Emergency kits – do we need them?

One of the heroes of my teenage years was Doc Savage, a character from the age of pulp fiction who became popular through a re-release in paper backs. What was so great about Doc was that he was not a superhero but a man who had been trained to peak efficiency in all his faculties by his parents. He kept his skills current through a rigorous daily training program. The attraction for young people was the message that you could be great if you were willing to work at it.

One other thing that was interesting about Doc was that he never carried a gun. He abhorred the taking of a human life and believed that carrying a gun created a dependence on them. Mind you, he did wear a vest that put Batman's utility belt to shame but most of the time he got out of trouble by relying on his intelligence, physical strength, and keen senses.

These leads me to wonder if we are not doing ourselves a disservice by our emphasis on emergency kits rather than skills training. Now don't get me wrong – I'm not advocating that we not encourage the public to build emergency kits. Even Doc Savage occasionally used a gun (always to wound, of course). But I do have some concerns when "building a kit" forms the core of our preparedness message and serves as an indicator of how well our populations are prepared.

My first concern is that to the best of my knowledge there is no empirical research that shows the value of emergency kits as a measure of preparedness or if, in fact, they are actually used in disasters. Common sense suggests that they have utility but that can vary based on the nature of the disaster and the location. We just don't know.

Secondly, we base most of our kits on the 72 hour rule which is also not backed up by any empirical research. Indeed, we don't even know where the rule originated; I've heard quite a number of versions of its origins, ranging from the Cold War to the time needed to mobilize mutual aid. Nobody really knows why we use 72 hours as a baseline.

We also cannot agree on what the kits should contain. I've seen some kits small enough to be worn as a vest or carried in a handbag. I've also seen kits with enough material to outfit a MASH unit. 

Even the issue of water is problematic: we talk about 1 gallon per person for day, which totals 24 pounds for three days but the average adult needs can survive on 2 quarts per day, a more manageable 12 pounds. The other two quarts per day are usually allocated for cooking and hygiene but this is not always clearly stated. We also encourage people to purchase kits with only a few ounces of water in them. To add to the confusion, the need for water is dependent on the environment. We may well be telling people to stockpile more or less than they actually need.

Again, my point here is not to slam emergency kits (I own several) but rather to suggest that one-size does not fit all and that we should be teaching people how to survive in their unique environment. We should be teaching them to think and not just encouraging consumerism.

It's what Doc would do!

Does FEMA really believe in higher education?

What's the difference between education and training? A lot of us tend to flounder a bit on this one. Someone once facetiously suggested to me that you can understand the difference if you ask the question, "Do I want my daughter to have sex training or sex education?"

Joking aside, we generally see training as teaching individuals to perform specific tasks. It focuses on the "how".The tasks may be simple or complex, but ultimately they are performed by people at the technician level. Education, on the other hand, stresses critical thinking. It teaches the "why" and encourages students to develop creative problem solving skills. These are the skills we require of our leaders and managers.

Emergency management is evolving as a profession. In my opinion, we are rapidly moving away from the days when being a solid technician was sufficient to do the job. The emergency manager of the future will need a solid theoretical base and the ability to function as a high-level manager and trusted adviser.

Given this need, I was apalled to find out this morning that FEMA has cancelled this year's Higher Education Symposium at the Emergency Management Institute in favor of a "virtual symposium" to save money. Started some years ago by my colleague Wayne Blanchard, the symposium provides an opportunity for academics, researchers and practitioners to come together in a collegial atmosphere to discuss our ideas for higher education curricula for future emergency managers. This goes a long way to bringing some cohesiveness to our various courses, showcases successful programs, and suggests research gaps that need to be filled. The attendance has grown each year, as has the conference in importance.

The cost to the government to support this symposium is minuscule. Attendees pay their own way and pay for their meals and housing on campus. Staff support is provided by volunteers working with the two-person higher education office at EMI.

I firmly believe that emergency managers of the future will need to be educated as leaders and managers and not just trained in the various tasks performed by emergency management organizations. The development of future leaders is, I also believe, a core mission of the Emergency Management Institute. To cancel the only effective way FEMA has to influence the direction of emergency management education in this country is both short-sighted and incomprehensible. It sends the message that higher education is not a priority for FEMA. If FEMA abrogates its responsibility in this area, who can fill the vacuum?

Thoughts on the Boston bombing: don’t let the bad guys win.

The twin explosions in Boston yesterday serve to remind us of the vulnerability of an open society. Despite the best intentions of our government, we can never completely prevent attacks such as this. The initiative is always with the enemy. They choose the time, the place, the method, and the target. We can't stop all the attacks every time but we can choose how we react to them.

Lenin is supposed to have said, "the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize." In the aftermath of tragedy, we forget that the purpose of any attack is to provoke not only a reaction but an over-reaction. The goal of terrorism has always been to undermine free societies by creating the circumstances where those societies destroy themselves from within. When we choose security over civil liberties, the bad guys win. In our rush to "do something" we forget the freedoms that are the prime reason we were attacked in the first place.

