Today, we're going to understand what is standards-based configuration in DHIS-2 and how does it relate to the WHO routine health data toolkit, identify how standards-based configuration supports health programs who use DHIS-2, and understand key considerations for implementation and use of the WHO routine health data toolkit. The first part of the presentation will cover standards-based configuration, including a number of examples. The WHO collaboration on the DHIS-2 toolkit for routine health information systems is a part of a collaborating center agreement between the University of Oslo HIST Center and the WHO. Implementation tools are used to improve data quality analysis and use in national systems. The WHO serves as a subject matter expert to provide guidance on standards for measurement, including core indicators and recommended metadata, as well as data quality metrics. The WHO provides a number of recommended dashboard analyses that help to improve programs use and analysis of their routine data. DHIS-2 provides a toolkit of configuration packages, implementation guidance, and other tools to support programs to uptake these standards for analysis and use into their national systems. The design of this toolkit is based on an integrated health information systems platform. It contains a number of program-specific modules, but all of these are designed in a way to bring the data together into an HIS so that countries can take advantage of the data available across both programs for improved analysis and use. WHO guidance and recommendations for data analysis are used to promote best practice DHIS-2 design and configuration. Recommended dashboard analyses are provided at national and subnational levels. These take advantage of core functionality within DHIS-2 for analyzing and displaying data and dashboards at the level that is most appropriate to the user. As part of our collaboration, the global DHIS-2 team models core indicators with standardized definitions as proposed by the WHO and included in strategic information guidelines. Packages also include recommended data variables for data collection and disaggregation of key indicators. These help countries to map what types of data elements are included in their paper forms and be able to identify any gaps in those data collection tools. Lastly, data validation rules and data quality tools are used to promote data quality analysis and standards. Data validation rules and data quality tools further support programs to improve their ability to do program analysis by ensuring that data quality analyses can be made, and these include a number of core DHIS-2 apps. An important component of the toolkit is its modular design. Countries can select modules based on the maturity of the health system and also what public health interventions are most appropriate to their context. In this way, the different modules of the WHO routine HIS toolkit can be selected according to local needs. It's also important to understand that the modules are rarely adapted exactly as is. Localization for local contexts, customization to local workflows is an important part of this process that we will cover in the implementation considerations. A core product of our collaboration is the recommended dashboard analyses that are included in the core HMIS packages. These packages are designed and optimized for integrating program data into a national integrated HMIS system. These may include dashboards and data visualizations that show the different standard indicators recommended by the WHO in order to help programs to analyze the performance and improve their programming. The data use and analysis guidance that is developed by the WHO is incorporated into the configuration where available, for example, by making data analysis recommendations available through the dashboard. Analytical components can be installed and mapped to existing data entry forms and variables in a country's HMIS. This means they might already be collecting routine malaria service delivery data, but by importing a set of standardized indicators and the dashboard, they are able to then map and understand the gaps within their system and improve their alignment with the global recommended indicators. Data entry forms and standard data variables are also very useful if a country is redesigning or improving their data collection processes. These data entry forms can be referenced as new program data collection tools are developed to ensure all of the key variables are being captured to be used in the analysis. Tracker packages are used for individual level data collection and case-based data collection. These enhance data analysis by making individual level data available and enhancing the person-centered approach for program management. The DHIs2 tracker model is used to uniquely identify and track a person or an entity over time. Tracker can be used to support basic clinical level decision-making and can also generate highly granular data for enhancing the analysis. This can be very useful for indicators such as dropout rates or other longitudinal metrics over time, where paper-based reporting can be difficult to manage. Typically, we develop a set of program indicators based on the individual level data that aggregates the data coming from this tracker, and then we can map it to the core indicators contained in the HMIS modules to ensure that the individual level data can be aggregated, pushed and shared to the HMIS dashboards for improved accessibility analysis and use. In sum, the workflow for developing standards-based configuration tools is to start with the global normative guidance that is developed by WHO, often with UNICEF and other subject matter experts. The DHIs2 toolkit is a combination of downloadable metadata packages, design guidance, technical installation guides and implementation guides that support the use and uptake of WHO's analysis standards into the HMIS. The third part of this process is customizing and adapting these modules for the national context. In this next section, we will give you a few examples of the standards-based configuration toolkit for different health programs in DHIs2. Here's an example of the WHO standards-based toolkit for malaria. The guidance manuals developed by the WHO include monitoring and evaluation and surveillance for burden reduction and elimination settings. This is then contained in multiple dashboards for burden reduction or elimination that can be installed into the HMIS according to context and epidemiology. Data quality analyses and coordinator definitions are provided by the WHO as well as recommendations for triangulating various aspects of programmatic data. For example, this may include malaria service delivery metrics that can be compared with facility stock reporting. In DHIs2, we model this guidance as a series of dashboards to support programs to design and develop dashboards that can be used for their program analysis. These can be installed into an existing DHIs2 system or they can be implemented from scratch if a country does not yet have malaria or another health program integrated into their HMIS. Lastly, a series of training materials include guidance and training exercises that allow program staff to understand how the DHIs2 dashboards can be used to make some programmatic decisions. The malaria toolkit contains several components. The core HMIS module is all about program analysis. The data here typically includes service delivery data, including IPTP and ITN distribution from health facilities. There is a data quality dashboard that is tailored to the malaria program to ensure the completeness of variables and as well as outlier analysis and detection. The package also supports facility reporting of essential malaria stock items and allows this to be triangulated on the dashboards against health service delivery numbers. A series of tracker packages have been developed for malaria surveillance and elimination settings. These include an elimination dashboard that can pool the data from these various trackers and combine them with other data such as population at risk to understand how to operationalize response measures in elimination settings. The two tracker programs cover case notification investigation and classification workflows, as well as a tracker that allows the identification and mapping of FOSI, investigating those FOSI, linking them with the cases notified, classifying them and recording the response. Lastly, a series of entomology and vector control modules have also been developed in order to take advantage of the use of DHIs2 for entomology monitoring, bringing together these data with service delivery numbers and also planning interventions such as ITN campaigns. The TB modules for HMIS support case notification, outcomes drug resistance, and co-morbidity monitoring between TB and HIV. New components have been added in order to analyze TB prevention activities such as contact tracing, as well as bring in aggregated lab data from laboratories. This package also supports facility reporting of essential TB stock items and these can be analyzed on a dashboard. The TB case surveillance module is developed with DHIs2 tracker. This case-based tracker allows linking of the case record with laboratory results within DHIs2 to improve the monitoring of case surveillance indicators and outcomes over time, as well as recording multiple sets of lab results to understand TB drug resistance. A complementary module has been developed for drug-resistant surveys. The reason this was developed is because so many countries are to use TB for their case-based tracking and can use the TB tracker module to also conduct specialized drug-resistant survey tools. Lastly, a