The Obama Administration has said that public readiness is a priority and has taken steps to strengthen the involvement of Americans in their own homeland security. However, officials acknowledge that there is still a ways to go. I present these proposals to help move forward citizen preparedness on a local, state and national level. I hope these suggestions can be a useful addition to the policy discussion and have submitted it to the Federal Preparedness Task Force. As always, I welcome your feedback:

1) CREATE CITIZEN PREPAREDNESS TASK FORCE — The lack of progress to date on public readiness and engagement underscores the need to develop new ways of approaching the issue. DHS Secretary Napolitano should create a Citizen Preparedness Outreach Task Force to assess the current state of public readiness and work on developing new approaches. At present, there is no clear social education analog to civilian emergency preparedness that can be easily pulled off the shelf so it will take some work to develop an effective program. In fact, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism in its final report recommended the Administration make citizen engagement a priority. But Chairman Bob Graham told me that the ‘WMD Commission’ did not did not find anything suitable it could recommend, and that something new has to be developed.

2) BETTER DEFINE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE “PREPARED” “READY” AND/OR “RESILIENT” — An American Red Cross survey indicated that 93% of Americans are not prepared for disasters. The truth is that no one can be fully prepared, but there is a need to offer the public a clearer definition — including a minimum level — of preparedness. That might include creating a family communications plan and storing tangible supplies but also knowing more about potential threats that every American should know. That doesn’t mean overwhelming people with too much information, but making sure they are at least familiar with some basics. (For example, the first time citizens hear about a ‘dirty bomb’ from government officials should not be in the moments after one has been exploded.) In addition to the content questions, there is also a word meaning issue to deal with as well. The Obama Administration has been emphasizing the concept of societal resilience. Should emergency management officials be talking about citizen resilience in their communities rather than preparedness or readiness?

3) SUPPORT & REPORT ON STATE/LOCAL PREPAREDNESS EFFORTS — Provide adequate seed money for state and local government to bolster civilian preparedness programs and link the grants to performance. Encourage authorities to report publicly on their level of citizen preparedness and create metrics for better measuring civilian readiness. Find interested governors to take on leadership roles and create pilot models in their states. There is a need to employ both “bottom/up” and “top/down” approaches to disaster preparedness combining state, local and community leadership and citizen involvement with federal commitment and focus. Ensure that government authorities can competently respond to disasters but also more strongly emphasize the need for the public and local communities to be prepared and self-reliant, particularly in the first 72 hours after a disaster.

4) HIGHLIGHT & SPREAD MODELS FROM AROUND U.S. & OTHER COUNTRIES — There is a need to help promote and implement best practices from communities around the U.S. and draw, where applicable, particularly from British and Israeli experiences. One model may be the United Kingdom’s National Risk Register, which sets out publicly the government’s assessment of the likelihood and potential impact of a range of different public health, natural and terrorist risks. It is designed to increase awareness of the kinds of risks the UK faces, and encourage individuals and organizations to think about their own preparedness. The Register also includes details of what the Government and first responders are doing to prepare for those emergencies and the role of citizens in those plans

5) USE ‘CARROTS’ TO CHANGE PUBLIC BEHAVIOR – Provide a tax write-off for citizens to buy preparedness-related products as a way to promote participation and to signal governmental commitment. Encourage states to create tax-free periods as is being done in Virginia and Louisiana (and has been introduced in the New York legislature). Also, consider targeting assistance to citizens who cannot afford to prepare. The fact is that when we really want to change social behavior as a nation we do it through the carrot or the stick. The carrot is the preferable tool for this issue, but it needs to be used. And, thus far, incentives (and vegetables) have largely been missing from the preparedness effort, which helps explain the lack of progress. Similarly, preparedness disincentives in the law should be removed (ie. in some places, homeowners who retrofit their homes face higher tax assessments.)

