- Home
- Sport Management and Sport Business
- Recreation and Leisure
- Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services
Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services
by Robert B. Kauffman and Merry Lynn Moiseichik
320 Pages
Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services provides both students and professionals with a systematic approach to safety. By integrating risk management, accident prevention, and emergency response with information on legal liability, Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services enables leisure service providers to implement strategies to reduce or eliminate bodily injury, property damage, and financial loss.
Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services uses a four-phase integrated risk management model. The first three phases focus on negligence, the accident process, and risk management plans to reduce or eliminate injury, damage, or loss. The fourth phase focuses on what to do after an incident occurs to reduce the impact of injury, damage, or loss.
Integrated Risk Management for Leisure features several unique aspects for students and professionals in the recreation and park field. It covers safety prevention and accident processes in the recreation and parks field. Then it addresses how to manage the post-incident situation to reduce impacts. Last, the text integrates these two new areas with the traditional areas of legal liability and risk management planning in an effort to provide safer recreation and park programs.
Part I: Principles of Negligence
Chapter 1. Negligence
General Legal Principles
Four Windows of Negligence
Professional Conduct
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 2. Standard of Care
Visitor Categories
Recreation Land Use Statutes
Attractive Nuisance
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 3. Defenses Against Negligence
Legal Doctrines That Limit Liability
Transfer StrategiesInsurance
Contracting Services
Reducing Risks Through Programmatic Strategies
Summary
Exercises
Part II: The Accident Process and Safety Management
Chapter 4. Accident Causation and Safety Management
Historical Overview of Safety Management
Behavioral Models
Epidemiological Models
Human Error Management
Human Error Model
Highly Reliable Organizations (HROs)
A Cautionary Note
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 5. Analytical Tree Analysis
Event and Causal Factor Analysis
Barrier Analysis
Tree Analysis
The Four Ts: Terminate, Treat, Transfer, and Tolerate
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 6. Metaphorical and Outdoor Adventure Models
What Are Metaphorical Models?
Early Metaphorical Models
Examining the Underlying Factors in Accidents and Accident Models
Metaphorical Accident Models
Negligence and Program Planning Implications
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 7. Programming for Risks
2x2 Risk Paradigm: Perceived Versus Actual Risks
Adventure Experience Paradigm
Programming Implications
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
Legal Implications
Summary
Exercises
Part III: Risk Management
Chapter 8. Risk Management Plans
Winding River Canoe Rentals Case Study
Risk Management Process
Structure of the Risk Management Plan
Evaluation and Continued Assessment
Risk Management Process Applied to Winding River Canoe Rentals
Summary
Exercises
Part IV: The Postincident Response
Chapter 9. Emergency Action Plans
Components of an EAP
Writing EAP Statements
Legal Review
Alternative EAP Format
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 10. Managing the Incident
Search Phase
Rescue Phase
Medical Phase
Evacuation Phase
Incident Command Structure
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 11. Crisis Management
The Need for Good Crisis Management
General Rules and Principles for the PIO
Managing the Crisis
Media
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 12. Supporting the Victim and the Family
Importance of Providing Support to Victims and Their Families
Dealing With the Anger of the Victim and the Victim’s Family
Emergency Action Plan Summary
Exercises
Chapter 13. The Ripple Effect
Impact of the Ripple Effect
Symptoms of Stress and the Ripple Effect
Critical Incident Stress Management
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 14. Conducting an Investigation
Need for Investigation
Internal or External Study
Selectng an Investigator
Collect and Review Data
Report
Implementation
Legal Implications
Summary
Exercises
Robert B. Kauffman, PhD, is a professor and chair of the department of recreation and parks management at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland.
Kauffman has more than 30 years of experience in the safety field, in particular boating safety. He has worked to bring content areas of the safety field into the mainstream of the recreation and parks field. He has produced award-winning videos and boating safety materials, including Cold, Wet, and Alive (the most widely used boating safety video among boating law educators in the United States), Decide to Return, and Almost a Perfect Day. Kauffman has also served as an expert witness and has used several of those cases as case studies in this book.
In 2010, Kauffman received the Outstanding Faculty Award for Professional Achievement from Frostburg State University. He received the same award for service in 1999. In 2005, he received the Citation Award from the Maryland Recreation and Parks Association for lifetime achievement, the organization’s highest honor. He also received a Telly Award (2009) and three Golden Eagle Awards (2012, 1994, and 1989) from the Council for International Non-theatrical Events (CINE) for his work on the production of boating safety videos.