new set of modules is being developed to support TB prevention activities. For example, this includes active contact tracing based on an index case that may be recorded into the TB case surveillance tracker. These data are then aggregated and presented in dashboards at the HMIS. HIV core HMIS modules include cascade analysis, including newly diagnosed persons with HIV, ART retention, and viral load suppression. A number of prevention indicators as well as the integration of STI indicators is a major focus of our joint work in the coming years. This product also supports facility reporting on essential HIV testing and treatment stock items like the other program-specific modules. The HIV case surveillance tracker is developed to support longitudinal person-centered monitoring guidelines. The HIV case surveillance module supports longitudinal person-centered monitoring using the DHIs2 tracker. This allows to track each case over time as part of a comprehensive national case surveillance database. This case surveillance tracker can be further optimized by countries to incorporate elements of patient monitoring and follow-up. However, it was initially designed to have fidelity to the core series of HIV case surveillance indicators that would be necessary for program managers to understand the epidemiology of HIV in their country. The community health modules were developed in collaboration with the WHO as well as UNICEF as part of the Community Health Workers Strategic Information Guidelines. This comprehensive set of modules covered 21 community health interventions. A key part of this work was to harmonize the recommended community health worker indicators that are reporting on service delivery in the community with those service delivery indicators that come through the facility data. As part of an integrated harmonized HIS, these indicators must be harmonized in order to present to health programs and other users a comprehensive picture of service delivery at both community and facility. This module supports the integration of community data into the HMIS to improve the availability at district and higher levels. Data quality tools are an important component on the pathway to improve data use. The data quality tools employed as part of the DHIs2 toolkit are aligned to WHO's data quality review framework. These support annual and routine data quality reviews at national and subnational levels. Data quality dashboards by program may include aspects of reporting completeness and timeliness as well as completeness of specific data variables, consistency over time and also consistency between data variables that may come from various packages and health programs. We have also worked quite closely with the WHO to build out core DHIs2 functionality that is needed to perform adequate data quality analyses using the tools available in DHIs2. This includes the incorporation of data quality analyses into the dashboard to bring data quality issues closer to users as well as provide more enhanced analyses and calculation power in tools such as outlier analysis. The last part of this presentation will cover implementation considerations for operationalizing the standards-based toolkit in country information systems. The toolkit is developed in a modular way to allow ministries of health to select the various modules and packages based on their needs. Selection of modules is based on MOH and national program priorities for strengthening the routine HIS. In addition, system maturity assessments are referenced to understand the country's readiness for moving towards electronic individual level data collection and management which will be important for any country looking to adopt one of the tracker or case-based modules. The system maturity assessment is also used to identify key gaps in data analysis and use, which may be identified at various levels. This can be used to inform what aspects of the packages might be implemented and where they might be used. For example, national programs may have well-designed dashboards for data analysis and yet the districts have not yet implemented such dashboards. In this case, a country might choose to focus their modules on making sure that subnational level data use and dashboards are available. Lastly, the packages often relate to public health interventions that may be appropriate for different epidemiological contexts. In this way, engagement with the national programs as well as guidance from WHO and other subject matter experts helps to support the selection of packages for certain geographies. For example, the burden of malaria should be low enough for countries to implement elimination surveillance. Even in this scenario, they also need to choose which geographies or which provinces are ready to move to case-based reporting. Other examples may include whether the country is experiencing a more generalized HIV epidemic or if they would like to focus more on prevention indicators where there is a concentration of the burden in key populations. We rely on subject matter experts and national programs to help inform the selection of these packages as appropriate for their context. Operationalizing the WHO Toolkit in countries is a partnership between HISP experts, core HMIS teams at the Ministry of Health, as well as health programs. The process starts when the country begins a TA request to the HIS network for certain installation of packages or other aspects of the implementation that they wish to approve. Joint TA planning with the Ministry of Health program and the core HIS unit is conducted to understand which packages should be installed, what is the starting point in the HIS design, and what types of system maturity aspects need to be considered in order to ensure a successful implementation. Typically, his groups were joined for an in-country meeting with program staff and they will work on a number of things together in a workshop type format. These may include the HMIS unit working hand in hand with the M&E focal point for the health program to map standard indicators to the existing configuration in DHIS too, understand if there are gaps in the data collection tools used, and also to be able to modify and customize dashboards according to national program needs. At the end of the mission, it is hoped that the package will be installed in a development environment and receive approval across the various stakeholders. A training of trainers is conducted to ensure at least at national level that the in-country partners at MOH through the program and the core HIS team are prepared to continue with scale-up activities and other implementation activities. This may include, for example, a training of trainers so that districts can be trained on the use of the new dashboard. Prior to debrief and exit, the HIS groups will work with the MOH core HIS unit as well as the programs to define any remote support needed or a follow-on mission if further support is needed. Post-installation, it is the country's responsibility to carry forward the operationalization and the implementation of these modules. It is always our goal that the HIS groups work hand in hand to share and grow the capacity of the national programs over time so that at the end of the mission, the country itself feels confident to maintain their system and continue to train other users. The implementation of packages and WHO modules does have an impact on project budgets. Customizing, adapting, and implementing the configuration packages in DHIS 2 typically means considering budget lines for technical assistance to cover readiness assessments, package customization and configuration support, implementation planning, training, and technical support. End-user training should be planned for new modules. For example, if a new dashboard is introduced, training may need to be conducted at the national level but also cascaded to districts who also use these dashboards to ensure that the programs are functioning at the subnational level and can provide support to the facilities in the communities within their area. New tracker implementations should refer to the tracker budget guidance in the implementation considerations section. In some cases, a new tracker program will require substantial resources in terms of training and possibly devices in order to make this program operational. However, sometimes a country may already have an operational tracker package, safe for TD case surveillance, and rather they would choose to use their support for using some TA at the central level to improve the configuration or improve specific aspects of that configuration, such as to integrate lab data. Some costs will be recurring and these need to be planned. These costs relate to HMIS upgrades, routine data quality assessments, and other types of reviews. In summary, supporting standards-based configuration with DHIS-2 is a multi-level process. At the global goods level, the DHIS-2 implementation team partners with subject matter experts at the WHO, UNICEF, as well at country level to develop a toolkit that promotes best standards in DHIS-2 configuration as well as WHO recommendations for data quality analysis and use. The toolkit is modular and customizable and allows countries to choose which modules and which packages are most useful and most needed to improve their national HIS. These tools are available for many core health programs, but they are designed in an integrated way to support harmonization and integration with a national health information system. Programs should consider country readiness assessments, national context, and national program priorities for the selection and implementation of WHO approved modules as part of the health data toolkit.