6) BRING IN BUSINESS TO DEVELOP INTEGRATED ‘WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN’ PUBLIC PREPAREDNESS MARKETING CAMPAIGNS– Design and roll out a full service preparedness marketing campaign with help from the private and non-profit sectors. Galvanize business to take on disaster preparedness in the same way they have with disaster response, most notably in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (ie. big box stores, packaged goods manufacturers, bottled water companies, wireless industry). Work with companies in preparedness-related businesses to offer major discounts tied to citizens taking actual readiness steps recommended by Ready.Gov and local emergency management offices.

For example, individuals and families come into ‘big box’ stores with emergency communications plans (or fill them out in the store) and in return they would receive a significant discount on supplies or free products (ie. if you purchase a case of bottled water, you would get your emergency supply thrown in for free). And if a customer signed up to volunteer for CERT or the Red Cross Disaster Services, they would get a bigger discount. Mobile phone retail stores would be excellent settings for preparedness events/trainings to help people register for government emergency text/e-mail alerts. I’d also like to see an event/photo-op with kids teaching their parents about texting and its role in an emergency. Here again, the companies would offer customers extra free text/phone minutes for completing the preparedness step.

7) DON’T BE AFRAID TO TELL THE CHILDREN — Put more emphasis on educating young people on preparedness by piggybacking on other related school-based social education efforts, most prominently fire safety. The challenge is the both the decentralization of the nation’s education system and the already high curricula demands on teachers. Yet, an effective fire education program was implemented in the schools beginning in the 1970’s, and there would seem to be a perfect fit to integrate a preparedness module into that existing program. The federal government should work with state and local officials as well as fire and education officials to determine how best to accomplish that objective.

FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate recently suggested expanding the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program for young people. I believe that a decision to expand CERT-type training in the schools would be welcomed on a bipartisan basis.There should be more public briefings on how personal tech would be helpful in an emergency, before the emergency (including how Twitter, Facebook and one’s smart phone can be invaluable). Further, every governmental preparedness web site should add a cell phone and an extra battery (or other power source) to the basic components of their recommended disaster supply kit.  Many private companies are working on applications for citizen emergency communications. Those business efforts need to be integrated with official alerts (ie. the new iteration of the Emergency Alert System) and unofficial citizen-based social media (as well as the news media). Both the content and distribution channels of emergency communications are changing and new models need to be developed.

8 EMBRACE AND ACCELERATE PREPAREDNESS 2.0 – There is a need to better inform the public on the potential of 21st century personal technology to prepare for and respond to 21st century emergencies. We must make Americans more aware of the capabilities of the technology at their fingertips (ie. wireless devices, social media sites) in advance and integrate it into disaster planning and response. The public’s new ability to access and distribute information offers both an opportunity and a challenge to government authorities.

There should be more public briefings on how personal tech would be helpful in a crisis, before the crisis (including how Twitter, Facebook and one’s smart phone can be invaluable). Further, every governmental preparedness web site should add a cell phone and an extra battery (or other power source) to the basic components of their recommended disaster supply kit. Many private companies are working on content and distribution applications for citizen emergency communications. Those business efforts can complement official efforts (ie. the new iteration of the Emergency Alert System) and unofficial citizen-based social media (and well as the news media). One hugely promising initiative is CrisisCommons which over the past year has created groups of volunteers throughout the world to bring technology to bear on disaster response issues.

9) FIND POLITICAL, CELEBRITY PREPAREDNESS SPOKESPEOPLE – During the time that I have covered the topic of citizen emergency preparedness, one of the most surprising things I’ve found is that there is no major elected official who has taken the lead on the issue. It’s surprising for a number of reasons: natural disasters and terrorism dominate the headlines and will continue to for the foreseeable future; citizen preparedness is pretty much an unassailable, bipartisan, patriotic and community-building topic; and even the smallest interest in Washington has at least one political champion (but not public preparedness). And, with much to do, there is a great opportunity to have a positive policy and political impact. To some in the readiness community, the absence of star power on the issue has been one reason for the lack of public attention. Though celebrities have been eager to participate in fundraising efforts after catastrophes like the Haiti effort), there is no big star who is singularly identified as a spokesperson for emergency preparedness.

