Since our last letter to the editor, the BruinAlert system has taken steps to improve its message content and has limited the frequency of its test alerts. We applaud these improvements.
The June 1 murder–suicide in Engineering IV put the improved BruinAlert system to the test. Within minutes of the event, BruinAlert subscribers received text message and email alerts that were short, readable and accurate. While the rapid risk communication – a process of interaction where authorities communicate the consequences of the emergency and what people should do – seemed flawless, there was confusion among the UCLA community about what to do in the situation, highlighting remaining gaps in the UCLA BruinAlert system.
Many UCLA staff, faculty and students reported the first BruinAlert email said that there was suspicious activity near Engineering IV. A second message with more information soon followed.
While the content of this second BruinAlert message named the threat and its location, the protective action instructions seemed unclear. Some believed the engineering building was on lockdown, while others believed the entire campus was on lockdown. Many were puzzled about the definition of “lockdown.”
It was still more confusing at the medical center. Dual lines of authority from UCLA and UCLA Health for emergency management on campus meant that despite the rapid response of the BruinAlert system for the UCLA campus, UCLA Health sent out conflicting lockdown instructions to the health system staff. These staff were expected to go about business as usual though the shooting was just across the street, an active and potentially evolving incident.
Moreover, some people who were enrolled in the BruinAlert system did not get the messages – this may be because they had changed numbers or possibly switched off notifications on their mobile device.
To better prepare for such emergencies, there first needs to be a comprehensive communication system that includes UCLA Health. Then, BruinAlert should convert to an opt-out system in which all people who work or study at UCLA are automatically enrolled. Currently, they are only enrolled through email but not text messages. To ensure that everyone is notified during an emergency, there should also be an annual check-up or renewal period to ensure UCLA sends warning messages that can be received.
As stated in the June 2 Daily Bruin editorial, UCLA needs to train faculty and staff to take appropriate action during a shooting incident with clear specifications for a lockdown. While it may be easier to require participation in online trainings or in-person presentations, there is nothing quite like practice drills and active training. We need to do these practice drills because, unfortunately, campus shootings are increasing in frequency. UCLA, with its 85,000 students and employees, remains at risk for future events.
The June 1 incident was tragic and is a reminder that we, as a community, need to do more to prepare for both man-made and natural disasters.
Eisenman is the director of the UCLA Center for Public Health and Disasters and the director of the National Education Safety and Security Institute. Glik is a professor at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. Martel is a project manager at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. Peña is a graduate student at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. Quiambao is the founding director of the National Education Safety and Security Institute.