Kauffman and his wife, Sally, reside in Frostburg, Maryland. In his free time, he enjoys canoeing, rafting, biking, and photography.
Merry L. Moiseichik, ReD, JD, is a professor of recreation and sport management in the department of health, human performance and recreation at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. In developing and teaching the risk management course for the program at the University of Arkansas, Moiseichik gained an understanding of the challenges students have in comprehending risk management. This understanding along with her knowledge of law provided important insight into the writing of Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Moiseichik also works with communities to evaluate risk within all areas of their recreation departments and has served as a consultant to commercial recreation agencies in evaluating risk for insurance company reporting. She is also a National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) certified playground safety inspector.
A frequent presenter at state, national, and international conferences, Moiseichik has published over 15 journal articles, edited 3 books, and authored 7 book chapters. Moiseichik also serves as a reviewer for the Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport.
In 2006, Moiseichik received an Honor Award from the Sport and Recreation Law Association and a Research Award from the University of Arkansas College of Education and Health Professions. She is a past president and a current member of the Sport and Recreation Law Association.
Moiseichik resides in Fayetteville. In her free time she enjoys camping, canoeing, biking, and playing board games.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Assess underlying factors to create a safe but challenging experience
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice.
Integrating Underlying Factors and Accident Process
For a recreation leader or programmer, the question is how to transform either model into practice. One approach is to use the risk management process described in chapter 8. The easiest approach is to examine the activity or program in terms of potential effect of each of the human, environmental, and equipment factors (i.e., the underlying factors discussed in chapter 6) and determine which elements contribute to the overall experience and which do not. A leader should look for incongruence between the risks involved in the activity (underlying factors) and the experience he seeks to create in the activity or program. He should avoid creating a situation that would fall into the high actual risk and low perceived risk category in the 2 × 2 risk matrix. For example, a heat alert is issued for the same time that an outdoor concert is scheduled. The heat alert affects the selection of a backup date in case of postponement (underlying factors: weather, preplanning). If heat alerts are problematic, the leader should consider taking compensatory measures such as providing shaded sites, free bottled water, or refunds (underlying factor: implied physical or physiological capabilities or stress). Or, although site selection is likely limited, the leader might consider reserving an indoor arena that is air conditioned (underlying factor: weather). These actions help reduce the actual risks present in the event. Also, these actions demonstrate how the accident process and the underlying factors can be used in the planning process.
In the adventure experience paradigm, a leader determines which elements contribute to the overall activity in terms of the level of challenge a participant seeks. The leader must manage these elements to ensure that they remain consistent with the skill level of the participants. For example, on a high ropes course, the element of height is used to create a sense of challenge. The belay system is used to provide an adequate level of safety on the course (underlying factor: adequate or appropriate equipment). On a rafting trip, the type and nature of the rapids are used to create a sense of challenge. Using a predetermined route through the rapids helps manage passage through the rapids to create a safer experience (underlying factor: preplanning and travel speed).
The leader must also determine which elements of the program do not contribute to the activity in terms of the level of challenge the participant seeks. In terms of the experience, these elements are not apparent to the participant. Using the underlying factors, the leader should manage, reduce, or eliminate the effect of these factors. For example, the wear and tear on the belay rope used on the high ropes course is not an element that contributes to the challenge the experience provides (underlying factor: inadequate maintenance or wear and tear). This element is managed to minimize unwanted risks. In the rafting example, the communication between raft guides, the order of rafts through the trip, and spacing between rafts do not directly contribute to the challenge but do contribute to safety (underlying factor: leadership and group dynamics). These elements are managed to minimize potential harmful effects.
Although not technically necessary, a simple next step is to integrate the accident models—the Curtis model, the risk meter, or the domino model—into the discussion. A leader or programmer can use these accident models to assess the program elements in terms of the underlying factors and to create a safe but challenging experience for the participants.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Tips to conducting an investigation after an incident
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident.
Need for Investigation
This section focuses on the benefits of or the reasons for conducting an investigation after an accident. The reasons for conducting an investigation can vary greatly in terms of purposes and benefits.