history now. Past history for the record books and live history for future planning. It was a double-headed test like Buster Jangle and Tumblr Snapper, covering both weapon development and civil and military effects. And in some ways it was our biggest research job so far. The preparation job was big too. Many hundreds of tons of material and months of intense planning and labor by skill personnel were the ingredients poured into a gigantic test tube on Nevada proving grounds. In the spring of 1953 the mixture boiled up in a series of 11 atomic detonations. Operation upshot knothole. The residue or end product of the reaction was knowledge. Some of it in a yes or no form immediately useful and some of it requiring detailed analysis. The funnel into our Nevada test tube was the same old road up from Las Vegas. Nearly 80 miles of standard desert road which carries very little traffic when the proving grounds are quiet. Indian Springs was still primarily an Air Force support station for atomic test operations.  Inside the check gate and mercury were living in technical areas and the field headquarters of the main test organization. A joint AEC and Department of Defense activity. From mercury the road goes roughly northward. It cuts through one range of hills. On across the valley a Frenchman flat then heads up into a notch in a second range. In this notch is the CP the control point the real nerve center and communications hub of the test site. This was the test manager's forward headquarters for the series and primarily the center of operations for the weapons development program upshot. Looking out from the control point an observer can see both of the major blast areas. Frenchman flat a dry lake bed is still visible back in the valley we just crossed. Though the actual ground zero point can't be seen. Yucca flat lies on northward in the next valley beyond the control point nine of upshot not holds 11 shots were fired out here on Yucca between March 17th and June 4th. These nine seven tower shots and two air drops were the AEC's weapon development tests. While such tests are not the main point of this film their trend the goals they're aimed at are ultimately of great importance to the military services. So since these tests are primarily the concern of Los Alamos scientific laboratories we turn to Los Alamos for an outline of the concepts and the objectives involved. As usual we're up to our next unraveling what happened in the last test and getting ready for the next ones. Now this weapon development business we've been getting together some material for brief orientation talks. I want to emphasize that the amount of discussion given each shot is no indication of its actual importance. In fact I may have to say at least about some of the most important shots. Shot number two had for its source of energy a boosted fission device. It was part of a development that we think will eventually give us a weapon of approximately 30 inches in diameter. Three to four thousand pounds weight and a yield in the neighborhood of five hundred kilotons. Around 35 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. The next development shots were three and five. Shot number four it was the first air drop on upshot and was detonated at approximately six thousand feet. The highest burst of any gadget we've ever fired. So once over lightly at least that winds up the story of operation upshot and out holes weapon development program. But outside of any discussion outside of the laboratories out on the Nevada proving ground itself there was a great deal more to consider than the basic ideas back of the upshot firings. There was the same old job complex and vitally necessary of diagnosing the actual performance of gadgets being tested. Gadgets designed by Los Alamos and by Project Whitney of the University of California Radiation Laboratory. It's an old story in a sense to those of us in the services who have watched and assisted the preparation of previous tests. But that doesn't alter its prime value to get the inside dope on the behavior of any experimental fission device. The scientists always want at least the answer to one classical three-headed question. What was the alpha rate? The transit time and the yield. And yield alone is computed and cross-checked in many ways. Probably most accurately by radiochemical analysis of cloud material collected by the sampling planes. And by ultra high speed photography of fireball growth. Another Nevada activity of the AC was its civil effects program of tests originated by various non-military federal agencies. For example two typical frame houses were exposed to the first blast of the series for the federal civil defense administration. Some 50 civilian automobiles were included in this test. Several types of family and community bomb shelters were also tried out. The blast from the 16 kiloton shot hits the house at 3,500 feet. Around three quarters of a mile. Almost total destruction. The other house at a mile and a half showed only moderately heavy damage. These visually spectacular tests were only one portion of a big program which included extensive dosimeter and radiation research and important biomedical and genetic studies by some of the country's top scientists. The second major phase of the 1953 series military effects test was from the service point of view the main feature of the show. All early planning and coordination of these tests was handled by the director of weapons effects tests set up for this purpose by field command armed forces special weapons project. In the operational phase personnel of this directorate were integrated into the main test organization. There they continued to be responsible for all military tests and for the important military support given to the AEC's programs. Such support for example as the air weather service forecast on which are based the fire or no fire decisions for each shot. The bulk of the huge not whole program was carried out on Frenchman flat. Though some military tests were run on the weapon development shots up on Yorker. Number nine on 8 May was the first not whole shot. An airdrop of a 26 kilo tough weapon. All military tests on Frenchman flat were originally built around this shot. The relatively high burst height 2400 feet was a compromise to fit many tests rather than to inflict maximum central damage. Shot 10 25 May proof tested another delivery system the army's 280 millimeter gun. When this shot was added to the program some additional effects tests were scheduled to observe results of the low burst height approximately 520 feet above ground. Since no gun type assembly had been detonated since the Hiroshima bomb the weapons development scientists had on this shot their first opportunity to study the nucleonic behavior and fireball configuration of such a device. 