10) GIVE THE PUBLIC MORE INFO SO THEY CAN BETTER PREPARE & PARTICIPATE – There is a need to better inform the public when it comes to disaster preparedness so they can not only ready themselves and their families but also be part of the policy debate. Let me mention two areas briefly:

a) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD): In its report, the WMD Commission argues that the incoming Administration should make an effort to inform and engage the public on the subject of WMD’s. I agree. And, I suggest officials consider starting that process by defining (or redefining) what a WMD actually is. At present, it is most common to define a WMD for the public as a chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (or “CBRN”) weapon.

The Commission report, however, focuses primarily on the dangers of biological and nuclear terrorism, both of which could be absolutely catastrophic. By contrast, a chemical or radiological (better known as a ‘dirty bomb’) weapon could be very serious but would likely not cause as much lasting damage. In fact, both a chemical and radiological attack would likely be a one-shot event seriously impacting those directly near the event, closer in result to a ‘traditional’ terrorist bombing. A nuclear bomb or biological incident, however, could have wide and long-lasting ‘mass destruction’ impact to humans, property and the society itself. We don’t want the public — and the nation as a whole — to overreact to some threats and underreact to others.

b) Risk: I think it may be one of the most important homeland security subjects for both the government and the public, because it highlights some of the tradeoffs involved in determining how to allocate the nation’s security resources and the role of risk management in making those decisions. This is a debate which should include the public. Right now, Americans aren’t engaged in the discussion over the security, financial, logistical and time tradeoffs involved in our own homeland security.

We need to introduce risk management into homeland security which would lead us to ask and answer important questions: What improves our security and resiliency? And what can be done at a reasonable social and financial cost? Those answers should come not only from policymakers but with the guidance of the public itself.

The public should be asked: How much risk do you want to pay for? How much inconvenience do you want to deal with? These are dilemmas we deal with everyday in our lives; we need to bring that same approach to homeland security and disaster preparedness. FEMA’s Fugate has since his days in Florida made the point that natural hazards turn into natural disasters because of man-made decisions on development, including ubiquitous golf courses: “You can tee off in Tallahassee and play through to Pensacola,” he likes to say.  ”Unless the public understands we need to change where we develop and live, it won’t matter.” It is up to elected officials to present those choices, including building codes, levies and insurance incentives.

11) ‘SEE AND SAY’ SOMETHING MORE – Build upon the initial success of ‘See Something, Say Something’ -type citizen information campaigns by providing the public with more specific guidance on how to assist law enforcement and, without giving away sources and methods, offering more feedback on the information they have provided. Law enforcement officials are concerned about societal complacency nine years since 9/11, but have not determined how to communicate to the public a more candid – yet calm and balanced – picture of the threat and how they can best help. The Department of Homeland Security is expanding “See Something, Say Something” nationally, which is a positive development. However, there is still a need to better explain to citizens their role, particularly at a local level. One important question is how much of what new information and training given to law enforcement about terrorism prevention should also be provided to the public.

12) MEDIA SHOULD COVER PREPAREDNESS AS WELL AS DISASTERS – While the press does wall-to-wall coverage on natural disasters and has covered practically every aspect of terrorism story closely, it has largely overlooked advance public preparedness. By contrast, during the Cold War, magazines ranging from Life to Modern Farmer dedicated entire issues to civilian readiness. Obviously, the press’ role is not to serve as a publicity arm of the government, but it is a topic that deserves more attention. And without more media coverage, it will be difficult to break through to the public. One great example of the press as a unique asset is the list of preparedness tips and lessons learned from the disaster survivors that was collected by the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

13) GOVERNMENT PREPAREDNESS OUTREACH NEEDS TO BE FAR MORE INTERACTIVE — Right now, if a member of the public has a question about the preparedness process, there is nowhere to go. And, as someone who does a lot of public outreach on street fairs, radio or in community meetings I hear a lot of questions from average citizens about emergency readiness — ie. Shouldn’t buildings have mandatory emergency drills? Shouldn’t everyone have a solar charger in your ‘go-bag’ to be able recharge a cellphone or radio? Shouldn’t you have an evacuation family meeting spot outside of the City in case there is major disaster? In case of an emergency, where should we go for information? The emergency management community on a national, state and local level must overhaul its public information operations to be able to address those questions directly and lead the public through what can be a challenging process to undertake.

