The goal of helping an injured person return-to-work and productivity is the best thing we can do. Standard operating procedure for return-to-work (RTW) is comprised of job analysis and the RTW discussion, which includes transitional opportunities. These steps are traditionally part of the initial assessment of the injured person by the employer. By initiating and developing these relationships between the injured person, employer and provider you establish credibility in the coaching process and help all parties to understand the vital role of the case manager. Establishing trust with all parties is an integral part of the preventative work that increases the chance of a successful return-to-work outcome.

Many people think of vocational rehabilitation as “the end of the line.” In actuality, vocational rehab or RTW coaching should be present early in the case management process. The longer an injured person is out of work, the more likely a mindset can develop that lengthens or prevents an effective return to their full potential. Being proactive and facilitating the relationship between the injured person, employer and provider creates an opportunity to influence a paradigm shift. By helping the individual see what is possible early in the process, we can then help them fully realize their inherent abilities. In the unfortunate situation where it’s determined early in the case that RTW with the current employer is not possible, a full vocational assessment and transferable skills analysis is appropriate to determine other job opportunities.

There are also psycho-social barriers in addition to the physical challenges of returning to work after an injury. The injured person often feels a level of mistrust that their interests are not important or that they will not be honored and upheld. This may include a feeling that the employer does not want them to return. Often there are other “non-medical” issues that arise, such as difficulty with childcare, elder care, family illness or simply a dislike for their job. The case manager needs to uncover what these barriers are and then work to remove them. Most importantly, the case manager should motivate the individual to want to return to a productive job as part of their life. If returning to work in itself doesn’t motivate them, then find out what does. Is it saving money for college? Buying a new boat? Being able to ski again? If we can figure out what motivates them, then we can set objectives to help them meet that goal.

We should be thinking about new ways to reintroduce and better incorporate RTW coaching into the case management process. For instance, today’s work force is aging but the skill set that these individuals possess is not being replaced at the rate that is needed. Employers need to be more accommodating to the needs of this specific work force demographic. By performing job analysis, ergonomic assessments, assisting employers in identifying transitional or modified duty and coordinating the return-to-work process at the onset of the claim, we can facilitate a safe and timely return-to-work regardless of age.

Getting the skilled worker back to the workforce is one advantage to the employer. Through RTW coaching, job analysis and transitional or modified duty identification, we can efficiently and fiscally create a successful transition back to work.

The FBI’s latest research indicates it take law enforcement on average 8 minutes to respond to a school shooting. If a school resource officer (SRO) is on site, the response time is 1.5 minutes. Is your building resilient enough to give law enforcement the necessary time to arrive, identify and neutralize the situation?

Sound fundamentals are the backbone of a strong school security program, and in the wake of the latest school shooting tragedies, now is the time to review “the six ‘R’s” of school security which lead to a resilient school.

Here they are:

• Reaffirm your relationship with law enforcement
• Revisit access control systems
• Recommit to knowing visitors
• Review/Revise safety and security policies
• Review your security systems
• Rehearse by conducting regular drills

Reaffirm

Reach out to the local law enforcement agencies that respond to emergencies at your district. Ensure they have access to school buildings and are familiar with your facilities. For instance, invite them to stop by, come inside and have a cup of coffee. Provide a weekly schedule of evening events and invite them to stop in and visit. That kind of increased visibility sends a strong message to the community about your commitment to school security and enhances your school security program. If you have an SRO, ensure they are visible and engaged with students. Have them patrol buildings and the campus in unpredictable patterns in an attempt to increase their effectiveness.

Revisit

What does your access control system (ACS) actually do? What are its limitations? Ensure that your ACS is operating correctly. Try to implement SPE2 – Single Point of Entry, Single Point of Exit, which will greatly impact visitor accountability. Controlling access means controlling your perimeter. Are all perimeter doors secured? Do all doors (internal and external) latch securely? Are doors propped open? Are robust key and ID controls in place? Are restricted areas (boiler and electric utility rooms, server rooms and other mission critical equipment areas) secured?

Recommit

Require staff to wear ID badges that are positioned in a manner that makes their information visible. Ensure visitors follow sign-in and sign-out procedures and openly display their own badges. Create a culture in which staff questions anyone who is not wearing a badge, including substitute teachers and contractors. It is also important to tighten policies for delivery personnel, including vendors who deliver food and flowers.

