There are issues with the effectiveness of emergency drills at Moraine Park Technical College due to a lack of participation. A questionnaire found most students and staff did not know drill procedures or their importance. The root cause is individuals do not understand how to respond in real emergencies or feel overconfident. A solution plan addresses technical issues, preparation, participation, and inaccurate evaluations. Implementation includes fixing equipment, informing all of procedures, encouraging participation through posters, and disciplining those who do not participate. Evaluations will also be improved to accurately document issues. Completing these tasks is scheduled over two semesters to increase emergency drill participation and preparedness.

1. Emergency Drills
A Problem with Effectiveness
John Gloede
Amanda Voelzke
Moraine Park Technical College

2. 2
Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................3
Problem Statement...............................................................................................................................................5
Goals...........................................................................................................................................................................6
Possible Causes................................................................................................................................................... 12
Evaluation Outcome for Drills....................................................................................................................... 13
Positive versus Negative Drill Outcomes............................................................................................. 14
Issues with Emergency Drills ................................................................................................................... 15
Random Safety Drill Questionnaire ............................................................................................................ 17
Questionnaire Responses........................................................................................................................... 18
Root Cause Identification................................................................................................................................ 19
Rationale for Root Cause Identification................................................................................................ 20
Needs and Wants Matrix for Solutions ...................................................................................................... 22
Recommended Solution Plan......................................................................................................................... 23
Rationale for Step by Step Solution........................................................................................................ 23
Technical Issues Solution........................................................................................................................... 23
Preparation Issues Solution...................................................................................................................... 23
Participation Issues Solution.................................................................................................................... 24
Issue of Evaluation Inaccuracies ............................................................................................................. 24
Conclusion of Solution................................................................................................................................. 24
Implementation Activities and Timeline .................................................................................................. 26
Work Cited............................................................................................................................................................ 27

3. 3
Introduction
Executing drills is mandatory for public entities. Moraine Park Technical College
participates in several different drills each year. There are emergency procedures in place
for Medical, Fire/Evacuation, Severe Weather/Tornados, Lockdown, Code ADAM,
Violence/Bomb Threat, Hazardous Materials, and Utilities/Natural Gas. For the purpose of
this project, and based on the data we’ve acquired, we will focus on Fire/Evacuation,
Severe Weather/Tornados, Lockdown, and Code ADAM.

4. 4
Step 1: Develop Problem Statement

5. 5
Problem Statement
The ideal situation is to have all students, faculty, other instructional and non-instructional
individuals, and guests participate freely and willingly in emergency response drills.
There appears to be a lack of willing participation with the simulation of emergency
response drills by all levels of occupants at Moraine Park Technical College.
It has been noted that occupants hide, disregard correct drill procedures, or find other
ways to avoid drills (ex: faculty going to their office, students hiding in bathrooms during
fire drills, etc.).
Although it may initially affect a particular group of people, it will in turn affect the
community on a broad spectrum.
Consequences of this problem include people not being prepared for actual events, which
could result in injury or loss of life. There may be a loss of physical or mental ability, which
could affect employment and quality of life. Lawsuits may occur due to inadequate training
and response.
Research will be conducted to see what students and staff know about emergency response
and their attitude towards drill procedures.

6. 6
Goals
Improve participation in emergency drills
Increase overall awareness of problems with emergency
drills
Convey importance of emergency drills
Hold individuals accountable
Enforce set policy

7. 7
Emergency Drill Procedures
According to MPTC’s Emergency Procedures pamphlet, there are steps to follow should an
emergency occur. These steps are also followed during drills. Described below are the
procedures for Tornado, Fire/Evacuation, Lockdown, and Code ADAM. Flowcharts were
created for each one to analyze the steps for each emergency.
TORNADO
Alarm is activated and overhead
announcement made
Appointed campus staff evaluates
procedures during drill
Occupants must move to nearest
tornado shelter immediately
An announcement is given when it is safe to go back to normal business
Survey of drill outcome
is given to Michele
Adams

8. 8
FIRE/EVACUATION
Alarm is activated and
overhead announcement
made
Appointed campus staff
evaluates procedures
during drill
Occupants exit the room they
are in, turn off lights & close
the door
As a group or
class, individuals stand at
least 250 feet away from
building making sure not to
block fire lanes or fire
hydrants
All individuals are accounted
for
The all clear sign is given
when building is safe to
reenter
Individuals may reenter the building
Survey of drill
outcome is given to
Michele Adams