15 kilotons. Unlike the situation with an implosion weapon the scientists were here able to observe fireball growth from a body of fishable material whose exact shape and dimensions at the moment of detonation were known. As scheduled the military effects test total well over 70 distinct projects under nine major program headings. Headings which might in a sense be considered as signposts guiding us along our road. The road full of questions that we followed through not whole one of the biggest military test programs in our records. To begin with we wanted more and clearer data unblast and precursor phenomena and on the mark stem and the triple points path. We wanted enough data to predict what these factors plus thermal and nuclear radiation will do of military significance to any living being or object they can reach. These were the objectives of our road. We haven't the time to stop for a look at every signpost along the way. We'll just have to hit some of the high spots and new spots. A project for instance that didn't use a new technique but that hadn't been covered in previous report films had for its aim to measure free field blast pressures in regions of concern to delivery aircraft and to determine the triple point height in at least one location. Two B-29s did the muscle work on the job. Just before shot nine they dropped 14 canisters in the target area. Time to be hanging on their parachutes at burst time and a long line some 5,000 feet high and spaced out to nearly seven miles from the burst point. Each canister telemated its altitude and surrounding air pressure to a ground station tape recorder. The tape also marked time of burst and time of shock arrival at the canister. The close-in canisters each received two kicks. One from the incident wave and one from the reflected wave. Further out each canister received a single cake from the mark stand indicating that the triple point where the two waves merge had sliced up through the canister line at a distance and altitude that we could compute from the recording tapes. In the nuclear radiation program particular interest centered on shot 10s neutron flux measurements. The first ever made on the detonation of a gun type assembly. Gold, tantalum and sulfur threshold samples were used to detect neutron energy levels from thermal to around 10 million electron volts. The total flux per kiloton was the highest ever observed running 10 to 30 times as high as the implosion shots 8 and 9 and extending the median lethal radiation range some 600 feet. One novel feature of upshot not whole was the first use of drone aircraft on a continental atomic test. Navy AD tools were instrumented for blast and thermal radiation response and were flown at near critical distances from several bursts. Results indicated that comparatively moderate thermal inputs may seriously reduce the blast resistance of some aircraft components. Standard blue aircraft paint proved clearly inferior to white or unpainted metal surfaces for protection against destructive thermal effects. Similar flights by manned and the instrumented Air Force B 50s and a B 36 gave structural response data needed to establish minimum safe operational parameters for high performance bombers. Other bombers from the strategic air command flew in with the drop plane testing techniques for obtaining yield height of burst and ground zero location. The three essential parameters of IBDA indirect bomb damage assessment on the biomedical program Air Force QF 80 drones instrumented to measure gamma radiation and with test animals aboard were flown through atomic clouds at 30,000 and 32,000 feet. They were each controlled by primary and secondary mother ships and manned fighter escort stood by to shoot down any drone that malfunctioned. These tests indicated that personnel of pressurized aircraft passing at 400 knots through a cloud at least four minutes old from a weapon of less than 30 kt would receive an external dosage of less than 50 rentals with a negligible respiratory hazard. On the thermal effects program one project concerned parked aircraft and aircraft components an extension of previous tests. New data were obtained on structural weakening from thermal inputs to low to cause visible damage. Ploth thermal shields were proved to have considerable value in reducing damage to parked aircraft. Some aircraft fabrics were destroyed at levels as low as two calories per square centimeter while magnesium sheet and foil covered panels were undamaged by 20 calories. It was also found that strong tie-downs may protect aircraft parked nose-on to the blast from much of the damage that will occur if the plane is unmoored and free to lift and roll. But for side-on or tail-on orientations the tie-downs may actually increase damage. Another important section of the thermal program was a study dealing with normal city vulnerability to fire started by atomic weapons. Three cubicle houses 7,700 feet from zero were erected for one phase of this study concerned with exterior kindling fuels. The first house has a clean safe yard but dry rot is working and the unpainted siding no rot here but toys weeds and trash against the fence a clean yard painted fence and maintained siding number nine goes off 13 calories per square centimeter over pressure three and a half pounds per square inch time sequence photography shows the results the structure on the right from the yard trash which set fire to the fence on the left rotted wood in the siding was the ignition point sound painted wood and a clean yard allow the center house to survive the fire hazards in these projects are not unusual either six big American cities were inspected to ensure that representative conditions were tested conditions which suggests that a bomb of even this nominal power could start more than a hundred thousand fires over 25 square miles of urban area. Our next thermal project run on shot 10 required a new instrument line east from ground zero roughly opposite the main blast line equipped with thermal recording devices and with blast gauges at zero and 10-foot heights. The first phase designed to find out how much protection white smoke would give against thermal flash employed a standard oil fog over a portion of the new line in theory this smoke would scatter and reflect fireball heat this was a small-scale experiment but evaluations have indicated that attenuation of radiant energy approach 99% to explain the second phase of the project employing black smoke we must go back to tumbly snapper on the low altitude burst of tumbly four high-speed cameras recorded a phenomenon never noticed before a shark wave preceding the main shark front here it is again this precursor wave as it was called registers on blast line instruments with a pressure time graph of this type showing a considerable climb and duration before arrival of the main shark front a normal shark wave with no precursor is quite different hitting the instruments with an instantaneous pressure jump the mechanics of precursor development appear to be these a weapon bursts and thermal radiation creates an intensely hot ground layer of air a layer filled with dust from what is called the popcorning of the hot ground milliseconds after the thermal flash the incident shark wave reaches the ground and expands trailed outward by the usual reflected wave then a new wave the precursor begins to build out from the base of the incident wave racing ahead through the heated air layer an intense dust cloud follows closely rising initially to about 50 feet and later to several hundred feet one important effect of the precursor is to lower peak static pressures without a corresponding reduction of dynamic or wind pressures the precursor builds steadily in height but does not seem to inhibit formation of a mock stamp though exact dimensional relationships are uncertain eventually running into cooler regions the precursor slows and is overtaken by the mock stamp from that point on the blast wave structure is normal again it should be emphasized that a precursor can form only if the ground air layer is sufficiently hot so if height of burst is increased yield must be increased without the yield increase the ground air will be too cool for precursor formation as was the case on shot nine our first effect shot 26 kt at 2400 feet shot 10 15 kt in only 500 feet developed a strong precursor it was on this shot that we ran the smoke experiment a carbon black smoke was established over nearly a mile of the new instrument line we expected that the top of the black smoke would absorb thermal energy and produce an extra hot layer well above ground possibly generating a controlled