Review/Revise

Review your building and district emergency and security plans. Make sure you are aware of what has changed since the last revision and whether or not contacts are current. School security policies should also be up-to-date and realistic, and any necessary updates should be applied. Review procedures for issuing ID badges and handling lost IDs. Review visitor management policies and ensure they’re being followed. Review your code of conduct and suspension policies, as well as child abuse reporting procedures. Other questions you should ask to confirm that safety policies are being implemented properly include: Are off-site evacuation centers accessible? Have those locations been visited? Has training been conducted?

Revisit

Revisit the elements of your school security system. The inclusion of security vestibules are imperative and they should be protected by bullet-resistive film or glass. It is recommended that door vision panels also include bullet-resistive material. Both motion-controlled classroom lighting and perimeter lighting surrounding the building are highly integral toward security reinforcement, in addition to cameras and other recording equipment. The recording equipment must be operational, video footage should be reviewed on a regular basis and video evidence should be properly preserved. Furthermore, all timers that are utilized by security equipment should be properly programmed.

Rehearse

Conduct regular drills for the security-related parts of your emergency plan. Lockdown drills are essential. Work with local emergency responders and plan drills involving active shooter scenarios. Ensure staff understands the actions necessary for active shooter response. Critique each drill and develop plans to address deficiencies.

Remember: Security isn’t a matter of convenience. It involves the entire school community. Make sure to involve all of your stakeholders.

From farmers markets and festivals to parades and races, special events draw crowds and bring communities together but also bring an increased risk of liability to your public entity. Here are a few important actions a risk manager should consider taking to help mitigate risks related to hosting special events.

Contracts and Certificates of Insurance
Every special event held within a city or town should require a contract. Be it with vendors supplying services or with a third-party sponsoring an event, a public entity must pay very close attention to the contracts it enters in and creates. In the past, these contracts were ‘easy,’ only one or two pages, but today, contracts have become lengthy and convoluted, with easily missed clauses and addendums. Furthermore, collect a certificate of insurance from all vendors or event hosts including but not limited to the contractors, food and beverage vendors, amusement ride vendors and performers. A certificate of insurance is a document which details the type, dates and limits of the insurance coverage. If possible, it would be even more beneficial to have an additional insured under the vendors’ or hosts’ insurance policy.

Set the Rules
Before an event, it is important all parties involved understand and agree to the rules. In addition to a certificate of insurance, you should also obtain a hold harmless agreement from the event organizer, as well as from volunteers, participants and vendors. A hold harmless is vital to protect your public entity from liability for specific damages, losses or expenses listed in the agreement as well as any post-event expectations. Any agreement you develop or change in your existing process should be reviewed by your legal counsel.

If you’re allowing an outside organization to host the event in or at your public entity, your entity should provide that organization with facility usage rules. These rules establish what is allowed in or on your property, including but not limited to fees for use, alcohol, damages incurred and insurance provided. As with all risk management efforts, work with your management and legal team to construct rules unique to your public entity.

Collaborate Within
All departments within a public entity should be aware of the event and provide their unique expertise to facilitate a safe and successful event. Be sure to include:

• Public Works: The public works department can assist your entity with barricading streets for closure, providing additional electrical assistance, erecting signs, trash removal and tent installation and removal.
• Law Enforcement: Local law enforcement officers should be used for traffic and crowd patrol.
• Fire Department/Marshal: The local fire department can provide assistance in determining emergency vehicle routes, medical services and first aid kits, as well as be on hand to ensure fireworks are used safely.

Grounds Safety
Before the start of any event, ensure power cables across walkways are laid flat and covered to prevent tripping hazards. Also, check that tent stakes are marked and sharp edges are covered. In addition, there should be enough trash cans and portable bathrooms in locations that are easily accessible to the public.

Parking Safety
Review the parking areas for slip, trip and fall hazards as well as try to minimize vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Remove or mark any hazards found and provide parking flaggers to direct the movement and traffic flow. Take steps to prevent criminal activity by trimming shrubs and trees, and by making certain parking areas are well lit. It is especially vital to collaborate with local law enforcement to patrol the premises regularly.