14) ‘DO ASK, DO TELL’: MAKE “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” MORE CENTRAL TO PREPAREDNESS MESSAGING — Instead of telling people to prepare because it is a responsibility (you need to do this), government has used a softer ask when it comes to trying to get the public to prepare. To me, the it is time to try to do more “telling” and less “asking”. I don’t believe the government should be afraid to explicitly tell the public that each of us can either hinder or help relief efforts by what they decide to do before and during a disaster. And, that it’s up to each of us to choose.

If indeed preparing for disasters is a responsibility of citizenship (which I think it should be), then it should been positioned that way. PSA’s saying that people are imperiling the lives of first responders and their fellow citizens, particularly the vulnerable (ie. the elderly, disabled) not to mention your own family might be treated with a little more urgency. Another potentially useful messaging approach was suggested to me by former Miss Utah Jill Shepherd who used citizen preparedness as her pageant platform. It can (and should) be included in the preparedness pitch that readying yourself and your family for disaster at home is a way civilians can contribute to the nation’s resilience and complement the work and sacrifice of those serving in the military. Preparedness may be the most important contribution most citizens can make to their nation’s security. Not only will civilians likely be the first on the scene of a major emergency, but the nation’s response will only be as strong as the readiness of the weakest link. We have entered the ‘pro-am’ preparedness era where the government needs to hand off some responsibility and the public needs to take it.

15) INTEGRATE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS INTO OTHER COMMUNITY ISSUES — Emergency preparedness is an important issue, particularly during crises. However, it has a better chance of becoming ingrained into American society if it is viewed as part of other preparedness topics that are a more central part of Americans daily life, including public health (immunization), security (Neighborhood Watch), infrastructure and climate change, part and parcel of just being ready for any situation.

For example, the global warming campaign can and should be a model for civilian emergency preparedness in a variety of ways. The two efforts are complementary and should be linked closer together in the public’s mind — and actions. In both, society is being asked to mobilize in order to avert or mitigate potential disasters, and both are part of strengthening the nation’s general national resilience. Yes, global warming has some skeptics, but so does emergency preparedness — ironically they are often not the same people which may conveniently add to its complementary synergy.

16) EXPAND EMERGENCY DRILLING OPPORTUNITIES TO PUBLIC –Increase chances for citizens to participate in disaster drills, which would help people focus on the issue and work through the key questions everyone should ask before a disaster (ie. How will you get information and communicate with your family? Do you know the emergency plan of your children’s school?). Most every top homeland security/emergency management official I have interviewed has told me that broader public disaster exercises would be helpful in a number of ways, but there has not been a concerted effort to expand drilling opportunities to the public.

17) DETERMINE BEST USE OF CIVILIAN DISASTER VOLUNTEERS – Craig Fugate said recently that FEMA would be reevaluating the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). I think that as part of that review government and non profit officials should be looking at how best to recruit and deploy disaster volunteers. Post-9/11 and Katrina — as well as with international incidents such as Haiti — there has been great interest among the public to be involved in crisis response. A key question is how that asset should be managed. Should it be the government? The Red Cross? Other non-profits and faith-based institutions? Business? Or a combination of the four? One hugely promising initiative is CrisisCommons which over the past year has created groups of volunteers throughout the world to bring technology to bear on disaster response issues.

Fugate said that FEMA is considering major changes in the CERT program, including creating a shorter training course which could be offered to more Americans and significantly expanding training for schools and other youth groups in order to better imbed preparedness into society for the long-term. I’ve always felt that CERT training is less about the skills you learn and more about awareness about the community and the various emergency authorities (and identifying citizen crisis organizers in advance). To me, CERT is just basic citizenship training for the 21st Century, which I think every American should get a chance to receive. I might suggest that the smaller reduced curriculum be called something along the lines of “Citizen Resilience Training”.