super precursor at that height or in some other manner reducing blast effects on ground targets the experiment was handicapped to an unknown degree by wind billowing the smoke up to 300 or 400 feet modifying the planned geometry as it happened the ground level precursor which developed under the smoke was stronger than the one in the clear although it extended only half as far before decaying to a conventional blast form this test was not conclusive as to the effects of a heat absorbing black smoke on blast a further precursor study was set up to determine whether ground surface heating from thermal flash could generate a shock wave before arrival of the normal shock front panels 10 feet square faced with variously heat absorptive and reactive materials were tilted for maximum exposure to the thermal radiation of the two effect shots post shot study of the gauge records showed no clear evidence of thermally induced shock waves we come now to the biggest program the primary reason for shot 9 the first effect shot the biggest program in sheer volume in theoretical predictions confirmed or refuted and in the mass of empirical knowledge gained 28 separate projects came under this heading beginning with basic measurements on simple cylinders and rectangular concrete slab structures in a number of orientations these passive targets heavily instrumented were not designed for response by displacement but only to record shielding and loading factors at various heights and aspects the findings of this important job can now be extrapolated for prediction of blast loading on a great variety of targets without direct testing we begin to bump into the precursor again a trust bridge section 2300 feet from zero shot 926 KT 2400 feet high produced a small permanent set in the top cord with an overpressure of 11 and a half pounds per square inch but the mark stem had not formed to reach the height of the bridge eight and a half pounds did this on shot 10 500 feet high 15 kiloton yield with a precursor blast wave and a mark stem already higher than the bridge apparently for wind or drag sensitive targets of this type a low burst is more damaging than a high burst at similar peak pressures a test of army prefab daily bridges shot 9 4100 feet from zero essentially undamaged the bridge slid back on its peers as expected moving 43 inches from a peak pressure of 8 pounds 9 pounds from shot 10 hits another bridge movement out of all proportion to that cause by almost the same static pressure on the first shot army equipment which included 54 trucks in jeeps was exposed to shot 9 pressures ranging up to 21 pounds to the inch thermal input reached 130 calories per square centimeter damage was generally moderate as expected all but two vehicles one with burn tires and one with a missile punctured radiator could be driven away under their own power for shot 10 army tanks artillery and 22 trucks were exposed to pressures expected to range from 3 to 55 psi once more damage was much greater than expected equipment was not merely overturned but often torn to pieces or hurled great distances at overpressures from which no such effects were predicted pressures which had done negligible damage to identical items on shot 9 obviously shot 10 was handing out surprise data it was evident that our old static pressure criteria were not valid for predicting damage to wind sensitive targets in the precursor region of low burst not only were their violent high frequency pressure fluctuations in this region but the precursor depressed static pressures no longer had the same relation to dynamic or blast wind pressures found in a normal shock wave standard command posts foxholes and machine gun positions were located on shot 9 at 600 800 and 4000 feet from zero over pressures 8 to 22 pounds to the inch general analysis indicated that cover supporting timbers began to fail at 8 psi while revetment stood up to around 20 pounds conventional sandbags tended to catch fire and spill their contacts one interesting finding was that foxhole covers can greatly reduce inside pressures which may otherwise build to twice the outside pressure field hospital installations were displayed for shot 9 at ranges around 4400 9000 and 15000 feet in both above ground and dug in positions at each location radiology sections operating rooms pharmacy tents all complete and ready for use 38 calories per square centimeter 8 pounds per square inch operationally a complete ruin although a few items of equipment were salvageable missile hazard was unquestionably heavy the 15000 foot installation around one and one quarter pounds pressure damage limited to collapse of the above ground tents a significant finding of these tests was that considerable protection to personnel and equipment would be afforded by revetting field medical installations 6 marine LVT's landing vehicles tracked at distances from 800 to 4500 feet from zero with pressures reaching 22 psi 2400 feet over pressure 11 pounds damage was light on all vehicles on shot 10 the same vehicles buried from 1000 to 3450 feet from zero pressures running up to 47 pounds shot 10 damage was again unexpectedly heavy as compared with shot 9 with one vehicle destroyed and three severely damaged in the precursor region which on this shot extends out to around a half mile from ground zero these tests suggest that normal shock waves from high bursts will damage LVT's only moderately up to 22 psi while low burst will do severe damage above 12 and a half pounds curtain wall panels on a series of concrete test cells some with window openings some without the panels were constructed of various masonry materials such as brick cinder block clay tile and combinations of these materials similar variety went into roofs and interior partitions on shot 9 4 and a half pounds over pressure does this 6700 feet from zero 7 pounds here 4400 feet rain unreinforced bricks did up fairly well though cinder block and trance I chatted walls with 20% window opening showed much greater blast resistance than blank walls though damage to interior partitions was high three frame structures with windows and skylights containing various types of glass and plastic blazings were set up at 7600 12500 and 20,000 feet from shot 9 pressures were 4 psi or lower a few conclusions that can be drawn now or that quarter inch clear plastic shattered least of the material tested quarter inch wire mesh was the largest mesh effective in reducing interior missile has it exterior jealousies were worthless and explosion hardware has very limited usefulness and may even be disadvantageous signal core place radial and transverse pole lines underground wires and aluminum towers at different distances to test damage effects and determined time required to restore communication facilities on shot 9 pressures of 7 to 9 psi knocked down the transverse pole lines at 3500 and 4500 feet and partially destroyed lines at 5500 feet in the 5 pound region however radial pole lines and down to the blast were almost undamaged similarly towers at 3400 and 4400 feet were knocked down and the one at 5400 feet heavily damaged at 6400 feet the top section of this 240 foot tower was made unsafe by four and a half psi shot 10 damage to these installations was much heavier the blast winds destroyed even the radial pole line to 2500 feet with static pressures by which it was undamaged on shot 9 air force marine and quartermaster pol installations were given extensive testing the major items were 5 and 55 gallon drum stacks bulk storage tanks and various subsidiary items such as can cleaning metering filtering and pumping equipment in general shot 9 damage was light or insignificant there were minor gasoline fires drum and can stacks were scattered slightly in