Hosting a special event is exciting, but failure to fully prepare can be costly. Consult with your legal team and insurance agent to confirm that you’re equipped to handle any circumstances that could arise during a special event in your community that might jeopardize your public entity. You might even consider a TULIP (Tenant Users Liability Insurance Policy) which is designed to provide a low-cost, short-term general liability insurance coverage for tenant users of venues or facilities and is a simple way to protect both the user and your entity.

I’m possibly facing an uphill battle here – how in the world will I convince public entity risk managers that their internally driven unemployment activity is a part and parcel component of the larger risk management function?

As a start, I should probably define “internally driven unemployment.”

In a nutshell, this refers to the benefits due to employees of your public entity that are terminated, separated, laid off, are seasonal or willfully resign and may be eligible for unemployment benefit insurance – defined as :

Unemployment insurance is intended to provide temporary financial assistance to unemployed workers who meet the requirements of State law. Each State administers a separate unemployment insurance program within guidelines established by Federal law.

This serves as a sensible and appropriate safety net for your employees who are laid off or separated from employment. But how does unemployment insurance cross into the world of risk management? Why does it even matter? Don’t I have enough to do already?

I’ve had conversations with local government risk managers who assure me that the unemployment function within their entity or amongst their member groups is managed by their personnel department. In talking with the personnel departments, I’ve been told it’s a finance-managed function. What does finance say? Not much – they usually claim to be too busy to respond. Others have echoed my sentiments above – it’s a benefit that needs to be paid out, so why does it matter?

Sounds to me that it is not being managed and sounds as if it is grossly misunderstood. Personnel/HR might hire and fire; Finance may pay the tax bill; but nobody is managing the exposure – and indeed, there is a significant financial exposure linked to unemployment benefits.

How is your entity addressing unemployment exposure? Who does that control sit with? In reviewing a number of local government Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR), I’ve been hard-pressed to find any mention of the expense related to unemployment. I can guarantee you that it can be significant and presents plenty of opportunity for control and cost-minimization.

Here are some factors that lead me to this belief:

• The majority of states report improper and excess unemployment payments at a rate that exceeds 6% with a good number of states showing improper payments at a rate of 14% or more (https://www.dol.gov/general/maps)
• A review of the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data specific to entity type shows state and local governments, on a national basis, shedding employee counts – over 17,000 public entities show a decrease in employee count from Q1 to Q3 2017 (https://www.bls.gov/cew/datatoc.htm)
• Based on the presumption that your entity has unemployment claims, it is generally accepted that for every $1 dollar in benefits paid out, there are additional state and federal tax burdens that multiply that out to a $3 dollar charge back to the entity. Not to mention, an increase in tax rate for potentially heavy unemployment activity (you may wish to try this SUTA calculator to better gauge costs: https://www.staffmarket.com/tools/suta-turnover-calculator ) and the potential of additional costs for seeking a replacement employee.

As a long time risk manager, including time spent in the public entity trenches, I’ve come to realize that an unemployment claim, similar to any of the claims a public entity sees on a daily basis (workers’ comp, general liability, employment practice liability, auto or property claims) can benefit from solid risk management techniques that control and minimize the impact on entity revenue.

Do you care about unemployment activity and expense? Where does the oversight function sit in your entity? Is it managed? Is there an integrated approach to unemployment management?

From a risk management perspective, patient handling injuries to first responders remain a frequent and severe source of loss and expense to public entities. This reality is indicative of the need for cultural changes that will result in first responders consistently using body mechanics and equipment properly; even in the heat of the moment. Bryan Fass from Fit Responder offers additional insight:

Patient handling in the pre-hospital environment poses unique challenges, especially since patients are rarely in easily-accessible locations. They are often on the ground, in cars or confined spaces, which places first responders in very awkward and dangerous biomechanical positions. In fact, we often see spinal compression forces 2-3 times higher than what the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends when lifting and moving from the floor.

The fix is actually quite simple, but it is not easy. First responders must embrace a three-step process to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal injury (MSK) while also reducing the risk of harming the patient from drops and rough handling.

Steps 1 & 2: Stop lifting patients from the floor. While this seems simple in theory, it goes against how first responders have been trained. All patients should be lifted using a commercially available and weight rated device. This accomplishes two simple goals: it changes lift height and reduces trunk angle. These two goals alone lowers the spinal compression force back down to NIOSH safe limits.

