Category: Weblogs

Emergency Warnings – Could They Be More Effective?

Had an interesting morning here in San Francisco. After staying up late following the recent earthquake in Japan, I was awoken early by a text message from a good friend in the neighborhood concerned about calls and texts she was receiving from friends about a tsunami. She lives on the top of a hill located well outside our 20 foot run up zone and I told her I'd be by for breakfast since her home was safer than mine which is only a block outside the run up zone.

A few minutes later, I received a call from another friend in Iowa advising me to start filling my bathtub and pots and pans in case we lost our water supply. After chuckling a bit, I reminded her what I did for a living.

These contacts from concerned friends reminded me once again that we really don't do a good job of public warning. Amanda Ripley points out in her excellent book, The Unthinkable, that our warnings contain fact and actions but don't always stress "why". In this case, the local authorities provided a timely warning with good information and appropriate actions. What they didn't do was couch the warning in a way that allayed concern.

Our tsunami warning include a potential for a 2-3 foot wave. The problem is the average citizen has no idea what a 2-3 foot wave would do. They tend to think in terms of a tsunami that would wash over the entire peninsula, something that is not even geologically possible given the shape of our shoreline. A wave of the size predicted would probably not even have gotten over our seawall. The EOC staff took a reasonable precaution by closing the Great Highway adjacent to the seawall and elected not to evacuate the immediate area which demonstrates they understood the risks. Unfortunately, this information wasn't really shared well with the public and the media.

This should not be taken as criticism of my local colleagues who did everything appropriately according to our accepted practices. Instead, I'm suggesting that we need to rethink the way we issue warnings and the mechanisms we use to distribute those warnings. We need to share our reasoning with the public rather than just telling them what to do. Our studies show that people don't really trust our messages and will seek verification from other sources before acting. Understanding why they should take the actions we recommend could help reduce this lag.

So the next time you need to issue a warning, give some thought to explaining what the potential threat really means. Your warnings will be a lot more effective. 

Social media and transparency in government

There are several criminal investigations under way in San Francisco regarding the activities of undercover narcotics officers. The officers are alleged to have conducted illegal searches of suspects' residences and falsified police reports to cover up their actions. Unfortunately, at least four incidences of alleged misconduct were caught on closed circuit surveillance cameras. The public defender presented the videos as evidence in court, where it became a public record. He then called a press conference, showed the video and then posted it to the You Tube site maintained by his office.

What makes this so interesting is not the alleged crime but rather the fact that the public defender of a major city is using You Tube for official purposes. There was a time when we would have read about an incident of this type in the papers but would always wonder if the reporter got it right. Now the evidence is readily available at the click of a button from an official source.

This is yet another example of how social media is changing how we do business in government. Transparency in government is generally considered a good thing but as social media continues to evolve, we're going to be confronted by a whole host of privacy and legal issues. But there's no putting the genie back in the bottle – social media is rapidly becoming part of the fabric of our day-to-day lives and, sooner rather than later, we will need to embrace the changes it brings. 

Disaster Preparedness Video Series

In 2008 I was asked by the Golden Gate Regional Center in California to serve as the adviser on a series of preparedness videos for the developmentally disabled community. It was one of the most rewarding and enjoyable projects I have had and I'm delighted to learn that this series of videos is now available on YouTube. I have posted the links on my blog site at http://freeresources.luciencanton.com/

The series consists of 8 short videos. Parts 1-5 are designed for the individual and steps you through pre-disaster mitigation and preparedness, immediate actions during the disaster and immediately following, recovery and public health emergencies. Parts 6-8 are intended to provide care givers with the tools to systematically assess their facilities and develop a plan for increasing their preparedness.

While the series was prepared specifically for the DD community, the themes are universal and the concepts can be applied to other populations. I hope you find them useful.

Does disability equal discrimination in emergency planning?

On February 11 a Federal judge ruled that the City of Los Angeles violated the American with Disabilities Act and various California Codes by failing to meet the needs of residents with disabilities in its emergency management program. This is the first such ruling of its kind and carries tremendous implications for emergency managers and how we plan.