the maximum pressure areas around 16 psi two collapsible 900 gallon tanks were ruptured by 11 pounds at 2600 feet on shot 10 results were unexpectedly violent all stacks disintegrated with cans and drums thrown hundreds of feet and left flattened or badly crushed all marine fuel handling equipment was destroyed except one collapsible tank almost complete destruction occurred at better than 2000 feet at the same pressures that did trivial damage on shot 9 a study of tactical importance 145 ponderosa pines set in concrete approximately 6400 feet from shot 9s zero instrumentation was thorough a few major types being pressure gauges at three heights time recording animometers pitot type dynamic pressure detectors and snubber wire arrangements to measure deflections pendulums were substituted for the lollipops of former operations to provide mechanical simulation of tree response as on many of these projects camera stations were set up to provide high speed motion picture coverage of blast effects thermal input 18 calories per square centimeter resulting in only mild char on tree trunks since the normal ground litter that will ignite at around 3 calories was lacking static pressures around 4 psi post blast survey indicated that approximately 20 percent of the trees were broken and the missile hazard from falling trunks and limbs would be substantial there was scant reduction of static pressure inside the stand but at 20 to 40 percent reduction of dynamic or drag pressures thermal shielding proved excellent with negligible penetration beyond the fourth row of trees 16 items of army rolling stock were exposed on shot 10 only a 45 ton diesel locomotive one riveted and one welded steel tank car 13 box cars loaded and unloaded of various types 6600 feet 2 pounds over pressure 4400 feet 4 psi one empty box car turned over one loaded car damaged 3400 feet 6 psi box cars damaged or overturned 2800 feet 7.5 pounds 1850 feet 9 pounds 1500 feet before being hit by 13 pounds to the inch and here's the same view afterward the frame of one of those tank cars was thrown against a building 200 feet away a tank car body went 1200 feet the wise and how's of these excessive damage effects at static pressure levels where no such results were anticipated will require further study as will the mechanics of precursor development over surfaces less suited to the development of heated ground air than the Nevada desert while to date these damage effects have been observed in the precursor it does not follow that attack conditions should be chosen to maximize precursor formation such effects may be characteristic of any low burst without regard to precursor phenomena although high burst are still required for optimum damage on many important targets the tremendous destructive force of a low burst has brought about an interim restatement of damage criteria for drag sensitive targets and was the most important single finding of the military effects tests of operation upshot not whole


My name is Mitchell Hart, founded the Dean of Apprenticeships at Trident Technical College in Charleston, South Carolina, and my team serves as an intermediary for the Charleston Regional Youth Apprenticeship Program. I'm very excited to talk to you about a new tool that we're using as an intermediary to help our employer partners run their youth apprenticeship programs. What is my apprentice? Well, it was about a year and a half ago. One of the hardest, actually, let me step back a little bit. One of the hardest jobs as an intermediary that I've found, and I've been doing this for about 11 years, is to help our employer partners track the on-the-job training that they provide for our apprentices. In other words, the work processes with the competencies that they're required to learn to complete their apprenticeships. We're very good at helping design the apprenticeship and identifying those competencies and giving them manual checklists, but actually tracking the competencies has always been a challenge for us. So about a year and a half ago, I was sitting in a colleague's office and we were talking about this problem, and he told me about the apprenticeship that he went through 20 years prior to that. I mean, he said that when he got to his apprenticeship, the employer gave him the plan of what he needed to do to complete the apprenticeship, but also gave him a little black book and said that he was required to actually journal everything that he was doing over the next four years so they could use that to assess him at the end of the apprenticeship. And I thought it was a brilliant idea with the exception of being a black book. So being that kids these days had phones, I thought of the idea of, well, why don't we develop an app to actually let them do this? So really my apprentice was born based on that idea and that conversation. So what is my apprentice? My apprentice is an app that uses technology to track the job-related education, hours worked on the job, and the work processes required to be completed for a youth apprenticeship. All the data is collected using geo-offencing technology and input from apprentices, making it easier for the employers and supervisors to monitor the apprentice of participants and use it for validation at the end. Very similar to what my colleague did 20 years ago with his little black book. When we designed my apprentice, it's a brand new app and we wanted to design it based on four objectives. The first objective really is to provide apprentices roadmaps to help them understand what their apprenticeship program requirements are. It's very easy to understand what your classes are required for the apprenticeship, but sometimes it's very difficult to understand what work processes you have to learn to complete the apprenticeship. So really the first objective when we were designing the app was to provide apprentices roadmaps to help them understand their requirements. The next objective was really to provide a mechanism for apprentices to document their achievements to prove competencies. You know, again, one of the hard things to do on an apprenticeship is when you're going to work and you're being asked to do these things is actually prove that you're actually competent in those areas. So we wanted my apprentice to be able to serve as a mechanism to help the apprentice document what they're learning and improve that they actually know what they're talking about. The third objective is to serve as an assessment tool for employers to help manage the apprentices and evaluate their performance at the end. The way we wanted to use this objective is we definitely wanted to give access to the actual employers so they could see the information be entered by the apprentices and at the end of the apprenticeship actually use that information to assess them to award them a credential. In our case in Charleston, all of our youth apprenticeships are registered for the United States Department of Labor. So this is clear documentation that they completed everything that they needed to do to actually be awarded that national credential. And the fourth and final objective really is to serve as a mentoring platform for intermediaries, high schools, colleges, employers to help the apprentice be successful. One of the most important aspects of an apprenticeship or what I feel makes it different is that mentoring tool. And we're blessed in Charleston to have so many wonderful partners meaning high schools, employers, intermediaries, economic developers, but sometimes it's hard to communicate. So really the MyApprentice app enables and anyone who wants to mentor their apprentice or help us mentor their apprentice access to that information and to help them get through the apprenticeship. So