Step 3: Eliminate friction. Many injuries come from simply moving the patient on and off of the stretcher. Most departments have made the move to powered cots and even powered loading systems. This has reduced the rate and severity of lower back MSK injury and has effectively transferred the load from the back to the upper body.

First responders must eliminate moving patients from bed to bed, which usually involves carrying and sliding using bed sheets. The risk from drops alone while using this method is staggering. Bed sheets are not weight rated, do not have handles and increase friction during transfers. Responders need to embrace using devices like soft stretchers for these tasks as they meet the three goals discussed above. They can also capitalize on devices like human floor lifts or other equipment that allows for multiple responders to transport the patient, which further increases safety.

My recommendation based on over a decade of teaching safe patient handling is to just use the tools properly. There are a lot of them out there. First responders simply need to be trained often on how to use them properly. I advise investing in technology like powered cots, loading systems and tracked stair chairs. The goal is to eliminate unnecessary lifting, but we have to remember that, in the pre-hospital environment, no matter how much technology we throw at the problem, it still comes down to moving the patient safety on and off the cot, to and from the truck and from bed to bed.

Sometimes the effectiveness of a drug depends on how our bodies process it. A lot of drugs are inactive until our liver enzymes transform them into an active form. Opioids (Vicodin, Percocet, OxyContin) work in this manner. Someone whose body has little or no ability to process opioids into their active form receives very little or no pain relief. They are also more likely to take a higher dose than was prescribed in their quest for pain management.

At the other end of the spectrum is a patient whose body is very efficient at processing opioids into their active form. They can experience higher levels of sedation, addiction and other systemic side effects at lower doses than patients that process opioids normally.

Since there are other pain management medications and therapies besides opioids, it would make sense to avoid prescribing opioids to patients that have a reduced ability to change them into their active form. In addition, an adjustment of dosage would be in order for patients whose bodies process them very efficiently. These points beg the question: Since over 80% of opioid addictions begin with prescription opioids, would more accuracy in prescribing have an impact on outcomes?

If only science had evolved to the point that we could do away with the antiquated trial and error method of prescribing. If only we knew what liver enzymes are used to process opioids. If only we could tell how effective that enzyme was from a patient’s DNA. If only there was a simple, affordable, noninvasive test that could be administered to patients prior to or shortly after they are prescribed an opioid that would provide this type of information to their clinician. If only it was 2018!

The liver enzyme that opioids rely on is CYP2D6. Just as some genotypes produce brown eyes and some genotypes produce blue eyes, we can tell how effective a patient’s CYP2D6 enzyme will be based on their DNA. A specimen collected using a simple cheek swab, not only provides information about how a patient will process opioids, but also over 135 other commonly prescribed medications.

The population frequency of abnormal metabolizers of opioids is about 20%. For the cost of one inpatient addiction treatment ($20,000), 50 patients that are prescribed opioids can be tested. This allows clinicians to identify the 10 that may be better served with other treatment methods.

Drug claims management that employs precision medicine reduces drug spend by eliminating time and money spent on drugs that simply don’t work in patient’s bodies. In addition, medical claims are reduced by preventing adverse drug reactions and addictions. Better information produces better outcomes and improves overall population health.

About a month ago, I attended an intensive three-day orientation session for my summer internship. One of our instructors noted that we were essentially “drinking from a firehose,” and I’ve found that I really like that analogy. As a student soon to be graduating, I’ve recently drunk from a lot of firehoses. Multiple internships, jobs, difficult classes – all have provided the overwhelming firehose experience. I anticipated that the PRIMA Annual Conference would be no different; fun, of course, but an absolutely overwhelming three days. I’m happy to say that I was both right and wrong in the best ways possible.

PRIMA has a powerful asset in each and every one of its members. I believe there were around 1,200 conference attendees (not including the exhibitors), and I estimate that I met at least 1,100 of them.

Okay, I’m exaggerating a little. But my point is, I was definitely drinking from a firehose when it came to meeting new people. But how could I not? Everybody was so welcoming and happy to share their experiences! I met people from everywhere who held any number of job titles. There were city risk managers from the West Coast, insurance personnel from the East Coast, people who worked for school districts and state university systems from Florida to Texas… Undoubtedly I’m leaving out a few roles and locations, but everybody who attends the PRIMA Annual Conference can find someone from which to learn. They make it easy, too – PRIMA hosts great events that really get people chatting with one another!

