scorecard comprises a crisis situation preparation domain including categories comprising at least one of community risk assessment;

screening and identification for a potential threat of crisis situations;

ability to prevent, deter and plan for crisis situations; and

available level of training, awareness and application in the community.

32. The system as defined in claim 31 wherein an individual score is compiled for the community risk assessment category and wherein the individual score is adapted to help determine an urgency of activity required by the community.

33. The system as defined in claim 25 wherein the analysis scorecard comprises a crisis implementation domain including categories comprising at least one of current planning level for activation and response to crisis situations;

and current leadership, authority and communication ability within the community to deal with crisis situations.

34. The system as defined in claim 25 wherein the analysis scorecard is adapted to simultaneously assess the community'"'"'s preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling two or more crisis situations.

35. The system as defined in claim 25 wherein two or more communities'"'"' preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling crisis situations are assessed simultaneously.

36. The system as defined in claim 25 wherein the series of questions varies in accordance with the one or more crisis situations being assessed.

37. The system as defined in claim 25 wherein the computer program application further comprises a macro resource worksheet module adapted to receive the at least one score from the analysis scorecard and to develop a resource requirement sheet for the community to use as a tool for adjusting the community'"'"'s capability for handling the one or more crisis situation.

38. The system as defined in claim 25 wherein the computer program application further comprises a capacity worksheet module adapted to compare the at least one score to at least one of a simulated community impacted by the one or more crisis situation being assessed and a second community.

39. The system as defined in claim 25 wherein the computer program application further comprises a resource and publication module adapted to assist a user of the system in answering the series of questions.

40. A method for using a system for assessing a community'"'"'s preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling crisis situations, the method comprising the steps of:

providing numerical values that represent answers to a series of questions divided into a crisis situation preparation domain and a crisis situation implementation domain;

determining a combined score of the domains based on the numerical values provided;

ranking the combined score on a scale ranging between poor capability and very good capability for handling crisis situations; and

determining at least one of a present plan and a future plan for the community to adjust their capability for handling crisis situations based on the ranking of the combined score.

41. The method as defined in claim 40 wherein the system is accessed via at least one of an Internet enabled program and a compact disc.

42. The method as defined in claim 40 wherein the at least one of the present plan and the future plan comprises at least one of goals, objectives, actions, and target completion dates for the community to follow in order to adjust their capability for handling crisis situations.

43. The method as defined in claim 42, further comprising the steps of:

generating at least one report based on the at least one of goals, objectives, actions, and target completion dates; and

communicating the at least one report to at least one appropriate level of leadership including at least one of at least one of police personnel, fire fighters, medical professionals, hospital personnel, public health officials, emergency response teams, and government officials.

44. The method as defined in claim 40 wherein the system comprises an analysis scorecard adapted to receive the numerical values to produce the score.

45. The method as defined in claim 40 wherein the system further comprises a database for comparing the community'"'"'s score to at least one of the community'"'"'s progress and a second community'"'"'s score.

46. The method as defined in claim 40 wherein a user of the system receives an updated database periodically.