MyApprentice tracks three things. It tracks the job-related education. It actually tracks the on-the-job training and also tracks the number of work processes or competencies completed on the job. So again, I talked about one of the objectives of the MyApprentice app was to actually create roadmaps for the apprentice to understand what they're required to complete. So the first roadmap that we completed was a job-related education. You'll see right here that every occupation has the required job-related education and the actual app for the apprentice to know. How does it track the GRE? The MyApprentice app, when an apprentice actually uses the app and they complete a course, what they'll do is they'll go in and they'll click the check mark as you can see on the screen. That check mark will go from black to green and also can put the completion date underneath the actual course. And when they actually complete the actual course, it will increase the percentage of JRE that they needed to actually complete the course. So once they complete all of the courses on the app and click the green check mark, it will be 100%. So the apprentice will know that they've completed all the required JRE as required for their apprenticeship. The other thing that MyApprentice does, it tracks the hours worked on the job. In other words, it gives them a roadmap board to see how many hours, months, and days that they've worked. If you actually look at this slide right here, you can see that it lists the name of the employer, the address of the employer, the wage of the employer, when they actually started their job and also clicks the months, days, and hours that they've worked using some pretty cool technology I'm fixing to talk about. But the reason why this is important is because all of our apprenticeships are 24 months long. So really, that percentage sign, when they actually achieve the 24 months, they'll actually have 100% there. How does it track the actual OJT in hours? There's cool technology called geofencing technology and you can actually click the next link. We're actually, if an apprentice actually programs their phone for location services, it allows the app to actually access their location services on their phone. When they actually get to the job, the app will automatically clock them in, as you can see on the screen. And when they leave their job, based on leaving the region, it will automatically clock them out. So it automatically tracks their hours and actually loads it into the previous screen that I talked about. If they don't wanna use the geofencing technology, they can also manually log the time in and out using a login, log off option. Probably the main reason as to why we developed my apprentice app was what I was talking about earlier was to track the on-the-job training or the work processes completed on the job. And that's really what the final roadmap is about. As you see right here, when the individual clicks the competencies completed option, it lists a roadmap with the work process that they're required to learn on the job. It also lists whether it can be done on the job or in the laboratory setting. What it does is you see with the arrow that's pointing to it, every single time they click or complete a work process, it will list the number of times they've did that over the two years. So how does it document the number of work processes? What it does is, but what it does is when you're actually going to the app, we're gonna, when they come home for work, you know, they go to their work and they complete a day's work, they come home and they journal, they journal what they did and how they journal really is very simple. They go into the app, click journal, and then they click new entry. And then what it's gonna do is gonna ask them a series of around 20 questions based on what their competencies are and if they did that at work. So if they answer yes to a question, it's gonna automatically log into the OJC competency goals that they completed that. So over the course of an apprenticeship, they could list, you know, that they've completed a competency 500 times or 50 times or 20 times. And that's important because all the apprenticeship programs here in Charleston are competency-based. So one of the ways that we're showing our employers that our apprentices are achieving competency is that they're documenting that they did a required process that their employer required so many different times. So if you did a process 50 times, you know, hopefully you're gonna be competent in that area. The other way that we're using my apprentice to prove competency is other than recording the number of times that our apprentice does a work process is the app will actually allow the apprentice to record what we call a talent showcase, meaning they can either video or audio record a required work process. They can explain it simply by doing a presentation like I'm doing, it will load into the app and go directly to the employer. Or if the employer allows it, they can get a fellow colleague to actually videotape them and demonstrating the actual skill. So really it's a really cool concept to show the employer that they not only did this a hundred times, but they also are explaining in their words or through demonstration that they know how to do the competency that the employer is required. My apprentice also has the ability for the employer to assess the apprentice at the end of the two years. So really, as you can see, the app actually gives the employer access to generate consolidated reports for all the JRE, all of the hours and also all of the competencies that they completed, including access to the videos that the actual apprentice does. And what it will do is actually give them a final competency assessment that when they complete it will go directly to their apprentice so they'll know that they've achieved success in the apprenticeship. The final tool that we use in my apprentice really is what we call a mentoring platform. I've talked a lot about apprentices and I've talked a lot about employers, but with our community partnership, we call it the Charleston Regional Youth Apprenticeship Program because it really consists of not only the college that serves as the intermediary and educator, but also 25 high schools, over 180 employers and a lot of different economic development folks who actually have accesses. And as I said earlier, we'll provide access to anyone who actually wants to help us mentor these folks so they'll be successful. So if you actually look at the screen, you can see what an employer would see in terms of it lists their apprentices so they can actually access and see all the information that I talked about. It actually, we actually give access to our faculty staff because we're gonna award college credit for some of the work that they're doing on the job. So we'll be able to give this information to faculty who will be able to assess the information and actually award a grade if the student wants it and also if the employer wants it. And also we give access to our high schools because our high schools help us mentor the apprentices if they're having problems when they're getting through the apprenticeship program. So that's my apprentice. You know, it's a wonderful tool that we started using this year and it's working really well for us. It's pretty cool to be able to see when our apprentice actually not only finishes a class but actually can see when they're working and also what they're doing on the work so we can help guide and mentor the actual employers to actually complete, you know, maybe they need to work on some other areas and anything. So it's a wonderful tool that is available out there and I'd like to thank you for your time.