18) ESTABLISH AN OFFICIAL PREPAREDNESS DAY — Create a National Preparedness Day to focus public attention before disasters, including briefing citizens, conducting drills, and filling emergency kits. A helpful model is Japan’s Disaster Prevention Day held on September 1st, the anniversary of the catastrophic 1923 Tokyo earthquake. Earlier this month, 670,000 Japanese participated in emergency drills around the country. China, since its 8.0-magnitude 2008 Sichuan Province earthquake, has also held two national disaster prevention days with nationwide drills.

If we as a nation feel it is really important for the public to develop emergency plans, it would be far more effective if everyone was doing that at the same time — rather than asking individuals to do it on their own. This ‘preparedness day’ would also be the time that we all asked the questions about planning then practiced and updated those plans. It would be useful for both responders and the public. I might suggest September 11th be made the U.S.’s official Day. It would seem to be appropriate to honor the memories of those who died by action, particularly something aimed at making sure America is never as unprepared again.

19) CREATE CITIZEN PREPAREDNESS OFFICE – Establishing a national citizen preparedness/resilience office to highlight and help coordinate efforts around the U.S. and ensure citizen preparedness remains a priority. Right now, there is not an identifiable place in the federal government that has responsibility for coordinating the public’s role in preparedness. Work with American Red Cross to create an effective advocate for the general public on emergency preparedness in the same way disabled and pet groups have done for the disaster needs of their communities over the past several years.

20) BUNDLE CITIZEN PREPAREDNESS PROPOSALS TOGETHER INTO “CITIZEN PREPAREDNESS INITIATIVE” – For too long, well meaning public preparedness efforts have gotten lost or have been ignored by the public. That’s in large part because they have not been packaged and presented as being specifically directed to citizens. But if the government would assemble these small disparate proposals listed above into an overall citizen preparedness package it would have a better chance of getting attention and gaining some traction. Ultimately, making inroads on citizen preparedness is less a matter of money than it is of focus and attention.

It’s surprising for a number of reasons: natural disasters and terrorism dominate the headlines and will continue to for the foreseeable future; citizen preparedness is pretty much unassailable, bipartisan, patriotic and community-building topic; and even the smallest interest in Washington has at least one political champion (but not public preparedness). And, with much to do, there is a great opportunity to have a positive policy and political impact.

Yet, there is no elected official who has taken the lead on the issue which is one of the reasons why the nation still has not made appropriate progress on it. Citizen preparedness requires some political leader who will make sure it is not ignored in the legislative process as it has been to date. In fact, I would argue the lack of political leadership is one reason why citizen preparedness has not received requisite attention from the government, the media and the public.

So, is there any elected official is interested in the job? Or, do readers have any ideas of who should do it?

One such idea — streamlining the onerous Congressional oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — was discussed in a recent National Public Radio story, “Who Oversees Homeland Security? Um, Who Doesn’t?”

Currently, there are 108 U.S. House & Senate committees, subcommittees and caucuses that get briefings or hear testimony from DHS officials on Capitol Hill. There is bipartisan agreement from Homeland Security officials from both the Bush and Obama Administrations that the present  setup not only takes up too much time but more importantly also leads to policy confusion. Streamlining oversight was actually a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission in 2004, but no action has been forthcoming. (And, in fact, the number of congressional panels has gone up from 86 to the current 108 since then.) According to the NPR piece:

Advocates of streamlining, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) who chairs the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, say there is a perfectly good model for overseeing the sprawling Department of Homeland Security. It’s the way the Congress oversees the Defense Department.

“We have one Senate Armed Services Committee,” he says. “It oversees the entire Department of Defense, which has a budget, oh probably 15 times the size of the DHS budget. So this is doable.”

Despite the bipartisan agreement that the current oversight does not serve the nation’s security or preparedness, Lieberman told NPR he doesn’t expect any action. That is, he says, unless the president and the Homeland Security secretary choose to make a big issue of it.

Or, I would add, if individual citizens also tell their elected representatives they support a change.

The 108 Congressional committees, subcommittees and caucuses that officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security must report to (Graphic: Adrienne Wollman/NPR)

Those provisions are part of comprehensivelegislation addressing the WMD threat which is based largely on the recommendations of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism’s final report, “World At Risk.”