9. 9
LOCKDOWN
Alarm is activated and overhead
announcement made
Appointed campus staff evaluates
procedures during drill and may
knock on doors
Occupants will stay in the room they
are in or enter a room that can be
locked immediately
Lock doors, turn off lights, stay away
from windows and remain quiet
An announcement is given and normal business resumes
Survey of drill outcome is
given to Michele Adams

10. 10
CODE ADAM
(Missing Child)
Adult comes to
front desk to
report missing
child
Staff searches
for missing
child
If child is
found to
have been
lost and
unharmed, h
e/she will be
taken to
front desk Code Adam
announcement
is given
Available staff
monitor people
leaving the
building
Staff report any
child matching
the description
to the
Commander
Police department
contacted after 10
minutes if child is
not found
Code Adam
Alert is
cancelled
Yes
No

11. 11
STEP 2: Analyze Possible Causes and
Select Root Cause

12. 12
Possible Causes
After reviewing the completed evaluations from previous emergency drills at all three
Moraine Park Technical College campuses, we listed possible reasons why the drills were
not 100 percent successful. Using an affinity chart, we grouped issues into four categories:
Technical, Preparation, Participation, and Enforcement.
Technical
Sound system couldn’t be heard
Wrong alarm was activated
Alarm didn’t work or sounded scratchy
No speaker in some locations
Preparation
Faculty/Staff didn’t know some or all of
the procedure
Students didn’t know some or all of the
procedure
Participation
People didn’t care to participate
People didn’t want to be inconvenienced
People were busy
Enforcement
No one was held accountable
No procedure to follow to discipline students
not following the emergency drill

13. 13
Evaluation Outcome for Drills
Evaluations of previous emergency drills wereanalyzed so the results could be turned into
quantifiable data.For each occurrence a tally was marked based on the issue. The issues
included technical, preparation, participation. If the evaluation said there was a positive
outcome, it is reflected in the data. If the comments in the evaluation were confusing or
inconsistent, it was noted as inconclusive data.
MPTC Safety Drill Issues
Total of ALL Drills
Beaver Dam Fond du Lac West Bend
Total Occurrences per
Issue
Technical 13 21 8 42
Preparation 9 27 13 49
Participation 10 35 25 70
Positive
Outcome
4 6 13 23
Inconclusive
Data
7 22 10 39
Total
Occurrences
per Campus
43 111 69 223

14. 14
Positive versus Negative Drill Outcomes
The table below shows the number of positive outcomes versus negative outcomesas well
as inconclusive data. Negative outcomes consist of technical, preparation, and participation
issues.
MPTC Evaluation Outcomes for Drills
Drill Outcome Per Campus
Beaver Dam Fond du Lac West Bend
Negative Outcome 13 83 36
Positive Outcome 4 6 13
Inconclusive Data 7 22 10
The pie charts below reflect the Evaluation Outcomes for Drills table. Its purpose is to
compare the positive outcome, negative outcome, and inconclusive data. Based on the
charts, there are a high percentage of negative outcomes for emergency drills at each
campus. Looking at the first pie chart for all campuses, the positive outcome is only 10
percent. The negative outcome is 72 percent. This would indicate a substantial problem.
72%
10% 18%
All Campuses
Negative
Outcome
Positive
Outcome
Inconclusive
Data
54%
17%
29%
Beaver Dam
Negative
Outcome
Positive
Outcome
Inconclusive
Data
75%
5%
20%
Fond du Lac
Negative
Outcome
Positive
Outcome
Inconclusive
Data
61%
22%
17%
West Bend
Negative
Outcome
Positive
Outcome
Inconclusive
Data

15. 15
Issues with Emergency Drills
Based on the previous pie charts, there appears to be a high level of issues that arise
causing the drills to be inefficiently executed. The table below describes the different
categories of issues. These issues are technical, preparation, and participation.
Issue Categories Definitions
Technical
There was a malfunction with the technology (ex: the speakers or the
alarm)
Preparation
The procedures were not followed correctly or fully because participants
didn’t know the exact procedure
Participation Occupants refuse to participate in the drill
The bar chart breaks down the issues for each campus. The numbers represent the number
of occurrences of each type of issue. Fond du Lac and West Bend campuses highest
occurrence of an issue is a lack of participation. Beaver Dam campus highest occurrence of
an issue is technical.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Beaver Dam Fond du Lac West Bend
Issues with Drills at Each Campus
Technical
Preparation
Participation

