Our kits/system follows an organizational chart capable of integrating with several ICS-style responses. We did not include an incident commander role for a few reasons. The first was because, in any violent event, law enforcement would set up the ICS structure at the impacted site (school or location of the violent event). The incident commander would most likely be the senior law enforcement leader. In the case of a unified command, those roles would be filled by a combination of law enforcement, fire, EMS, a school representative, and any other applicable leader based on the jurisdiction’s emergency operations plan. If we had included an incident commander role at the reunification site, filled by a school official, it would have cause confusion and would be inappropriate based on how a response would be conducted. We chose the title of “Reunification Director” to more accurately reflect where the reunification operation would fall within the ICS command structure and our recommendation of including a “Reunification Branch” within the organizational structure.

*For more information see below “Where should the reunification operation be placed in an ICS structure?”

It is ultimately up to the jurisdiction to plan where they would place the reunification operation within an ICS structure. In my opinion, it should become a “reunification branch” since the reunification site will be geographically separated from the impacted site. The title of a branch leader is “director”, which is why we chose to go with “Reunification Director.” The same structure is most likely used for school reunification for non-violent events. The only difference is that, depending on the nature of the event, fire, EMS, or a senior school leader may fill the incident commander role at the impacted site.

In the case of an on-site reunification, where there is no transportation to an off-site reunification location, a senior school leader typically fills the role of reunification director. In this case, they would actually be the incident commander. However, by maintaining the title of reunification director, we avoid confusion with school personnel.

The above recommendation of including the reunification operation as a branch is not reflected within the “I Love U Guys” SRM process. Instead, if you review their materials, they provide two geographically separated ICS organizational charts—one for the impacted site and one for the reunification site. Technically, the way their chart is written is similar to an area command, but in that case, there would need to be one more unified command structure that each of the impacted sites and reunification site report to. It is my opinion that an area command type structure is not required for a reunification operation from a school. If we were to take the “I Love U Guys” charts and combine them, we would get closer to reality. However, in that case, the operations section chief has five direct reports and there is no single reunification leadership role present at the reunification site. We must not forget that an operations section chief will have additional responsibilities such as tactical response, rescue task forces, perimeter control, EMS, etc.

The above recommendation of including the reunification operation as a branch is not reflected within the “I Love U Guys” SRM process. Instead, if you review their materials, they provide two geographically separated ICS organizational charts—one for the impacted site and one for the reunification site. Technically, the way their chart is written is similar to an area command, but in that case, there would need to be one more unified command structure that each of the impacted sites and reunification site report to. It is my opinion that an area command type structure is not required for a reunification operation from a school. If we were to take the “I Love U Guys” charts and combine them, we would get closer to reality. However, in that case, the operations section chief has five direct reports and there is no single reunification leadership role present at the reunification site. We must not forget that an operations section chief will have additional responsibilities such as tactical response, rescue task forces, perimeter control, EMS, etc.

Our kits are specific enough to the SRM to follow its guidelines but generic enough that any school can use them regardless of their local jurisdictions’ policies and practices. I firmly believe each location is unique, and the jurisdictions’ processes must reflect their environment. Our goal is to give them tools to customize the process in a way that works for them.

Our kits were designed from the feedback of dozens of schools. A consistent theme was the complexity of the “I Love U Guys” ROK boxes. Nearly every school I worked with was overwhelmed and confused about what to include and how to use it. They ultimately determined they did not need every role included in the ROK boxes but were unsure how to make them more condensed.

That is the reason we developed a smaller, more streamlined kit. Our kits contain the 28 core roles school personnel will fill during any reunification event. If a large school or district needs more personnel, typically more flow monitors, reunifiers, workers, etc., they can order additional role IDs to meet their needs. However, the 28 roles have been appropriate for nearly every school that has run exercises and training with our materials.

The user-friendly system and implementation differentiates our kits from the ROK boxes. Each supervisor’s folder contains the vests, role IDs, and other materials they need for their team. It creates a quick and efficient grab-and-go process that has been tested, evaluated, and improved through real-world testing. In the end, our goal was to create a generic enough kit that schools who follow the “I Love U Guys” process fully, those who stay true to a more accurate real-world ICS implementation, or those who use a version specific to their local community will be able to utilize and benefit from our kits.