Earthquake Risk: A blueprint for disaster housing

Posted on February 7, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Earthquake Risk: A blueprint for disaster housing

The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) has just issued a new report, Safe Enough to Stay, that examines housing needs in San Francisco following a major earthquake.  SPUR estimates that a loss of just 5% of housing stock could result in a major outmigration that could significantly slow recovery. SPUR's analysis suggests that 25% of our housing stock is at risk. The goal of the report is to make recommendations to gradually increase the ability of citizens to remain in their homes during repairs, reducing the dependency on congregate shelters.

What makes this report so interesting is that SPUR makes specific and logical recommendations based on a careful estimation of the potential impact of a major earthquake in San Francisco. While so many of these reports make sweeping generalizations that are short on the "how-to", the SPUR report offers a practical blueprint for increasing resilience. What the report says about the need for housing and its recommendations for a pre-earthquake evaluation engineering standard is useful reading for any jurisdiction that has a seismic risk.

SPUR's interest in earthquakes comes as no surprise: the organization was founded in 1910 to improve the quality of housing following the 1906 earthquake and fires. This report is just the latest achievement in a long line of significant contributions to disaster planning.

Public warning takes a step forward

Posted on February 2, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Public warning takes a step forward

The folks on the Google Crisis Response Team have come up with an interesting concept. By making use of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), they are able to post warnings from credible sources to Google maps to create a public alerting system. Currently the system is only providing warnings from the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, the US Geological Survey and the National Weather Service. However, they have a mechanism to include warnings from state and local government organizations and expect the system to grow rapidly.

Many of my colleagues have been working on CAP since 2001 and it's great to see the protocol making the leap to social media. This is exactly what CAP is intended to do – allow warning information to be freely exchanged across multiple platforms.

Currently the Google system is displayed when you perform searches on Google maps. However, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone will quickly figure out a way to push warnings to the end user. Meanwhile, the Google public alerting system has the potential to be a one-stop source for warning information, something we've been needing for a long time. 

Social media is not a substitute fax machine

Posted on January 31, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs3 Comments on Social media is not a substitute fax machine

For the past few years I've been blogging and writing on why government agencies are having problems adapting to social media. In a recent article on his blog, homeland security expert Chris Battle sums up the issues very eloquently. In speaking to his law enforcement colleagues, Battle reminds them in very direct language that social media is about a dialog and that government agencies can no longer control the message.

If we continue to look at social media as simply a means of getting our message out, we fail both to engage the public and to make full use of this new medium. As Battle points out, social media is not merely a news aggregator or a substitute fax machine. It's not simply about sending routine information. It's about a willingness to hold a conversation. It's about understanding that each form of social media requires different composition – you can't just tweet your press release. It's about understanding that each platform may connect with a different audience.

So stop thinking about social media as press tools. Think instead about building a constituency. If you want credibility during crisis, you need to have credibility before the crisis.

Inadequate preparedness has its price

Posted on January 26, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Inadequate preparedness has its price

"I should have prepared an adequate disaster manual and raised awareness among teachers about the level of danger."

These words were part of the apology issued by Kashiba Teruyuki, principal of a Japanese elementary school that suffered the deaths of 74 students and 10 teachers during last year's tsunami. Only 34 students survived. The apology came after the release of a study about the actions of teachers and officials in the tsunami. The study was intended to anwer questions posed by the families of the deceased about the adequacy of preparedness. Although Kashiba was not at the school during the tsunami, he accepted responsibility for inadequately preparing his school for the tsunami.

The lesson here is that while those in charge of organizations may consider preparedness a distraction from daily business and a low priority, your view will change after a disaster when your staff or clients seek answers to why your response was inadequate. How will you respond when the civil grand jury or court asks why you failed to prepare? More importantly, how will you feel knowing that your inaction led to unnecessary deaths?

Kashiba Teruyuki has an answer for you: "I know I am beyond forgiveness, no matter how much I apologize." 

Does anyone read the Constitution anymore?

Posted on January 12, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Does anyone read the Constitution anymore?

A friend and I were discussing how the focus in schools on 18th and 19th century US history results in students knowing little or nothing about US history after World War II. Couple this with the lack of civics courses that provide a basic understanding of how government works and its no surprise that the average US citizen has no grasp of US foreign and domestic policy or the events that brought us to where we are today. More importantly, they have no idea how important the Constitution is to our civil liberties.

What's more amazing to me is that this phenomenon is not limited to the younger generations or to the average person. Based on our policies since September 11th, knowledge of the Constitution does not seem to be a requirement to serve in government. Witness the inability of the front runners in the 2008 Presidential election to answer a simple question on the powers of the office for which they were competing or the erosion of civil rights fostered by the "war on terrorism" over the past ten years. Read some of the comments of the current candidates on how they would limit the power of the Supreme Court, despite the Constitution's system of checks and balances.