I was most concerned that I would be entering a firehose situation when it came to attending the educational sessions. This is also the part where I was wrong. There were oodles of information presented, but the speakers were wonderful about answering questions and breaking down their areas of expertise into layman’s terms for those of us who were less familiar with the topic.

I prefer to think of them as “knowledge sharing sessions” because they were more like conversations between the presenters and the audience members. Challenges and other points of view were welcomed and practical tidbits of advice were thrown out left and right.

A word that I hear often in the classroom is “innovation.” It’s come up quite a bit throughout my work experiences, but I did not realize that I would witness innovation to the degree that I have at the PRIMA Annual Conference. I didn’t attend a single disappointing session, but one of the most interesting for me was a panel about active school shooters. One panel member was a risk manager for a school district very close to Parkland, FL. She had recently purchased an insurance policy that would assist in re-building a school that was structurally sound but had been the site of a tragedy. Her initiative to seek out this kind of policy could save her school district millions of dollars in the case of an attack, and this policy is the first of its kind. What did I say? Innovation!

I advise that you attend the next PRIMA event that you can! Get involved with your local chapter. Consider attending the PRIMA Institute. Go to next year’s annual conference! PRIMA is a great resource – take a leap and drink from that firehose!

Now more than ever, the world has seen an increase in the number of threats to our schools, colleges and universities. One of the deadliest events in U.S. history occurred in April 2007, where 32 people were murdered on the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) campus in Blacksburg, Virginia. More recently, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida had claimed national attention with the murder of 17 people. The increased prevalence of school shootings requires public risks managers to think more proactively about how to avoid risk, manage threats and adopt effective mitigation techniques for all threats.

During PRIMA’s 2018 Annual Conference, it was evident that risk managers across the globe have been thinking about this issue in a critical light. The Department of Homeland Security defines an active shooter as "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms, and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.”

In addition to recognizing active shooter costs created by the potential loss of life, risk managers must be able to identify the effects of an active shooter from psychological, dental & medical costs, personnel disruption costs, business Interruption and countless others to appropriately address them. It was not until attending the annual conference that I realized risk managers not only play an essential role in reducing the likelihood of an active shooter event, but also in the stages throughout and after the event has already occurred.

One session that struck me was “Active Shooter/Workplace Violence Insurance and Risk Mitigation Consumers Buyer’s Guide” led by Paul Marshall from McGowan Active Shooter Programs and Diane Howard from the Palm Beach County School District. Marshall and Howard did an excellent job in framing the hidden costs posed by active shooters and workplace violence situations. For example, in San Bernardino, the families of the victims are seeking $58 Million in compensation. Another example would be the Virginia Tech shooting, where the courts had awarded families with an $11 Million settlement. The compensation claims from an active shooter event cover all the associated costs from applicable parties that can be somewhat costly to organizations. As a product of Palm Beach County Schools, I was pleased to know Howard and her team was thinking preemptively to address the collateral consequences of an active shooter situation through acquiring insurance coverage for their school systems—the first of its kind for Palm Beach School District.

It was an honor to be selected as a student scholar for PRIMA’s 2018 Annual Conference because I was able to understand the greater depth of public risk management that existed within my community as well as innovative approaches to addressing risk. As a young professional interested in working in the field, the benefit of being a part of an organization such as PRIMA is that it serves as an excellent resource for information and best practices. Moreover, I realize that for me to be a capable public risk manager, I must be able to think about risks holistically and laterally to address all the costs associated with any event.

In today’s public school environment, both students and staff are constantly on the alert for unauthorized persons on campus. Children, in particular, are often taught to announce the presence of unknown third-parties with the familiar cry of “stranger danger!” But what about those persons (other than parents or guardians) who are temporarily invited to be on school property?

Such persons or invitees are defined by most courts to mean “A person who enters land with permission of the owner, and does so either to confer an economic benefit on the possessor.” The people who most commonly fall into the invitee category are third-party contractors or vendors who are invited to campus to perform certain construction or maintenance duties. For the purposes of this piece, the term “invitee” shall be used, and is intended to refer to both contractors and vendors.