-bullying strategy and for also taking into serious consideration the recommendations made in the committee's report. I welcome the introduction of the working group to look at the process of uniformed mandatory monitoring system. During the debate that we heard from my fellow committee members, Alex Cole-Hamilton and Gail Ross talked about the right training for teachers in tackling prejudice-based bullying, as did many others speaking in the debate today. Also that consent, healthy relationships and human rights be taught from the early stage possible. Gail Ross also spoke about section 28, and that all teachers need to be made fully aware that that no longer exists. David Torrance mentioned curcodi high school and its anti-bullying strategy, and during an evidence session with curcodi high school, they shared with the committee how they are leading the way in equality and inclusivity, and as David mentioned, winning Stonewall Scotland's champion school award. Mary Fee and Jamie Greene spoke of LGBTI bullying and the shocking figures of those who have been bullied and more shockingly of those who had thought of taking their own lives. However, what I would like to focus on today, as I close the debate for the committee, is why it is so important to get that right. As has been touched upon by many, including the Scottish Ruth Parliament and its right here, right now campaign, bullying is a human rights issue. The repercussions that we all know go far beyond the school gates and well beyond your time spent as children and teenagers. During the evidence session that is part of the inquiry, we heard from a number of witnesses who shared some very harrowing stories of their experiences in school. One of the most distressing cases that we encountered was that of Rebecca Nicholson, a young woman from the Highlands who had now volunteered as a disabled youth worker with inclusion Scotland. As a wheelchair user in secondary school, Rebecca's life was made miserable by fellow students. She faced verbal abuse, pupils would put rubbish in the hood of her clothing and when she sought help from the teachers and school leadership, that behaviour was brushed under the carpet and rationalised, something simply to ignore. Rebecca changed schools twice, she felt isolated, she was made to feel an inconvenience to teachers and she eventually became depressed. Those issues did not stop the moment she left school, the consequences of which were Rebecca entering into an abusive relationship in her early adulthood and subsequently being diagnosed with post-traumatic disorder. Although Rebecca is now doing well studying health and social care at university and working tirelessly to eliminate disability-based prejudice in schools, that anecdote for which we are indebted to Rebecca for sharing really highlights the devastating effects that bullying can have on someone's life. There is a bigger picture to this and one that arguably makes bullying a public health issue.  In light of recent events, we are now also talking about sexual harassment. Those issues are not devoid of a relationship with the goings-on of our time spent at school. Statistically, we know that 20 per cent of adolescents may experience a mental health problem in any given year and we know that 50 per cent of mental health problems are established by the age of 14. I do not for one minute think that mental health problems stem from issues at school—absolutely not—but we must recognise the need to garner an environment that protects young people from exasperating the problem.  Recent research by girlguiding found that nearly two in three girls aged between 13 and 21 have experienced some form of sexual harassment in school. The next point that I would like to make is how many of the behaviours we are now really beginning to call out in adult world are starting at school as young people? How many behaviours can we prevent from spelling into our adult lives? That is what this should be about, prevention, looking at the wider societal impact that bullying has on our mental health and our values relating to how we treat one another. We do not always know where things are going, going to go. Even 10 years ago, no-one had predicted the potential impact of social media in our schools as a tool for sexual harassment. No-one had predicted the recent fallout from the Harvey Weinstein scandal. That is why it is so important that we work together to get ahead of those issues and precipitate the possible longer-term, wider effects. Only by taking decisive action at an early stage can we begin to get to the root of those issues and continue to make progress. That is the change in attitudes that I have spoken about today and one that I hope is taken forward by all members on all sides. That is why I welcome the consensus across the chamber in today's debate and the positive contributions made by members. Let this Parliament today send out the message that it is not cool to be cruel. That concludes the debate on prejudice-based bullying and harassment of children and young people in schools and review of personal and social education. It is time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8862, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request-to-speak button. No-one has pressed the request-to-speak button. I therefore call on Maurice Golden on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move motion 8862. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 8862 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed. Can you wait until decision time is complete, please? I recognise that you did it before decision time, but I would prefer it if you waited until we were closed. There is a single question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion 871, in the name of Christina McKelvie, on behalf of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, on prejudice-based bullying and harassment of children and young people in schools and review of personal and social education, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed. That concludes decision time. Mr Harvie. I'm grateful, Presiding Officer. As you'll be aware, the Finance and Constitution Committee is currently taking evidence in relation to the EU withdrawal bill and the question of legislative consent for that bill. This morning, as part of that evidence-taking, we heard one academic witness raise an argument that calls into question one of the functions of the Presiding Officer. As you'll be aware, the Presiding Officer under rule 9.3 is required to give a ruling that accompanies the introduction of any bill to this Parliament on the question of legislative competence of any bill being considered by the Parliament. The EU withdrawal bill, if it was passed in its current form, introduces a new concept of law called EU retained law and would inhibit the ability of this Parliament to pass legislation that wasn't compliant with this new body called EU retained law. Can I ask what consideration has been given by the Presiding Officer and what advice has been taken by the Presiding Officer in relation to this aspect that may impinge on the Presiding Officer's function in relation to legislative competence and whether that has been discussed with the UK Government in its drafting of the EU withdrawal bill? Will it have an impact on, for example, the resources that the Presiding Officer needs or the time that would be taken to ensure the legislative competence of any future bill after the EU withdrawal bill has been passed? I would like to thank Mr Harvey first of all for giving formal notice and former notice of the point that he has raised. I would like to assure Mr Harvey and indeed the chamber that those matters are under consideration. The Presiding Officer's role is in legislative competence and that will continue. However, retained EU law does indeed introduce a new concept. It will be up to the Presiding Officer to take that into account along with all other considerations. Further, I assure Mr Harvey that there is a careful watch that has been kept in all developments that are happening constitutionally, of course, and that all those matters will be considered in an on-going manner. We now move on to members' business. I would ask please that members leave the chamber quickly and quietly.