Multiple investigations can occur with the same incident. These investigations can overlap each other and conflict with other investigations. For example, in the Dzialo case, Greenfield Community College conducted its own internal study to find out what went wrong in the near drowning of Adam. Then, in an effort to address growing public concern, the college hired Charlie Walbridge to conduct a second study. He was unaware of the internal investigation until after he completed his study. Since Walbridge had conducted an investigation for the college, the assistant attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hired this author to review the case materials and to render an opinion on the incident. Because the college was being sued by the Dzialo family, the Commonwealth was also listed as a defendant. Everything other than the college's study and Walbridge's study were provided to this author. In addition, the Dzialo family and their plaintiff's attorney most likely had their own investigation to determine what happened.
In the aftermath of this accident, there were at least four different investigations involving the same incident. Several of the reasons for conducting an investigation are illustrated by the Dzialo case and complement the needs or benefits of conducting an investigation identified by Ferry (1988) below. Walbridge's study was essentially a duplication of the college's investigation, as was this author's investigation of both of their investigations. Although they were essentially duplications, they had very different purposes. The school's study was motivated toward identifying whether the school needed to make administrative changes to improve their program. Walbridge's study was motivated by the public for an independent study. This author's investigation was conducted to independently verify Walbridge's findings for the Commonwealth.
Adapted from Ferry (1988, p. 4), the following points are often cited as the benefits of completing an investigation. They also help to frame the nature and extent of the investigation, including the selection of the investigator and whether the investigation is conducted internally or externally.
Find out what happened. The primary reason for conducting an investigation is to find out what happened. This is often the simplest and most obvious reason. This was the purpose of Charlie Walbridge's investigation for Greenfield Community College, and it was the purpose of the Potomac River study.
Prevent future incidents and accidents. This is the logical result of finding out what happened. An investigation can often help prevent future incidents. In the Cody case, the second fatality could have easily been prevented if an investigation had been conducted. By her own admission in her deposition, Janice Cody, owner of Winding River Canoe Rentals, did not conduct any form of investigation or do anything that could have prevented Melanie Carlson's death one year later. Had she conducted an investigation, she would have noticed that trees in the water were forming strainers and would have identified the danger of Yates Dam at moderately high water.
Improve operations and procedures. Once an organization finds out what happened, the next step is to improve operations and procedures. This is not the same thing as determining negligence, where one seeks to find a breach of standard of care. People often say “I can't fix that now because that will show we were wrong.” It does not. If an organization is in a lawsuit and it makes changes because of the accident, the court cannot interpret those changes as admitting negligence. The courts want to prevent future accidents. Regardless, an organization may want to work with a lawyer so that the changes do not inadvertently suggest culpability.
Make program decisions. Management can use an investigation to make decisions on current and future programs. If no study is conducted, it can sometimes lead to the wrong decision. For example, an outcome of the Potomac River Study was the implementation of gauges at river put-ins to warn users of potentially hazardous river conditions. Although Winding River Canoe Rentals didn't make the wrong decision, they didn't make any decisions or changes that could have increased the safety of their livery. In discussing risk management plans in chapter 8, the Reassessment of Policies and Practices section provides recommendations that could easily have resulted as part the formal recommendations from an investigation.
Help reduce the ripple effect. An investigation allows people to tell the story of what they did. This discussion itself can be therapeutic. In addition, an investigation allows people to voice their concerns and see progress toward solving the problem. (See chapter 13 for a discussion of the ripple effect.)
Help management make risk management decisions. An investigation can often help an organization make risk management decisions or help the industry create risk management standards. For example, the long-term study by Project Adventure of initiative courses resulted in the discontinuation of the electric fence (Collard, 2001; Project Adventure, 1995; Rhonke, 2005). The industrywide study revealed a trend among seemingly unconnected occurrences of people spraining or breaking an ankle on the electric fence initiative. The Potomac River Study can lead to additional investigations on other rivers and lead to management recognizing the importance of moderate flows in river fatalities.
Help protect against litigation. According to Ajango (2005), 20 percent of lawsuits in the health care industry occur because people simply want to find out what happened or what is going on. Conducting an investigation can help protect against litigation because it keeps people informed of what happened and assures them that someone is doing something about the problem. The incident described in figure 12.1 illustrates this point.
Meet insurance requirements. In determining whether to settle or go to court, the insurance company may require an organization to conduct an investigation. Often, an investigation of this nature is involved with litigation.
