Lessons Learned From the 1996 Bombing During the Atlanta Georgia Olympics

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Need for a National Incident Management System
Brief overview of the Atlanta Bombing
Disaster Planning in the 1996 Olympics
Lessons from the Atlanta Bombing
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Disasters are a reality in our existence and while some can be avoided, some are inevitable. How we go about managing a disaster situation greatly determines the extent of the damage done. When dealing with disasters of a natural or manmade kind, the various personnel involved have to effectively communicate and coordinate their operations to contain the situation. Due to the heightened levels of psychological pressure, anxiety and strain on resources, the normal forms of organization and communication may prove to be inadequate. One feasible solution to the potential problems that may arise in the event of these disasters is the Incident Management System which is a robust system used to coordinate emergency preparedness and actual implementation in complex emergency operations that may arise(Christen, Maniscalco, Vickery and Winslow 1).

The Centennial Olympic Park bombing that occurred on July 27, 1996 in Atlanta Georgia is one such disaster caused by a terrorist bombing attack. This disaster had personnel drawn from various backgrounds working together despite multiple operational conflicts, competition for resources. The planning and preparation activities that had been undertaken before the events were crucial in the crisis management operations success. This paper will look at the important lessons that can be learnt from the Atlanta Bombing of 1996 with particular emphasis on the role that communication plays in the event of a crisis.

Need for a National Incident Management System

The need for coordination in victim services has never been more apparent than in recent times when terrorist activities that can impact many victims are rife. Waugh acknowledges that disasters by their very nature create an unstable work environment for all the parties involved and as a result, emergency plans are hardly ever carried out in the formal structured manner that most other activities have adopted (168). As if this is not bad enough, most relief operations have to elicit the joint effort of various organizations since it is impossible for any single group or agency to handle all the management and resource needs in incidents due to the financial and budgetary constraints along with limitation in staff and resources at all levels of the government. As such Radvanovsky states that “these government groups must work together to provide a fair coordinated effort under a common management framework or system.” (96).

Incident Management Systems (IMS) refer to the ad hoc emergency management teams that coordinate the efforts of these heterogenic agencies (Christen Et. al 1). The emphasis of IMS is problem solution by pooling together resources and effective coordination and delegation in emergencies. Key to the success of IMS is their flexibility and training programs to create a basic awareness of IMS to people who may be called upon to play a part in the event of an incident.

Brief overview of the Atlanta Bombing

As of the opening of the 1996 Olympics, there was enthusiasm and optimism in anticipation of the events. Security officials were confident of the measures in place to ensure that the games proceeded smoothly. In the months before the Olympics, there were many domestic terrorist incidents and related events which put the relevant security personnel on high alert. The relative tranquility of the summer games was shattered by the bombing which occurred on July 27. This bomb had been planted in Centennial Olympic Park by the self confessed terrorist, Robert Rudolph. However, the pre-discovery of the suspicious backpack housing the bomb and the subsequent evacuation of the people in the immediate area saw to it that only a relatively fewer number of people were affected by the attack. The incident led to one fatality and about 100 injuries. Due to the large potential risks that such wide scale events attract, there were measures already in place to give protection during the Olympic Games as well as to respond to any disaster. It is agreed that the casualty list could have been worse had the rescue units not responded in the timely manner that they did.

Disaster Planning in the 1996 Olympics

The Olympics were considered a National Special Security Event due to some Considerations. For one, there were dignitaries including Heads of States in attendance. The Atlanta games were the largest in Olympic history in terms of the number of countries and athletes that participate.197 nations were represented and more than 10,000 athletes were involved in the games (Brennan et. al.). This made the risk for terrorist attacks and other criminal activities very real. The significance of the event was also huge considering the reverence with which the Olympics is regarded. With these major considerations in mind, the federal government began its planning activities earlier on. The preparedness of personnel in the Olympic Games was arguably one of the contributing factors to the effectiveness of the IMS. Security personnel, medical personnel and other relevant staff were involved in this preparations. Due to the need to integrate personnel from different organizations, the IMS was adopted and applied to emergency support situations.