Of most interest to this blog, the bill has several provisions that deal specifically with public information, a significant focus of the WMD Commission report and its chairman Bob Graham.

The House legislation, sponsored by Rep. William Pascrell (D-NJ) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY), joins a Senate WMD bill. Both aim to codify many of the WMD Commission recommendations. This bill’s submission comes two days after a top DHS official said in a speech that the U.S. has “to start thinking very seriously about what we would actually do the day after [a nuclear or biological] attack”.

The public information provisions, according to the bill’s summary, are:

SEC. 2121. Communication of Threat Information and Alerts. This subsection directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with appropriate Federal agencies, to ensure that homeland security information concerning terrorist threats deemed to be credible is provided to State, local, and tribal authorities and to the public within the United States, as appropriate. (ADDRESSES WORLD AT RISK RECOMMENDATION 13.)

SEC. 2122. Individual and Community Preparedness for WMD. This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to assist State, local, and tribal governments in improving and promoting individual and community preparedness and collective response to WMD and terrorist attacks against the nation. The FEMA Administrator shall develop and disseminate guidelines and checklists of recommended actions, compile and distribute best practices, provide training materials, and conduct outreach efforts for individual and community prevention and preparedness. (ADDRESSES WORLD AT RISK RECOMMENDATIONS 1-5 AND 13.)

SEC. 210. Communications Planning for WMD Information Dissemination. This section requires the Secretary, acting through the FEMA Administrator, in consultation with State, local, and tribal governments and in coordination with the heads of other appropriate Federal Departments and agencies, to develop a communications plan for providing information to the public related to preventing, preparing for, and responding to attacks with WMD and acts of terrorism. The FEMA Administrator shall incorporate this plan into FEMA operational plans. This section also directs the FEMA Administrator to develop and disseminate pre-scripted messages and message templates to State, local, and tribal officials so that they can incorporate them into emergency plans, and quickly disseminate critical information to the public in anticipation or in the immediate aftermath of a WMD attack or terrorist incident. (ADDRESSES WORLD AT RISK RECOMMENDATION 13.)

Another important aspect of the bill with direct relevance to the public is the question of how “countermeasures” would be distributed to citizens after (or possibly) before an attack. The bill requires the Administration to come up with a strategy on that question:

SEC. 301. National Medical Countermeasure Dispensing Strategy. This section requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the heads of other appropriate Federal Departments and agencies, to develop and implement a National Medical Countermeasure Dispensing Strategy to enhance preparedness and collective response to an attack on humans or animals with a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agent. (ADDRESSES WORLD AT RISK RECOMMENDATION 1-5.)

The speech was reported in an article by Martin Matishak on the Global Security Newswire:

While preventing a strike involving an unconventional weapon is “absolutely to be preferred, we do have to start thinking very seriously about what we would actually do the day after an attack,” Tara O’Toole, the department’s undersecretary for science and technology, said during an event at the University of California’s Washington campus.

“We could recover from an improvised nuclear device attack but to mitigate the death and suffering and the economic and social consequences we have to … start equating the American public with the notion we could recover,” she told the audience. Advance preparation “is something that we have to take seriously and is a very difficult point to sell to Congress, particularly in these highly pressured economic times,” according to O’Toole. ”God knows these preparations must be affordable,” she added.

A bipartisan group of members of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee will introduce a bill tomorrow to implement the recommendations of the WMD Commission. The legislation will aim to improve U.S. efforts to prevent, deter, detect, and respond to a WMD attack. In its final report, the Commission emphasized the need to educate the public on these threats along the lines that O’Toole mentioned in her speech.

The article continues:

Today, the government’s responses to a nuclear or biological attack contain many similar elements. They call for the federal government to be in charge of the response and include immediate measures like medical attention for the sick and injured and detection of the source of the attack to properly training first responders to operate within a contaminated area. Longer-term issues include decontamination of the impacted zone….

Earlier this year, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism gave the Obama administration an “F” grade for bioterrorism defense, saying the United States does not have the capability to rapidly recognize, respond to and recover from a disease-based attack (see GSN, Jan. 26). Last week, the Justice Department inspector general reported that the the agency’s WMD response efforts are severely lacking.