Here's an even better example of the problem: three lawmakers in New Hampshire have introduced a bill requiring that all bills addressing individual rights or liberties include a direct quote from the Magna Carta. After introducing the bill, one legislator admitted he needed to "bone up" on the provisions of the document. Another said that there were issues that were not conceived of at the time the Magna Carta was written and it was a bit out of date. The third said it was intended to honor the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215 and that there would be no penalties for not following the law - it's just a "recommendation that would be nice to follow."

So of the three that introduced the bill, one hasn't really read it, one thinks it's irrelevant and the third is willing to enact a law that he doesn't expect anyone to follow. Talk about unclear on the concept!

Of course the Magna Carta is much shorter than the US Constitution and some of the copies have very striking illumination (i.e. pretty pictures). Maybe someone will actually read it.

Increase your credibility: Just say, “no”

Posted on January 10, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Increase your credibility: Just say, “no”

When was the last time you said, "no" to a client or superior? It's not an easy thing to do but sometimes it's absolutely essential. We're often a victim of our own success and our clients and superiors think we can do it all. Sometimes we even encourage that attitude because it boosts our own ego. But in doing so, we're sowing the seeds of failure.

No matter how good you are, you can't do it all well all the time. Pretending otherwise raises the expectations of your client or superior that you do anything. When you fail, you can totally destroy your credibility.

I once found myself at a community meeting that was extremely upset with a local utility provider because of a recent release of hazardous materials. This particular  community formed the core of the my mayor's constituency and was politically very important. They demanded that the City provide certain services that I knew we could not do. I took a deep breath and told them, "no."

You could have heard a pin drop. No one had ever dared to refuse their demands.

Then I told them why we couldn't do it. They presented a second alternative which I also felt could not be done. I could feel the tension in the room and started mentally revising my resume. Fortunately, the third option they offered was something that I could do. I committed to it and gave them a date when it would be done. Believe me, I made sure it was done.

What was amazing to me was what happened afterwards. My credibility in the community soared and I was viewed as one of the few in government that would give them honest answers. I had no trouble engaging them in future projects.

While there's no doubt that there was a bit of luck on my side, the lesson from that meeting has served me in good stead over the years. I believe that managing expectations by being honest about your capacity is the only ethical thing to do. This is the reason I sometimes turn down projects – I am realistic about what I can and can't do.

So give it a try – it's scary the first few times but, in the long run, you actually increase your credibility.

Gas pipeline safety: rewarding the wrong thing?

Posted on December 28, 2011 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs2 Comments on Gas pipeline safety: rewarding the wrong thing?

As a consultant, one of the things I tend to look for when evaluating a client's program is something psychologist call "cognitive dissonance". Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort caused by holding two conflicting cognitions (ideas, values, beliefs, etc.). In simpler terms, it's the internal conflict you feel when you're told to do one thing but are rewarded for doing something else.

Case in point is a recent article on the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's incentive program for gas surveys. These gas surveys are used to determine the overall safety of the gas pipeline system and to direct repair crews to potential problem areas. One would think that the company would have an incentive program that encourages finding and correcting problems. Instead, PG&E's program rewarded supervisors and crews who found fewer leaks and kept repair costs down. The conflict between being told that your job is to find leaks but rewarding you for not finding leaks creates cognitive dissonance.

The results are predictable – people will tend to perform the tasks for which they are rewarded and avoid those for which they are penalized. When internal whistle-blowers finally got the attention of senior management in April 2008, PG&E began an inspection of its gas system that by December 2008 had found more leaks than had been reported between 2004 and 2008.

Although the incentive program was discontinued in 2008, it takes a long time for an organization to change it's culture. During an emergency survey following the San Bruno pipeline explosion in 2010, PG&E found 38 major gas leaks, 4 serious enough to require reports to the Federal government. Survey crews had only reported six major leaks the previous year.

This is an extreme case of cognitive dissonance, to be sure, but it's not really all that unusual – I find examples of it all the time in government and business. So take the time to look at what results you're trying to achieve with your programs and compare them with the behaviours you're actually rewarding. You may find out why you're not achieving the results you want.

Crisis Communications: Read Before You Rant!

Posted on December 20, 2011 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs2 Comments on Crisis Communications: Read Before You Rant!

Last week I received an angry email from a colleague who objected to one of my recent articles and demanded to be removed from my email list. In honoring his request, I noted that he had never even read the article to which he was objecting. He had made an assumption about the content and then acted on it.