In terms of security, the state of Georgia began its training activities a year before the opening of the games. The Georgia State Public Safety Training Center carried out expansive training causes on protective security to equip the law enforcement officers. This action was aimed at ensuring that the security personnel were in a state of preparedness for any incident that could occur at the games. Private security companies were also contracted to provide reinforcements to the local, state and federal security personnel (Malon 8). Security plans were drawn up with and relevant threats and vulnerabilities were identified all through the planning process. In addition to this, the key issue of delegation of authority was addressed during this preparation stages. The issue of delegation was crucial since in such a complex system, little of significance is controlled by one group but rather by the whole group hence coordination and cooperation were the main ingredients for success (Bellavita 11).

In addition to the vast number security personnel employed in the Olympics, other security measures were also implemented in the to ensure public security was achieved. Access to high security areas was restricted and biometric palm scanning devices were used to gain access to these regions (Chain Store Age, 42). This measure greatly reduced the threat of risk in the Olympics. Metal detectors were also put at strategic locations to capture and deter people from carrying weapons into the Olympic village. Secondary measures such as bolting down manhole covers so that people could not place bombs in or access the city sewer was taken to reduce the vulnerability of streets and buildings to terrorist bombs.

Heath personnel were to play a key role in the Atlanta Olympics. As such, their training and preparedness was also a key priority if the IMS plans were to prove to be effective. Brennan et. al. articulates that the excellent health promotion tasks that were undertaken before and during the 1996 Olympics resulted in minimal medical issues being experienced during the games. In addition to this, the response time of medical personnel was greatly minimized leading to timely medical service being delivered to the people who needed it. The Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG) was the body responsible for providing the medical services. Volunteers as well as emergency personnel were stationed strategically at all the sporting venues. Due to the anticipated congestion in the venues, bicycles and innovative means such as golf carts were utilized. In addition to these measures, a medical disaster plan was developed by ACOG which stipulated the terms and conditions under which federal resources could be mobilized in the case of a disaster.

Lessons from the Atlanta Bombing

The above discussions highlight the high level of preparation that the government and other relevant stakeholders had undertaken to ensure readiness for disasters of any kind. As can be observed, a lot of effort went into ensuring that the major issue of security was tackled effectively. The prior training of personnel and delegation of authority was fundamental for the success of such a large scale undertaking. This advanced arrangement meant that the personnel could react quickly and in a systematic manner in case of any disaster, natural or manmade.

Special training had been carried out before the Olympics to prepare security personnel in case of a bomb threat. However, due to a strain on resources, this training was not comprehensive but rather involved the issuing of memos to the personnel (Matz 16). When the bomb threats were first reported, the information had to be dispatched to the relevant people. Matz states that the slow response of the dispatchers was one of the key faults in the 1996 MIS plans (16). These problems were blamed on the lack of an address for Centennial Olympic Park which led to time being wasted before the exact location of the bomb was accurately pinpointed. However, this problem can be termed as a thing of the past in modern day where GPRS systems are available on most communication devices. The mistakes of the Atlanta bombing can therefore be avoided in future.

On receiving the information, the security personnel near the location of the bomb began evacuation people from the immediate vicinity. This was in accordance to the protocol for bomb threats that the personnel had learnt in the IMS training program (Waugh 169). The security personnel utilized the concept of unified management. As such, they worked harmoniously towards the evacuation goals. According to Christen et. al., a unified management is a team effort process that allows all agencies with responsibility for an incident to establish a common set of incident objectives and strategies and thereafter act towards the achievement of the same (5).

When the bomb exploded, emergency medical services personnel arrived at the scene within minutes of the event. This was mostly due to the preparation efforts which were undertaken by the ACOG. Some of the precautions included having ambulances stationed near the sites of the games and having paramedics carry personal items in case they had to deal with extended emergencies. Emergency medical personnel had also been primed to expect and as such handle an influx of injuries. Provisions were made to handle 30% more incidences and medical supplies stockpiled for emergencies (Brennan et. al.)