O’Toole said the government has a “better shot” at preventing a nuclear attack than its disease-spreading counterpart.”The difficulty of detecting, interdicting and attributing biological attacks is very, very serious and we have to, particularly in the realm of biological weapons, be prepared to respond to these attacks,” she said, referring to pursuing the perpetrators of a possible strike….

O’Toole said there are several myths in Washington about biological terrorism, including that it is too hard to prepare for; that an attack would be similar in scope to the 2001 anthrax mailings; and that infection could be countered using the antibiotic ciprofloxacin.

At the hearing, Bill Jenkins Jr. from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) presented a preliminary report, Emergency Management Preliminary Observations on FEMA’s Community Preparedness Programs Related to the National Preparedness System, which said that FEMA does not currently have an overall strategic plan for community preparedness or the ability to accurately measure the performance of its various citizen readiness initiatives.

“The operating budgets for community preparedness programs currently represent less than one-half of 1 percent of FEMA’s total budget,” the report noted. “In fiscal year 2009, FEMA’s overall budget was about $7.9 billion, of which about $5.8 million was dedicated to operating community preparedness programs and $2.1 million was for the Ready Campaign.”

FEMA’s Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness Timothy Manning who also testified on the panel, said he not yet had a chance to closely examine the brand new GAO report (though he said he didn’t disagree with much of Jenkins’ testimony to the Subcommittee). And in his own written testimony, Manning made this instructive statement: ”Since September 11, 2001, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the United States has invested tens of billions of dollars in bolstering government’s [his italics] preparedness, while paying little attention to personal and community preparedness.”

At the end of the hearing, Cuellar requested that Manning over the next two weeks develop a preliminary outline of a FEMA strategic plan for community and citizen preparedness that will include the vision, objectives and ways to measure success, and return to the Subcommittee to present it. Cuellar said he wasn’t blaming Manning, who was confirmed just five months ago, and the new FEMA management for the lack of a strategic plan. But by putting a quick turnaround deadline on the request, the Congressman wanted to underscore the need for fast action and for renewed focus on the issue.

Earlier in the week, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano delivered a major speech on preparedness to mark the end of National Preparedness Month. She said that in order to improve our nation’s readiness all Americans should “raise your hand and ask, ‘What’s our plan?’” at meetings of their local community organizations. In some ways, Rep. Cuellar did exactly that at the Subcommittee hearing in regard to the nation’s overall community preparedness plan.

In his testimony, Manning made this pledge: “Increasing individual and community preparedness and resiliency is a FEMA priority; it is also a national priority, and I will make it a personal priority during my tenure.”

The hearing was called in part to examine a recent Citizen Corps survey which had many interesting findings (most of which highlighted shortcomings in public preparedness) and a number of useful recommendations (most of which urged far more attention be given to the subject).

Also testifying at the hearing were Suzy C. DeFrancis, Chief Public Affairs Officer, American Red Cross and Wendy Smith, Assistant City Manager, McAllen, Texas.

In his opening remarks, Cuellar mentioned a recent post from this blog, “On Sept 11, Some Ideas To Improve Emergency Preparedness & Engagement,” and introduced it into the hearing record.

In a statement after the hearing, Cuellar explained why he requested Manning produce a preliminary plan and return to the Subcommittee within a couple weeks:

“There is a new administration overseeing FEMA and I look forward to seeing their vision for how we can create a national preparedness strategy which puts an emphasis on citizen preparedness…It’s been eight years since the attacks of 9/11 and while we’ve been fortunate to not experience an event as devastating we see local emergencies unfolding across the country everyday. Fires, floods, tornadoes, snow storms, hurricanes. During these events, Americans continue to show they’re willing to respond when disaster strikes…We need FEMA to draft a strategy on how we harness that willingness to contribute before the crisis occurs.”

