The Purpose of the Premise Alert Safety Program - Research Paper Example

?I. Introduction Purpose of the Policy The main purpose of the Premise Alert Safety Program is to serve and provide support for individual with disabilities and for Police Officers in their localities to be able to respond to calls and locate them immediately at their specific addresses. The Premise Safety Program is designed to be able to allow families to voluntarily notify the authorities, the police and other possible responders about the unique circumstances that they are in which is for free. The significance lies in the fact that such services caters to those adults with autism, those with kinds of developmental delays, or those that are mentally retarded, or citizens with Alzheimer’s that are prone to wander. These individuals are people with rare or complex issues that need special kinds of handling and attention. This program aids the police to be able to identify an individual and at the same time will be equipped with the right amount of information that will allow him to personally identify the lost individual and therefore return him to persons concerned. (http://www.plumboro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=176&Itemid=180) 2. Rationale 3. Objective In the Illinois Public Alert Program (PAP) Act provides a detailed enumeration f the objective of the PAP. According to the Act, the PAP ensures that there is a consistent ‘high level” of services with regards to public safety that is to be available to all members of the State (note the use of “members of State” rather than “citizens”). The core objective of the program is providing access services to individuals that may require extra consideration. (Source: P.A. 96?788, eff. 8?28?09.) http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3159&ChapterID=39 The PAP, aims to provide people with disabilities and individuals that require more attention access to public safety that is already provided to most citizens. Therefore, it should be natural to this program that it affords for programs that gives direction and/or guidance to public safety employees, workers and private sector public safety volunteers on how they can respond and assist those with special needs with whom they will be providing services. It is a premise of the program that there an effective method of dealing with these predicaments and as proposed, practical measures are possible with an enhanced knowledge or information about these individuals. It is a condition that they are to divulge an extent of their identities, such as their specific needs, their educational facilities, and places of employment, residences or anything that will enhance identification. (Source: P.A. 96?788, eff. 8?28?09.) http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3159&ChapterID=39 4. Statement and Significance of the Problem Along with technological advancements, a useful implementing arm of the PAP is the establishment of an online help center and one of such is smart911.com. Said website was designed to deliver vital and essential information of individuals and especially citizens that need special attention immediately to first responders in times of emergency. This secure website makes it easier for people to submit their information that will be accessed at times when they will be required. Said website registers information such as number of children, children and their disabilities, you can also provide their picture and medical records or any relevant information you deemed useful for immediate response of safety officers upon placement of call. http://www.wsmv.com/technology/24452754/detail.html. All of this information, which at a point may seem too dangerous to provide to third parties are essentials in order to provide not only abrupt public safety services but in order to make sure that it is the response is intelligent, educated and appropriate to the situation. In order to illustrate the points further, allow me to cite and example. An autistic child found was wandering and walking into flow of traffic. A citizen called 911 and advised dispatcher of the situation. When officer arrived on the scene he gave dispatcher description of child. Fortunately the family had registered child in premise alert program and attached a photo. So, child was returned safely home before family even knew he was missing. Or for instance, an Alzheimer patient on interstate, disoriented, not properly clothed, no ID on person. Citizen called 911, patient was identified due to having already been placed in the Premise Alert System, along with photo.  With the examples provided above, along with the compromise of allowing third party access to your vital information (or in these cases, your family member’s information) is their proper identification in situations. 5. How Policy Goals Will Be Achieved The Illinois PAP Act has specific provisions, along with implementing rules and regulations that could successfully realize the premises of the policy. First, it is a requirement for agencies to publicize and at the same time accept notifications (applications) from individuals, their family members and if possible, their caregivers as well. As discussed, these information will allow public safety agencies to be able to identify and orient themselves of the situation once a call is received. Another essential requisite for the proper implementation of the program is for these public safety agencies to maintain an access site or profile database which includes their names, phone number, and employment locations as much as possible. As a security measure and at the same time as a means of avoiding breach of individual rights to privacy, these agencies must show that there is an attempt to obtain the permission from individuals (care providers, parents or guardians) through written consent before they are being entered into a database. Also, and important part of the whole process is the verification