At about the same time, I was preparing a blog on the legislation authorizing the military detention of civilians that was included in the recent defense appropriations bill. You may have recalled that the legislation purported to allow the detention without trial of US citizens suspected of terrorism. Fortunately, I took the time to read the legislation and found that it specifically prohibited the detention of US citizens (see Section 1032, b-1). Now, I have my concerns about the legislation and its overall intent but my point is that every article I have read on the internet and on my social media sites includes the phrase, "including US citizens". Someone made an assumption, passed it off as fact, and others have continued to spread it without verification. I almost did it myself.

So the lesson here is clear: take the time to check your facts before passing on inflammatory information. You can't assume that everything you read on the internet is true (duh!). If you're the victim of such disinformation, you need to act quickly to counter it with solid facts. Once the horse has left the barn, it's difficult to catch!

National Preparedness Goal a paradigm shift?

Posted on December 13, 2011 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on National Preparedness Goal a paradigm shift?

Like many of you, I've been wading through the recently issued National Preparedness Goal. From my somewhat cynical perspective, I think it's going to pretty much put a final nail in the coffin of the Comprehensive Emergency Management model that has guided our programs since 1978. Instead of the four phase model of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery we now have five preparedness missions: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery.

Changing paradigms is not necessarily a bad thing. If you accept the fact that the "war on terror" needs to be a central focus for preparedness, then a change makes sense. If, however, you believe as I do that emergency managers deal with consequences and that prevention and protection could be legitimately placed under the original definition of mitigation (actions taken to prevent or minimize the impact of disasters), then one has to question the wisdom of such a change.

Please understand that I am not fighting a last ditch effort to save an old paradigm. Those of you who have read my book know that I think that a misunderstanding of the CEM model has created a number of problems in our emergency planning. What I am concerned about are the hundreds of emergency plans that have been based on the CEM model that will now be revised to focus on the five missions. This will happen despite that fact that the five missions are national goals and not specific to emergency plans and despite the assurance of trusted colleagues at the Department of Homeland Security that this is not the intent. This means we will need to address them as a community, as we are expected to do with standards.

So what does this all mean? I wouldn't run out and start revising plans just yet. However, I would look at how your emergency management program addresses the five mission areas. Focusing on core capabilities makes sense and this is where you should put your effort.

Civil Disturbance Response: A case study (Part 2)

Posted on December 7, 2011 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Civil Disturbance Response: A case study (Part 2)

As promised, here are my thoughts on the UC Davis pepper spray incident. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am reacting solely to what I see in the video and am not privy to any other facts, so it is not my intent to second-guess the officers on the scene. There's enough of that going on already. My point is that images are ambiguous and open to interpretation – my views may be completely different from yours and both of our opinions may not be supported by the ongoing investigation.

I should also mention that I have had training in both police practices and riot control tactics and have been in both the EOC and field command posts during demonstrations. While I don't consider myself an expert on the subject, I do have more understanding of the issues than the average person on the street. So for what they're worth, here are my thoughts:

1. It's seems apparent that the operation initially went well. Police issued warnings, successfully removed the tents, and arrested those demonstrators who did not comply with the order to leave. However, I'm not sure why police felt it necessary to remain in the area and await transport for the prisoners. Under the circumstances, the potential for mass arrests should have been anticipated. The suspects should have been moved from the area before the crowd had time to react.
2. Case law in California is pretty clear that pepper spray is a defensive weapon. As I view the video, it seems to me that the police are wary but fully in control of the situation. They are calm and fully prepared to defend themselves if necessary but they are under no immediate threat. The pepper spray was used because the demonstrators did not move out of the way of the vehicle and were blocking the police from leaving – an offensive maneuver.
3. If the police should not have used pepper spray, what else could they have done? Clearly, there was a concern that physically engaging the demonstrators might have led to escalation of the conflict. However, physically moving demonstrators one at a time was an option that has been successful in other circumstances. There were also officers positioned behind the demonstrators who could have been used to target the leaders of the demonstration – also a tactic that has been used effectively in other demonstrations. Police also had the option of just waiting out the demonstrators – they did not appear inclined towards violence and police so far had acted with tact and professionalism that had helped avoid it. None of these are ideal but they would be more defensible in court than the offensive use of chemical agents.

Again, I'm offering impressions gained from the video under discussion, not an in-depth analysis of the police tactics used. This is what is going to occur over the next few months as this incident is dissected by both the official investigation and the public.Your reaction to the video is largely determined by your personal bias for or against the protesters. The danger of visual images is that the emotion they evoke can obscure the facts.