This is true of any tragedy of this type. At the time of this writing we still don't know who is responsible for the bombings in Boston. Whether we lable this "terrorism" will depend on the presence or absence of a political motive but what we call it is really immaterial. How we react to it is everything.

September 11th led us to a disturbing curtailments of civil liberties both at home and abroad. But in a similar fashion, the shootings in Newton have led to a strident and emotional debate over measures that offer questionable value in preventing future shootings and are viewed by some as attacking fundamental Constitutional rights. Where will Boston take us? Will we see calls for more stringent controls such as background checks on all runners, searches of spectators, restrictions on bags and parcels? Will we continue, as we did after September 11, to view our citizens as potential terrorists rather than allies this fight?

There are certainly things we can do. We can track down and bring to justice the perpetrators of this tragedy.We can review our security precautions to see if we can do better. We can use our bloated intelligence services to try to prevent future acts. But above all, we need to be rational, keep things in perspective, and avoid an over-reaction that will do little to improve our safety.

To do less is a disservice to the victims of these outrages. Worse, it means the bad guys win again.

Bicycles can play a role in recovery

Portland's Neighborhood Emergency Teams use cargo bikes Photo: Ethan Jewett

Two things are always apparent in disasters. First, people are incredibly creative in dealing with crisis. Second, simple solutions work best. Case in point is the use of bicycles in disaster.

I recently came across a blog by Hamzat Sani on the League of American Bicyclists website titled Bicycles Play a Major Role in Disaster Recovery that details the use of bicycles in the aftermath of the storm caused by Hurricane Sandy. Sani notes that bicycle commuting increased by 130% in some parts of New York, straining the existing 300 miles of protected cycling lanes. More interesting was the work of cycling groups in helping to raise funds for recovery and in helping deliver relief supplies to heavily damaged areas.

The concept is not a new one. During my days with San Francisco, we worked with a small group of bicycle messengers who were trained to serve as messengers during disasters. We even had a spin off group of motorcyclists who served the same purpose. We successfully integrated them into several exercises and were able to prove that the concept worked.

What is a new, though, is the idea of neighborhood groups and bicycle clubs organizing themselves to provide logistic support to isolated communities. This carries the concept far beyond what we envisioned with our small pool of daredevil cyclists in San Francisco. The city of Portland, which is touted as having more than any other big city in the US, is a prime example of how this can work. Portland has encouraged the use of heavy-duty cargo bikes within its Neighborhood Emergency Teams with great success.

Three Mile Island Anniversary: Lessons from the past

Few people will remember that today is the 34th anniversary of the disaster at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Nevertheless, this was a focusing event that solidified resistance towards nuclear power in the United States and remains an example of how poor decision making and crisis communication can turn an emergency into a crisis.

At 4 AM on this day in 1979 a pressure valve failed to close, draining contaminated coolant into adjacent buildings and causing the core to overheat. Emergency cooling pumps were automatically activated but were shut off by the plant workers based on confusing and contradictory readings. It was some four hours later before they realized their error and restarted the pumps. By this time, half the core was melted and the reactor had come within one hour of a full meltdown that would put the surrounding countryside at risk.

This was only the beginning of the crisis. The plant workers had also missed that the overheated core had produced a large cloud of hydrogen gas, some of which exploded and released a small amount of radiation. It was two days later before the gas bubble was noticed. Fearing an explosion and potential meltdown that would release a considerable amount of radiation, the governor advised pregnant women and young children to evacuate the area. The result was a spontaneous evacuation of over 100,000 and considerable public alarm that did not dissipate until April 1 following a Presidential visit and the determination by plant workers that there was no danger of explosion.

The Three Mile Island disaster still has many lessons to teach us. One of the biggest is that the human factor is always at play in disasters. In this case, the crisis was precipitated by the decision to shut down the pumps. That decision was made on the basis of bad information provided by a poorly designed system. A reasonable precaution of evacuating those most at risk produced public concern rather than the calming effect intended. Ultimately, the Three Mile Island disaster almost the devastated the nuclear power industry, coming at a time when there was considerable controversy over the safety of nuclear power plants.