of the various claims provided in the database. There are several methods of doing this such as authorized and verified interviews which may be time consuming at that. An easier way is providing direct verified (with signatures affixed) statements along with authenticated medical records from individuals concerned, members and friends of the family and from medical practitioners. (http://www.cityofgeneseo.com/index.php/departments/police/premise-alert-plan) Subsidiary with the creation of a CAD system is to make it available amongst members of the system. There is a required renewal of information by members every two years in order to properly update the database and also, this will identify whether or not the information provided is erroneous. Lastly, information in the CAD is only to be retrieved if coming across a special need. Upon such need arises, the information is to be relayed to a specific dispatching officer and it must be identified that the need is legitimate, otherwise, information is the CAD is to not to be disclosed. (http://www.cityofgeneseo.com/index.php/departments/police/premise-alert-plan) The premises created by the establishment of the PAP have in itself created serious matters and issues that needed to be look into. Looking closely in to the matter, it is a directive of the PAP that information such as medical records, contact information are to be supplied into a database that is to be accessed by practitioners that are knowledgeable in certain field such as handling individual with autism, Alzheimer's, those that are oxygen dependent, on dialysis, on wheel chair bond, and any number of special needs, may bypass an important sector that needs to be equally trained on dealing with these people in special situations or conditions. This bypass is an important disadvantage both to the goal of reacting proper delineation of responsibilities and more importantly it defeats the purpose of delivering immediate care to the individuals involved. Turning the perspective of the issue, let us roll our attention into important merits such as the reaction itself of the concerned individuals the moment these safety officers approach them. Bear in mind that these people have abnormalities and therefore prone to react differently the moment remedial services and similar things are being delivered to them. The question therefore revolves different but highly related things, first, are the police safety officers who may not be as well-versed in handling medical operations apt enough to perform the requirements these special individuals need? Second, if not, should it be imperative that they are given substantial training, especially on how to handle the reaction of these special individuals that go on combative stance the moment they see a police officer? And, if the contention is otherwise, then why is it that the information and the database on these special citizens that needed particular attention bypass the police force and directly into 911 dispatch centers? Let us cite an example to illustrate the contentions cited above. Our department formed a CIT (Crisis Intervention Team) Unit last year that responds when necessary. But, if some of the information as stated above was already in CAD and on file with the law enforcement agency, then when a 911 call came in from number and address of a special needs person, then it would be known what emergency responders were needed first and if necessary CIT could be enroute without having to wait until notified by the first officer on the scene. Among other things, it is a clear that the gap of time between waiting for an emergency responder and the attendance of the officer in scene could have been used more beneficially if the officer himself was trained, well-versed, qualified and at most, proficient to the present situation at hand. But in many recorded cases, the more disadvantageous and dangerous stance of specifically waiting for a well-trained professionals are opted probably due to some aspects, (a) an obvious distrust to the abilities of the attending safety officer; (b) rampant incidence of undue care by unskilled and unqualified safety police or (c) an inherent combative reaction of these special individuals towards the sight of an police officer in uniform. Of the three possible causes mentioned above, the last, in terms of experience, is usually the more prevalent cause of hampering the quality of services delivered to those who needed them. Even if it has something to do with the normal creation of these individuals with complex issues, the way they should be handled in situations like these will ultimately placed the entire burden to the responding team. Examination of this serious concern will implicate the need to look closely into the prevailing practices of premise alert. A creation of a network and a less centralized organization of skilled respondents is a promising resort. Let us examine the risk of the situations above, for one it defeats the purpose of the primary aim of the establishment of a premise alert system. When the goal is to make sure that lives are saved to the most and that there is a preservation of any possible damage to themselves by these special individuals. Obviously officers have advance information on a person who is autistic, and then they would know how to handle the call more efficiently and perhaps even save a life - even their own. This idea alone raises issues as to the credibility of those who can respond directly in times of emergency and at the same raises questions the effectivity of the whole response system as well. An implication to this is imperative, for one, a concerned individual may challenge the need to divulge important information about the issue when in the first place, passing these information to those readily and primary concerned are impaired. Along with this obvious impairment will be the more necessary matters of questions of liability in case of harm caused to the person with