The case centered on the question of equal access. Even if your policies apply to all equally and are enforced consistently, they may still place an undue burden on people with disabilities by virtue of those disabilities. In this case, the court felt that emergency plans were inadequate because they did not make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities in warning, evacuation, and sheltering.

More interesting to me as an emergency manager was that the court did not allow the city to pass the buck by claiming that other agencies and departments had responsibilities for providing reasonable accommodations. Instead, the court noted that there were no indications that those departments and agencies had any supporting plans that would have allowed them to fulfill these responsibilities.

The court also did not accept the argument that individuals have a need to prepare themselves for disaster. While agreeing with the importance of personal preparedness, the judge felt that this was irrelevant to the case as it was about equal access.

I'll be devoting this month's white paper to a more in-depth analysis of the decision.  Meanwhile, you can find the ruling at the Disability Rights Legal Center.

My thanks to my colleague and friend, Chris Godley, for bringing this to my attention!

 

Homeland Security Advisory System: Good bye and Good Riddance

By now I'm sure you've heard that DHS is finally dumping the color coded terror alert system that's been the butt of a lot of jokes over the years. Seems as if the DHS leadership has finally accepted what a lot of us have said from the start: it's a dumb idea.

What we really wanted in the early days after September 11th was a way to make sense of the many messages we were getting from various sources. For example, when we started getting messages about terrorists using crop dusters we wanted to know if we were facing a specific threat or if this is just something that someone at DHS thought we should think about. We wanted something simple attached to each message, along the lines of "no fooling, they're coming for you", "our experts think this is a possible threat", or "I just made this up after talking to the gang at the water cooler." Instead we got the one-size-fits all Homeland Security Advisory System.

What was immediately obvious to us in the field was that the developers of the system had no understanding of risk. The simple fact is that the risk of terrorist attack is not the same for all parts of the country. You can certainly speak of overall risk to the United States but that becomes meaningless when you get to the local level.

This also had a bearing on the actions we were expected to take inr responding to potential threats. Since the warnings we were receiving carried no specific recommendations for action, we were expected to develop generic actions for each color level. However, the first time the levels changed, we suddenly realized how much it cost to keep the entire country on a high level alert for even a few days and the system fell apart. A lot of planning time and money went into a system that did not address specific threats or local risks.

The DHS move to a more nuanced system is a step in the right direction, particularly as it promises to include specific actions to be taken based on the potential threat. Vague warnings with no recommended actions were the downfall of the original system – let's hope DHS has finally learned a basic lesson in emergency management.

Mass Animal Deaths: What we can learn about data analysis

You may have noticed a series of articles recently on mass animal deaths. Google has now set up a website to track these incidents. This is an interesting example of how the Internet is changing how we collect and analyze data. The normal scientific method is to develop a hypothesis, determine what data would prove or disprove the hypothesis, collect the data, and conduct an analysis of the data. Here we have the reverse – we are aggregating data and then drawing conclusions as a community from apparent linkages.

The problem is that while many people will view the aggregate data (i.e. the final map), few will dig into the background information of each occurrence to determine if there is indeed a link. Consequently, the aggregate data can be used to support a wide range of hypotheses, including conspiracy theories and alien interventions.

It's a really variation on a question that's been around for a long time: are things occurring more frequently or are we just becoming more aware of them because of improved communications? Without detailed analysis, data collection of this type may be interesting or even intriguing but ultimately is nothing more than a curiosity.

Does TSA really care what you think?

One of the terms I use a lot is the psychological term "cognitive dissonance", the situation where what we say and what we do conflict. In today's San Francisco Chronicle,columnist Johnathan Gurwitz really nails the latest in terrorism theater from TSA.

As it struggles to gain support for its "see something, say something" campaign, TSA is in the process of prosecuting an airline pilot for pointing out weaknesses in security at San Francisco airport. Interestingly enough, the security flaws the pilot points out are well known and have been commented on by security experts as far back as the airline hijackings of the 1970's. TSA continues to treat ordinary passengers as potential terrorists while ignoring ground staff that have easy access to secure areas and aircraft.

A basic security principle is defense in depth. No single security measure can ensure absolute safety, so the wise security practitioner layers a number of systems in an attempt to compensate for the flaws in each through the synergy of the whole. By focusing primarily on passengers, TSA has left gaping holes in the security of our air terminals. By punishing those that dare to point out these holes, TSA suggests its not really interested in gaining the support of the public through its "see something, say something" campaign.