Return to the “Hotel California” – Five tips for dealing with the crisis

Last week I wrote about the case of the hotel in Los Angeles where a decomposing body was found in the water cistern. I asked how you would craft your initial crisis communications. Since no one has stepped up to the challenge, I'll offer my own thoughts on the subject. Here's what I would advise the management of the hotel if they were my clients:

1. Speed is of the essence. You need to immediately contact your guests. You won't know much at this point but it is better that they hear it from you with the facts that you have than to hear it on the news with added commentary and speculation.
2. Be empathetic – say you're sorry. It's amazing how far that phrase will get you, particularly if your guests perceive it as sincere. Saying you sorry, contrary to popular belief, is not an admission of wrongdoing.
3. Offer immediate compensation. Refunding the cost of their stay is the minimum you should offer. If you want to add a discount for future visits, so much the better. Don'[t tie it to them signing a release of liability – that makes it look like you're trying to protect yourself and suggests it might be your fault.
4. Tell them what you're doing about the problem. You're going to need to have your water system checked by health authorities, so tell them that's what you're doing and promise to notify them immediately of the results. Think about what you would want to hear if it was your family that was affected.
5. Open lines for continued communication. You might consider a 24/7 hotline (real person please, not a recorded message), a dedicated website, social media, etc. Your guests will have questions – it's better they get the answers from you. 

You're going to get sued. Get over it. Don't hide behind the old idea that anything you say can be used against you in court. Anything you don't say will also be used against you, so be proactive. Get the facts out quickly, be sincere and empathetic, and, above all, treat your guests as you would want your family treated. You've got a major reputational crisis on your hands – don't make it worse by developing a bunker mentality and ignoring the concerns of your guests.

“Welcome to the Hotel California?” : A crisis communications case study

The Cecil Hotel in Los Angeles Photo: CNN

Here's an interesting case study in crisis communications:

You are the owner of a hotel. For several days you've been receiving complaints that the water tastes funny. Some guests have commented that the shower will run black for a few minutes then clear. Water pressure has been dropping.

You assign a maintenance worker to check the system. In inspecting the water system, your worker discovers the naked body of a 27 year old guest that has apparently been decomposing in your cistern since her disappearance was reported two weeks previously.

At this point you have very few facts but you recognize that this is a significant reputational crisis and you need to take action immediately. The situation isn't helped that your hotel has a dark history – murders (in the 20's and 30's) and suicides (one in the 60's) have occurred in the past and at least two serial killers have been guests in the past.

So what do you do? Specifically, what message do you give to the guests who have stayed with you in the past few weeks? What can you offer them by way of compensation?

I look forward to your answers!

(By the way, you really can't make this stuff up – this is an actual event. See the story here and the history of the hotel here.)

Prepare for 72 hours! Really?

A question came up recently on the Emergency Management Issues Facebook Page regarding the basis for the 72 hour preparedness model. It's always fun to see the reasons people come up with to explain it. I know – I've done it myself. The simple fact is that there really is no empirical basis for preparing for 72 hours as opposed to say, 96 or 120 (3, 4 and 5 days).

The earliest we can trace the 72 hours preparedness model is to a Red Cross brochure from 1928 that my colleague Rocky Lopes has in his possession. My colleague Valerie Lucus-McEwen has also traced it back to the Cold War and Civil Defense planning. The origins of the model are lost in the mists of time.

So why do we continue to tell people they must be prepared for 72 hours (or three days, which is easier for them to visualize)? The answer is that we assume that someone, somewhere had a good reason for coming up with this idea and that, since we're all using it, it must be correct. We simply accept that it is a "good thing" without questioning whether it is the "right thing".

Now there's a lot to be said for consistency of message and any preparedness is better than no preparedness but the fact is, as I've said over and over, one size does not fit all. Three days of supplies in one location may be appropriate but may be woefully inadequate in another. Water needs change based on climate. The best approach is to tailor the message to local conditions, which would be difficult but not impossible. The message of stockpiling supplies also doesn't resonate with the people most likely to suffer most in a disaster: those with limited economic resources.

Now I'm not suggesting that we abandon our preparedness message or that trying to keep our message consistent is a bad thing. I do think, though, that it's time we question the way we have traditionally done things, whether it's planning or community preparedness. The one-size-fits-all approach often results in mediocrity. We owe our communities better.

Social media leaves little time to react to crisis

There's an interesting article in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle that restates what experts like my colleague Johnathan Bernstein have been saying for years: social media has almost eliminated the time you have to react to a crisis.

In the article, Chronicle writer Carla Marinucci describes how the proliferation of social media sites has created a new environment. Social media sites and, in particular, Twitter, have the ability to almost instantaneously shape public opinion. This is changing how media relations firms respond to crisis.

The message is clear and is not new: if you are still using the old ways of getting your story out, you have already lost your battle to maintain your organization's reputation in a crisis.

My old friend and colleague, the late Dave Fowler, taught me ages ago that one of the problems is that we train our media staff in public relations but not in crisis communications. This was in the day when we were transitioning from the standard twice-daily press briefings to the new world of constant news feeds. CNN was the game changer then and those of us who understood this did a better job of communicating our side of the story.

Times change and crisis communications has become even more complex and more critical. So give some thought to how you're preparing your media team. One person who handles press releases was never sufficient and will definitely not meet the needs of a modern crisis. Identify a team to support your regular media staff and provide training in crisis communications. When reaction time is measured in minutes, you don't have time to do this when it really counts.