16. 16
When the data is totaled for all campuses, we can see that overall participation problems
make up the largest percentage of issues with drill efficiency. This would suggest, if we
concentrated on fixing the issue with most occurrences, that our focus for Moraine Park as
a whole would be to fix the problem of participation.
Technical Preparation Participation
42
49
70
Issues for All Campuses

17. 17
Random Safety Drill Questionnaire
To better understand how much MPTC students and staff know about emergency drill
procedures, a safety drill questionnaire was given to a select group of people from all three
campuses. The table below shows the results of the questionnaire. The numbers in the
chart reflect the number of students. A total of 221 individuals including students and staff
were surveyed.
MPTC
Random Safety Drill Questionnaire
Outcomes Per Campus
Beaver Dam Fond du Lac West Bend
Total MPTC
Campuses
Correct Response 19 21 31 71
Incorrect Response 42 19 69 130
Did Not Know 3 2 7 12
Did Not Answer 0 0 2 2
Did Not Take
Seriously
1 0 5 6

18. 18
Questionnaire Responses
The bar chart below shows how many people responded correctly, incorrectly, said they
didn’t know the answer, didn’t answer the question, or if they put down an answer that was
insincere because they did not take the question seriously.
The following pie charts illustrate the answers given by individuals on each campus.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Correct
Response
Incorrect
Response
Did Not
Know
Did Not
Answer
Did Not
Take
Seriously
71
130
12
2 6
Random Questionnaire
Responses
29%
65%
5% 0% 1%
Beaver Dam
Correct Response
Incorrect Response
Did Not Know
Did Not Answer
Did Not Take Seriously
50%
45%
5% 0% 0%
Fond du Lac
Correct Response
Incorrect Response
Did Not Know
Did Not Answer
Did Not Take Seriously
27%
61%
6% 2% 4%
West Bend
Correct Response
Incorrect Response
Did Not Know
Did Not Answer
Did Not Take Seriously

19. 19
Root Cause Identification
A: They are not aware of how people respond in a real crisis situation or they
may feel overconfident in their ability to respond in a real emergency situation.
Q: Why do they feel it's unlikely to happen or they will know what to do if an
emergency happens?
A: Disbelief that real emergencies could occur and if it would, it’s believed they
would figure out what to do, most likely because they have never experienced a
real emergency.
Q: Why don't they feel it's important?
A: Because they feel it's not important.
Q: Why don't they want to be inconvenienced ?
A: Because they don't want to be inconvenienced.
Q: Why don't people want to participate?
A: Because they don't want to particpate.
Q: Why aren't people actively and willingly participating in emergency drills?

20. 20
Rationale for Root Cause Identification
Using the 5 Whys approach, our finding is that individuals on campus are not aware of how
people respond in a real crisis situation or they may feel overconfident in their ability to
respond in a real emergency situation. This tool was used because finding the answer to
why a lack of participation is happening on all three campuses is has to do more with the
psychological reasoning rather than a physical ability. The reason why faculty and staff
don’t want to participate may be different for different individuals but our reasoning is that
if people felt the threat of an emergency was real and they needed to be prepared, any
other factors that would discourage participation would be inconsequential. Individuals
would want to participate so they could be prepared.

21. 21
STEP 3: Identify Possible Solutions

22. 22
Needs and Wants Matrix for Solutions
In order to come up with reasonable solutions to the problem of emergency drill efficiency,
we created a list of needs and wants which could be obtain through a solution plan. The
“needs” are criteria that must be followed, mostly due to compliancy laws or to consider
the solution to be a success. The “wants” are criteria that would help the drills reach
optimal efficiency but aren’t necessarily required to be considered a successful solution.
Each criteria listed is to have a certain percentage completed by a certain time. For
example, within one semester, participation needs to be at 70 percent; within two
semesters, participation needs to be at 75 percent.
Needs and Wants for Solutions
Semester 1 Semester 2
Needs
Participation 70% 75%
Speaker Functionality 90% 100%
Annual and Biannual Drills 100% 100%
Wants
Participation 75% 100%
Willingness of Participation 75% 100%
Disciplinary Action (Students) 50% 75%
Disciplinary Action (Faculty/Staff) 50% 75%