Is Macy’s Really the Grinch?

By now you may have heard of "Santa John" Toomey, the popular seasonal worker who played Santa for over 20 years at Macy's in San Francisco. Toomey was fired last week for allegedly making an off-color joke to an older couple. The story spread from the local papers to the Internet and Toomey just appeared on the Jay Leno show. Based on the stories, it looks like a classic case of a heartless large corporation overreacting to a relatively minor incident.

But is Macy's really the Grinch in this Christmas story?

If you look carefully at the stories on the Internet, they are largely based on the original story in the San Francisco Chronicle. The story, in turn, is based on interviews with Toomey and his supporters. Macy's has declined comment on the basis that this is a personnel matter.

There are two lessons here for emergency managers, believe it or not. The first is how quickly a story can spread, particularly if it has elements that catch the public's attention. Here we have a story that is topical because of the season and has the classic "little guy against the bad corporation" theme.

The second lesson is that even where we are precluded from discussing specifics, we can't just ignore public reaction. Macy's has taken the classic head-in-the-sand approach. The company is quite correct in claiming that they cannot discuss a personnel matter. However, there is no reason to take the kind of hit to your reputation that Macy's is experiencing. You may not be able to tell your side of the story, but you can remind the public that there is another side.

It was clear from the beginning that this was a story that was going to grow with the telling and Macy's should have realized this and implemented a crisis communications plan. Consider what might have been difference if Macy's instead of saying in effect, "no comment," had said,

"While we cannot comment of the specifics of any personnel action, we take this type of complaint seriously. Any action we take in response to such a complaint is based on a thorough investigation of the facts and made after careful deliberation by senior managers."

Note that such a statement does not comment on the specifics of the case but does suggest that there is another side to the issue and that the decision was made at a high level after a review of the facts.

Actually communicating with the public instead of giving the appearance of hiding behind statutory responsibilities may not prevent damage to your reputation but it certainly go a long way to lessening that damage.

Crisis Management: Transparency Provides Protection

My colleague, Johnathan Bernstein, recently ended a blog on the Chilean mine rescue with this comment:

Truly successful crisis management does more than simply resolve the issues at hand. By making public the steps being taken to rectify and resolve issues, little room is left for damaging rumor and innuendo to creep in and stakeholders far are more likely to lend a sympathetic ear.

This is probably the most succinct statement of the role of crisis management that I have ever read.

As emergency managers, we tend to sometimes treat information as something that must be protected and doled out piecemeal. Part of this is because for years we've been trained that media is the enemy and forget that they can, in fact, be allies in our quest to get vital information to the public. Many times it's not enough to just do your job – you have to let the public know you are doing it and why you're doing it the way you are. Johnathan's statement reminds us that how well we handle the crisis today can save us considerable agony in the future.

Crisis Communications in the San Bruno Fire

For those readers who have been following the events following the explosion of a gas line in San Bruno, California, last month, it's now possible to access the dispatch communications from that terrible night. Dan Noyes, an investigative reporter for KGO 7, our local ABC affilliate, did an excellent report that captures the confusion and chaos initially faced by responders and how things were brought under control. In connection with this story, he has also posted an MP3 file of the dispatch communications.

The communications record offers a couple of teaching points for those of us who must manage crisis. First, we understand that the first few hours of any crisis is chaotic as we seek to gain information about the event. Sometimes our information is wrong, as were the initial reports in San Bruno that an airplane had crashed. We have to make the best decisions we can with the best available information. We understand this. However, the public does not always understand it. With access to our internal communications a matter of public record, we must be prepared to answer the inevitable questions that will arise after the crisis is over.

Secondly, we sometimes forget that everything we say is being recorded and is subject to review. Inside jokes, gallows humor, or fits of temper are part of how we communicate but taken out of context, they can make us seem callous or incompetent. In this day and age, we need to remember that everything we say on our "internal" communications will be accessible to anyone who wants to review it.

So the next time you key your mike, remember that it's not only operational communication, it's also crisis communication.