Because invitees have access to children, they potentially pose a risk for sexual misconduct allegations. Risk managers should ensure a policy is in place that serves to alert her or him to the presence of third-party invitees as well as all situations in which invitees may or will have access to students. Further, each of the invitee’s employees, representatives and volunteers need to comply with both the school’s and respective state’s background check requirements. Procedures should also be in place to ensure that invitees are never permitted to be alone with children.

Along with the above, risk managers must warrant that school administrators routinely require invitees to acknowledge that they have received and read the school’s relevant child protection policies. It is imperative for invitees to be required to self-report to the school any issues related to inappropriate interactions between their employees, etc., or other disciplinary issues involving their employees’ work with the school. Additionally, they should be required to fully cooperate and share pertinent information if the school needs to conduct an investigation involving an employee’s actions. Any violation or suspected violation of the school’s child protection-related policies should constitute grounds for terminating the contract with the invitee and result in a formal ban from bidding on all future contracts.

Currently, there appears to be a trend amongst some courts to look askance at indemnification and hold harmless clauses in vendor contracts. Nevertheless, the invitee should be required to carry primary and excess insurance coverage for acts of sexual abuse or molestation committed by its representatives, employees or volunteers in an amount of at least $1 million per occurrence with a $2 million aggregate amount for the policy period. The invitee should also be mandated to provide the school with a certificate of insurance demonstrating its sexual abuse and molestation coverage, and the school should be named as an additional insured on the invitee’s general liability policy or, if written as a separate coverage, on the sexual abuse and molestation policy. Of course, the savvy risk manager will accomplish the above in concert with the school’s attorney. In summary, the risk manager must be considered an integral player when it comes to the presence of third parties on campus.

Through articles, presentations and news reports, you’ve probably heard about automakers developing and testing vehicles that require little or no human driver interaction. These highly automated vehicles, or HAV, will create a new paradigm in vehicle use, safety and insurance.

Realistically though, given the number of new automobiles sold annually and the industry’s manufacturing capacity, a total turnover to driverless cars is decades away.

Requisites for HAV to be effective

Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) technologies are requisites for the effective deployment of HAV. V2V involves the wireless transmission of data between motor vehicles, while V2I wirelessly connects motor vehicles to public infrastructure such as traffic lights and roadways.

If manufacturers and government entities can reach consensus on regulatory objectives and communications standards for these two technologies, they will likely be deployed more quickly than HAV.

How this can reduce a large number of accidents

The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that V2V technology could reduce unimpaired driver accidents by as much as 80 percent and that V2I adds an additional 12 percent reduction in unimpaired driver accidents.

The advantage of speeding up deployment of V2V technology

One advantage in ramping up deployment of V2V technology versus HAV is that V2V can be installed after-market in existing vehicles at relatively low cost. Data tracked by V2V can include a vehicle’s position, speed, direction, braking and steering and can be communicated using visual cues, tones or vibration. Sharing this data with other drivers could prevent accidents caused by emergency braking, unsafe passing and confusion at intersections regarding right-of-way.

A motor vehicle communicating with infrastructure may increase compliance of traffic laws, improve traffic flows and reduce emissions from idling times. So, beyond safety, these technologies could also benefit road mobility and the environment.

New technologies will present new opportunities

Public entities will also see the benefits of V2V and V2I. These technologies can help expedite emergency vehicle responses, assign police to the highest priority crimes first and provide data for smart city planning.

New technologies will present new challenges

As with any innovation, the resulting change will present potential difficulties. A large majority of police stops are the result of traffic violations, meaning significant workload decreases may require difficult staffing decisions. Revenue from traffic fines will likely also decrease, affecting city budgets.

In addition, public entities must weigh the upgrade cost of smart infrastructure during their budgeting processes. This will require using complex calculations for the cost/benefit trade-offs in construction, staffing, maintenance and safety.

Other areas of concern cities should consider

V2V and V2I implementation could bring other daunting challenges regarding communication security, privacy concerns, platform standardization and critical mass of deployment

Even so, dozens of forward-looking communities are already using available federal grants, public/private partnerships and technology incubators to evaluate the impact of these exciting technologies.

Considering the potential for saving thousands of lives annually, this discussion should be on every community’s agenda.