23. 23
Recommended Solution Plan
Rationale for Step by Step Solution
According to our research, the problem with effectiveness of emergency drills is due to the
lack of participation on Moraine Park campuses as a whole. In order to address this issue,
we suggest creating a solution plan that follows steps in a particular order. By addressing
technical issues, preparation issues, participation issues, and issues with evaluation
inaccuracy, participation in emergency drills should increase.
Technical issues need to be addressed first because if the equipment is not working, we
cannot expect participation to by high. It is considered a critical issue. Preparation needs to
be addressed secondly, because if people do not know the procedure to follow,
participation will suffer. Lastly, evaluation inaccuracy should be mended. We cannot
accurately determine issues and fix them without proper documentation.
Technical Issues Solution
If a technical issue occurs during a drill, which should be documented in the drill
evaluations, a procedure to fix the problem should be in place. Adhering to a time frame is
also important. For example, if the overhead announcement could not be heard in a certain
room, the speaker should be checked by a professional within a week. The speaker should
be fixed within two weeks.
Preparation Issues Solution
On the first day of class, each instructor could be given a paper listing the emergency drill
procedures they will read to the class. During this time, instructors will notify students of
the exact nearest exit in case of a fire drill and the exact nearest tornado shelter in case of
severe weather. They will tell the students the lockdown procedure. This way, instructors
and students will have a plan of action in emergency situations as well as being prepared
for drills later in the semester. The procedures will be reinforced since it will be repeated
during each class’s first meeting.
Technical
Issues
Preparation
Issues
Participation
Issues
Evaluation
Inaccuracy

24. 24
Participation Issues Solution
By addressing the technical and preparation issues, participation should increase.
However, we would suggest going a step further by looking at solutions to encourage
participation. A poster campaign, with the help of the MPTC Graphics Club, could promote
participation in emergency drills by showing statistics about real life emergencies so the
campus body can see the importance of being prepared.
If a student refuses to participate in these mandatory drills, there should be consequences.
The students name should be written down and reported to the dean of students.
Issue of Evaluation Inaccuracies
During our research we found that the evaluations of the drills filled out by Moraine Park
appointed staff contained confusing comments. An evaluation would note that there were
student who did not participate, but then the documentation noted that the drill went well.
We suggest revising the questions on the evaluation so they are less vague and encourage
specific answers. If there is an issue that is documented, there should be a system in place
to address these issues in a timely manner.
Conclusion of Solution
In order to fix the problem of participation, we should be fixing the issues with technology
and lack of knowledge of drill procedures. Evaluation inaccuracies should be minimized for
effectiveness of documentation of emergency drills.

25. 25
STEP 4: Implementation

26. Implementation Activities and Timeline
A Gantt chart is used to schedule and monitor tasks. Each task is represented by a bar and has a start and end time. It’s a visual
way of seeing the length of time expected to start and complete projects as well as see what tasks need to be worked on
concurrently. This tool is being used to show the implementation timeline of activities associated with the Emergency Drill
Effectiveness Plan. The two-year plan will begin in August 2013 with the technical issue procedure form and conclude with
rewriting drill evaluation questions in August 2015. Completed tasks will be black while tasks yet to be completed are gray.
August
2013
January
2014
May
2014
August
2014
January
2015
May
2015
August
2015
Technical
Technical Issue Procedure Form
Preparation
Write Emergency Drill Script for Instructors
Implement Emergency Drill Script for Instructors
Participation
Poster Campaign
Enforcement Procedure
Evaluations
Rewrite Drill Evaluations

27. Work Cited
Brassard, M., Boisvert, L., and Bienkowski, J. (2011).The Problem Solving Memory Jogger.
Salem, NH: GOAL/QPC.
MPTC Emergency Procedures Pamphlet (n.d.).Moraine Park Technical College.
MPTC Drill Evaluations (2012). Moraine Park Technical College.
Random Safety Questionnaire (2013). Conducted by John Gloede at Moraine Park Technical
College.