Satisfy media interest. Depending on the visibility of the incident, an investigative report allows the media to disseminate the correct story. However, the report may prolong the life of the story because it is another topic for the media to report. Walbridge conducted his investigation separately from the internal study that the school had already conducted. He was unaware of the internal investigation when he began his investigation. Walbridge's study, the results of which were similar to those of the internal investigation, was conducted in response to the college's attempt to alleviate community and media pressure. His study continued media interest in this highly charged case.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Steps to setting up a preplan
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things.
Preplanning
The preplan is a written document that may be included as part of the emergency action plan (EAP) or may be a separate document. According to Stoffel (2001), the preplan accomplishes two things. First, it provides a framework with which to solve problems. Second, it defines authorities, jurisdictions, and legal ramifications so that people do not have to question in the middle of a major search operation who is in charge or whether the organization has the authority to conduct the search.
Stoffel (2001) advises keeping the preplan simple and flexible, avoiding duplication of documents, and keeping explanations short. The preplan should address only what is necessary. When creating the preplan, an organization should consider the following.
- Develop written memorandums of understanding with the agencies with which the organization may become involved, and keep the memorandums updated. A memorandum of understanding is a letter stating a working relationship between two organizations. In this case, the memorandum of understanding would state that if a search and rescue operation were to occur, the rescuers would use the services or the organization with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, how they would utilize them, and whether there were any limitations on their use. These documents do not need to be complicated.
- Check with local, state, and federal agencies regarding laws or regulations that affect the organization's operations.
- Address the chain of command.
- Determine who is in charge of what.
- Assess the area and the potential problems that the organization could face or has faced in the past.
- Have legal staff review all documents.
When determining what issues it might face, an organization can start by reviewing and analyzing previous incidents and incident reports. Past incidents can often foreshadow potential future occurrences. One should remember, however, that incident reports may not include all available information because organizational culture tends to hide facts in order to avoid recognizing and analyzing incidents.
Clientele will, in part, determine the organization's preplan needs. An organization that deals with children in an urban environment may need to consider runaway and abduction incidents. In a wilderness park, searches will likely consist of finding lost hikers and campers.
An organization should also consider facility conditions. Does the facility have a central entrance and security point? Does it have security cameras? Are other potential entrances and exits secured? Is the area surrounding the facility fenced, patrolled, and secured? If the facility is a large outdoor area, where do people frequently go (e.g., the visitor's center, campground, interpretive trail, beachfront, or other major attraction)? The features that surround a facility can also influence the search needs. For example, abandoned or rundown buildings can be attractive nuisances for youths. The landscape surrounding a large park can affect search requirements.
Finally, in the preplan phase, an organization should examine its administrative procedures. Health forms, medical releases, and parental and guardian information become important documentation if an emergency occurs. Policies and procedures should be examined in terms of how they can affect a crisis situation. Sometimes simple administrative policies can have significant impact. For example, in the story in figure 10.1, the camp performed a head count during meals. Because campers were assigned to a table at mealtime, it was a simple matter to determine if someone was missing and to take appropriate action. Contrast this with a camp where meals are served cafeteria style and campers can sit wherever they want. In addition, there was a head count at bedtime, and they emphasized unit programs during the first two days of a new session. Unit programming where everyone in the unit participated together in activities made it easier to keep track of campers.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Consider safety and rescue over a natural experience
When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
The Dilemma of Two Bridges
Two bridges in the White Mountains of New Hampshire have a profound impact in terms of user safety and the experience provided. Figure 10.11 depicts a series of stepping stones across a stream. Figure 10.12 depicts a bridge built over the stream by the Forest Service for $50,000. Both photos were taken from locations in close proximity during the low flows of summer. When the water level is low, anyone can easily walk across the stream. In contrast, when the river swells during spring, traversing this same spot can be potentially dangerous, particularly for users who are not trained in crossing rivers.
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.11.png
http://www.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/092/fig10_Main.10-10.12.png
Consider the wilderness experience that each bridge provides and which is more appropriate. The stepping stones are natural and consistent with providing a wilderness- or backcountry-type experience. The bridge is typical of the frontcountry. From a design perspective, the bridge lacks a rustic nature and real charm and is urban in appearance.
Then juxtapose the experience with safety and rescue concerns. During spring, many hikers and backpackers would need to traverse the swollen stream. If they do not recognize the potential hazard and if they are not trained in how to traverse swollen rivers, they are at risk. This increases mishaps, rescues, and management costs. Without the bridge, numerous rescues and potential fatalities would occur at this site each year.