Despite the high level of planning exhibited in the Georgia games, there were still some loop holes which could have inhibited disaster management efforts at the least of led to major disasters in the worst case scenario. Rescue personnel overlooked the risk that they faced in the form of secondary explosive devices. Burke asserts that emergency response personnel are a target to terrorists who set up secondary bombing devices whose sole aim is to cripple rescue operations (181). With this in mind, it would be prudent for the rescue personnel to have the area combed by security personnel for bombs to ensure their safety. However, this needs to be done in a timely manner since every minute spent looking for the secondary devices is time that could have been used administering aid to the victims of the primary attack.

Efficient and Effective Communication was a prime concern in the Atlanta operations. The City of Atlanta implemented a new 911 system at the end of 1995 to speed up responses to crime scenes, fires and other emergencies (Morehouse 4). The key features of these new systems were: take-home radios for police officers and common radio frequencies to facilitate communication throughout the city. In addition to this, decision support systems were implemented to assist in the dispatching of units to disaster scenes. These activities highlight the importance with which communication was regarded by the Olympics planning committee for the IMS to work.

This new systems where implemented almost a year before the Olympics so that the personnel utilizing them could familiarize themselves with the systems as well as iron out any problems associated with the same (Morehouse 5). In addition to this, the special frequencies would provide a failsafe in case the existing systems of communication became overwhelmed by the spikes in communication volumes that occur when disaster strikes due to the sheer volume of people trying to communicate at the same time. Future NIMS’s can therefore borrow a leaf from the Georgian system in the creation of alternative channels of communication to ensure that security and health personnel can maintain uninterrupted communication even in the event of disasters that cripples the existing systems.

The physical security of the affected area also proved to be a good lesson learned. The radius around the bomb site was sectioned off after the incident to limit access to the area. The aim of this was to prevent any further injuries that could occur as a result of secondary attacks as well as the preservation of evidence which would later be used to prosecute suspects (Aileen 36). A credentialing system was ultimately devised to further help manage the traffic flow into the site, so that access was limited to only essential workers. When the park was reopened, metal detectors were used to screen visitors and additional military personnel were deployed to monitor the park.

Conclusion

The Centennial Olympic Park bombing provided a scenario of what an effective NIMS plan can accomplish. The response Georgia IMS exhibited the features of flexibility and ability that are key to coping with any incident. From this scenario, a lot can be borrowed and lessons can be learnt from the mistakes that were made in this particular case. True to the aim of all NIMS’s, the Georgia system served to provide a structure that broke down the chain of command and articulated the roles that each party was to play in the event of an incident. This resulted in the avoidance of disputes that arise when a standardized structure is not in place during a disaster.

From this paper, it can be authoritatively stated that planning is the key ingredient in the proper execution of any incident management system. The effective coordination of resources has also been seen to be core to the achievement of the unified goal of saving lives and prevention of further loses. This is the ultimate goals of disaster management efforts.

Works Cited

Aileen, Adams. “Victims of Crime Act of 1984 as Amended: A Report to the President and the Congress.” DIANE Publishing, 1997. Print.

Bellavita, Christopher. “Changing Homeland Security: A Strategic Logic of Special Event Security.” Homeland Security Affairs Vol 111, No. 3, 2007. Print.

Brennan, Richard, J., Keim, Mark, E., Trueman, W. Sharp., Wetterhall, F. S., Williams, R and Cantwell J. D. “Medical and Public Health Services at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games: An Overview.” Medical Journal of Australia. 1997. Web.

Burke, Robert. “Counter-terrorism for Emergency Responders.” USA: CRC Press, 2007. Print.

Christen, Hank., Maniscalco, P., Vickery, Alan. and Winslow, Frances. “An Overview of Incident Management Systems.” Perspectives on Preparedness, No. 5. 2001. Print.

Malone, Julia. “Gore: Security Is Top Federal Concern,” Atlanta Journal/Constitution, 1996. Print.

Martz, Ron. “Training Course Expanding for Olympic Police,” Atlanta Journal/Constitution, 1995. Print.

Morehouse, Macon. “Updated 911 Goes Online Sunday,” Atlanta Journal/Constitution, 1995. Print.

Radvanovsky, Robert. “Critical Infrastructure: Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.” USA: CRC Press, 2006. Print.

Waugh. L. William. “Living with Hazards, Dealing with Disasters: An Introduction to Emergency Management.” M. E. Sharpe, 2000. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!