disabilities. This clearly is another loophole of the system. It may not appear to be a personal liability by the (a) the officer (with less information about the individual’s situation) who came in first in the scene, or (b) by the more knowledgeable individual who appeared late but the totality of the blame goes to the whole responding team boiling again to question with the effectivity of the premise alert mechanism. When you question the liability in possible cases of accidents here, this does not only give risks to those individuals with complex issues and special needs but undeniably it places the responders and the safety officers at danger for penalty charges. Looking at this perspective, it may appear that the premise alert procedure presently being practiced does not take account of essential protection for those who have compromised to save others. This twin effect alone calls for the need of the premise alert drafters and implementing body to undergo thorough scrutiny to the field applications and practicability of the premise alert procedure. What must be the proposal to be observed? A sound proposition would be the creation of branches in the 911 equally apt with those in the responder’s sector. This will both safeguard possible liability of the responders and most importantly, make sure that lives are saved timely without jeopardizing anything in the line. Counters to the preposition would be the limited manpower of the responders themselves, not to mention the cost it will take to provide these safety officers the necessary training in order they need. But preserving state security is placed at a higher footing in the hierarchy of rights and privileges in this country. Therefore a thorough evaluation of pros and cons and at the same time a deeper attention to all angles of the problems presented above will ultimately result in a compromise where dangers of harming the citizen and the responding team is reduced if not eliminated. Now, let us summarize the potential dangers and challenges of the premise alert procedures as applied in the field. First, it creates a dangerous tendency that the public will generalize a hierarchy in the responder sector themselves wherein they would rather opt to wait for a well-trained practitioner than to the officer readily available in the scene. This leads to the second contention, as a result of this prejudice, the danger of harm to the individuals that needed medical attention is amplified and thus putting liability to the responding officer. And lastly, both the previous contentions sum up to a vital damage which is Also, as far as the means to implement policy regarding premise alerts, PA has forms that are provided to the community, to organizations that service those with special needs, to schools to be placed in the IEP packets of special needs children, to assisted living homes, etc. The means to implement would be as stated above, networking with the department of human services, the council on aging and disability, etc. The need for further consideration would be addressing any liability issues regarding HIPPA, being able to institute program with minimal cost since CAD systems already exist that have the capability of placing premise alerts or SIMS alerts in the system. Further consideration would be the quality assurance of the operators entering the information in CAD and paying attention to the premise alert notes if and when they receive a 911 call from the registered number II. Review of the relevant literature 1. Theoretical, conceptual, and/or empirical information It was on April 2008 that the Premise Alert System was introduced to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by Chester County Representative Chris Ross. This Premise Alert Program was designed in order to support individuals with disabilities as well as the Police Officers that are to respond to their specific needs. In the foundation that the federal government functions well when the clutches of partisan politics are put aside, Representative Barbara McIlvaine Smith from Chester County as well welcomed the plan and took it to the Floor of the House of Representative and thus offering the Premise Alert Form as a public service to their constituents, In their design, the Premise Alert System is supposed to develop procedures that will allow families to voluntarily notify the police officers and other relevant responders about any special circumstances and situation that they are in. These special situations may include a child with autism, an adult suffering from Alzheimer’s, a person with developmental delays or anyone of similar character that is in the danger of wandering about posing danger to themselves without them minding at all. As a result of the system, there is proper identification of that individual with special concerns and at the same will have chance of properly attending to their needs when the time comes. 2. a synthesis of the past literature relevant to the stated problem III. A critique of the major issues 1. Examination of divergent points of view 2. Examination of the established issues 3. Examination of new issues IV. Discussion 1. why is the policy necessary 2. means to implement the policy 3. need for further consideration V. Conclusion VI. Works Cited References http://www.warrenvillefire.com/PDFs/Premise%20Alert%20Program.pdf http://www.operationtakemehome.org/otmh/Other%20Safety%20Forms/PA%20Premise%20Alert.pdf http://www.papremisealert.com/ http://www.papremisealert.com/id78.html http://www.papremisealert.com/id29.html http://ci.champaign.il.us/departments/police/premise-alert-system/ http://www.co.delaware.pa.us/newsreleases/releases/10disabilityawareness.pdf http://www.visionforequality.org/Premise%20Alert.pdf http://www.glenview.il.us/departments/police/reports/premisealertprogramform.pdf http://www.papremisealert.com/id84.html http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3159&ChapterID=39 Read More

 

Read More