Hence the dilemma. Should management build the bridge and, in doing so, change or lose the experience provided? At what point do simple management decisions change the experience provided so that the desired experience is lost? Once management begins to manage the experience to reduce search and rescue costs, where do they end? Even marginal returns in terms of safety can be justified.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Stick to the facts when dealing with the media
Numerous dos and don’ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference.
Hints for Dealing With the Media
Numerous dos and don'ts exist when dealing with the media during an interview or press conference. A PIO is formally trained in these techniques. In contrast, a recreation and park professional who is asked to perform the duty of a PIO will be focusing on survival rather than nuance. A person in this situation should stick to the facts and consider the following pointers.
Repeat the question. The PIO or person acting as PIO can ask the reporter to repeat or rephrase a question if it is unclear. This also buys the PIO time to phrase a response.
Avoid simple yes and no responses. When one answers a question with a simple yes or no response, the response is viewed as being abrupt or even curt. For example, a reporter asks, “I heard that Perky Alice was socializing with a male friend, which resulted in her being distracted when performing the rescue. Is this true?” The PIO's response is a simple no followed by a long pause. Murmurs ripple across the group of reporters. It is not what the PIO said, it is what the PIO did not say. Even though one can respond with a simple yes or no, a better response is no followed by the talking point that Perky Alice followed procedure and that she initiated the rescue in a timely manner.
Answer one question at a time. Reporters often ask multifaceted questions that comprise several subquestions. By asking a confusing question, the reporter loses control of the question and the PIO can respond in several ways. She can answer the last subquestion first, answer the most important question, reframe the question to suit her response, or answer the question that best relates to her talking points. After giving a response, the PIO can simply move on to the next question or can ask the reporter whether the question had another part. Regardless, the PIO should answer one question at a time to maintain focus and should be courteous and polite to the reporter.
Turn negatives into positives. When responding to questions, the PIO should take the high road rather than the low road and should think positively. Rather than providing a response such as “No, we would never do that,” which is reactive and defensive, the PIO can provide a response such as “We have initiated a new policy” or “Our current procedure is….” These responses may not be truly proactive, but they move the conversation in a positive direction.
Say what you mean. A PIO should be careful of leading questions (e.g., “Would you say…”). A person skilled in this questioning technique can often lead a PIO down a path where, in the end, the questioner has the PIO agreeing with something she does not really agree with. The PIO may agree with three fourths of the question, but the problem lies in the part that she does not agree with. A PIO in this situation should take control of the question and say what she means. Figure 11.7 illustrates the PIO taking control of the question and directing the response to one or more of the talking points.
Avoid hypothetical questions. A PIO faced with a hypothetical (i.e., “What if…”) question should stick to the facts. Explaining what will unfold in the future is not necessarily making a hypothesis; it is merely explaining what will happen. Although it is easier said than done, the PIO can simply respond that the question is hypothetical and that she cannot answer it. Or she can indicate that a policy or procedure in place should address the hypothetical question.
Correct inaccuracies. The PIO should correct inaccuracies when they become known. Inaccuracies normally occur because a news story is unfolding and new and more accurate information is discovered. Sometimes inaccuracies can arise because the media chooses to editorialize on the facts. At the beginning of a press conference, the PIO should state the pertinent facts and avoid any political editorializing.
Do not let your guard down. The PIO should never go off the record and should avoid hypothetical questions and speculation. The PIO must stick to the facts and objectives or talking points.
Do not linger. A crisis is an unfolding event, and information becomes available as the event unfolds. When meeting with the press, the PIO can announce the new information and indicate that the event is unfolding and that she will present more information as it becomes available. Normally, she will announce at the beginning of the press conference that she won't be taking questions. After presenting the new information, she can then leave. If appropriate, the PIO can take a question or two, but she should not linger—it will only invite more questions that she cannot answer. Usually taking one or two questions during an unfolding event suggests to anyone watching on TV that the PIO is being responsive to the media. Close inspection of the questions usually reveals that the question being asked has already been addressed or the question can't be addressed because the event is unfolding, the answer is not yet known, and it can't be answered because it would be speculative.
Learn more about Integrated Risk Management for Leisure Services.
Related Books