In fact, even the events of the past two weeks — significant terrorism arrests in several parts of the nation, major flooding in Georgia and other Southeastern states, the American Samoa tsunami, Asian earthquakes and H1N1 spreading in all 50 states — would seem to only reinforce the need for bolstering community preparedness. And, with all these crises in the news, one might have thought this hearing would have received a good deal of attention. Yet, there was only one reporter there (Matthew Korade from CQ Homeland Security), which just seems to highlight one theme of the hearing that despite the apparent importance of community and individual preparedness the subject is often overlooked.

“The Weapons of Mass Destruction Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2009″ aims to implement the recommendations of the Congressionally-mandated WMD Commission which released its report, “World At Risk” last year in an effort to help the nation prevent and prepare for terrorist attacks from biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The Lieberman/Collins legislation would:

· Require DHS to designate the most dangerous pathogens which have significant potential to be used effectively in a biological attack.
· Require DHS to set new security standards for labs using the most dangerous pathogens, including risk assessments, personnel reliability programs, and staff training.
· Require a national strategy for dispensing antibiotics and other medicines to the public and expand a pilot program for using the Postal Service to dispense them.
· Require communications plans to convey instructions to the public – including whether to evacuate or shelter-in-place – in the critical moments after an attack.
· Support a National Bioforensics Analysis Center to identify the perpetrator of a WMD attack rapidly.
· Provide personal medical kits to emergency responders in order to enable them to respond quickly to a WMD attack without jeopardizing their own safety.
· Require DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to provide better terrorism threat and risk assessments to the public.
· Promote citizen and community preparedness for WMD attacks, including by authorizing grants to States.

WMD Commission’s report put a special emphasis on the public’s role in WMD preparedness. In fact, The report’s final chapter, titled “The Role of the Citizen”, recommends that “the next administration must work to openly and honestly engage the American citizen, encouraging a participatory approach to meeting the challenges of the new century.”

Commission Co-Chair Bob Graham told me in an interview that educating Americans on the threat of WMD’s should be an “urgent” priority. Part of that education process I believe is to further explain the term WMD and how some threats would cause far more destruction than others. I think this legislation is an important part of a new effort to improve the nation’s citizen preparedness and engagement, and I will be following its progress closely.

“H.R. 5890, the Citizen and Community Preparedness Act of 2008″ passed the Homeland Security Committee’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Henry Cuellar D-TX), by a vote of 8-0 and was referred to the full Homeland Security Committee for consideration.

Among its provisions is to formally authorize the Citizen Corps, a federal program,  created after 9/11 to help coordinate volunteer initiatives in community emergency preparedness as well as other activities aimed at helping people contribute to making their communities safer.

One of those initiatives is the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program which would receive more funding under the bill. As a CERT member, I can testify to the program’s constructive role thus far and its great potential to further involve the citizenry in their community’s security.

 (New York City firefighters arrive to rescue NYC-CERT members, including some from my CERT team, playing the role of ‘civilians’ after mock chemical attack on a mock subway during a emergency preparedness drill earlier this month. It is one of the responsibilities of CERT teams to help first responders in their drills and then in the case of an emergency)

This bill is one step towards bringing more attention and funding to programs that engage the public in emergency preparedness. I am optimistic it is a subject that will be part of the upcoming presidential campaign discussion as both presumptive nominees have made  ‘citizen involvement’ and ’giving back’ significant thematic parts of their platforms.

The legislation would also create a pilot program to enhance citizen preparedness at primary and secondary schools, as well as on university or college campuses, something that I think is very important because a) preparedness is a generational effort and b) a great way to influence adult behavior is through their children.

The bipartisan support for this legislation underscores the political opportunity at present to boost citizen preparedness. And, at the hearing, the ranking Republican member, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) made a very illustrative point about the importance of citizen preparedness: ”Emergency responders make up less than one percent of the U.S. population, so the federal government has a big stake in making sure that ordinary citizens are as prepared as they can be well in advance of any crisis or emergency.”

Thanks largely to the excellent coverage on the blog Homeland Security Watch I have been closely following the “Resilient Homeland” hearings, particularly as they relate to citizen preparedness.

Though much of the discussion during the proceedings has focused on increasing the resilience of the federal government, states and localities, academia, and the private sector, several witnesses and legislators highlighted the role of the average citizen in developing a more resilient nation. 

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Steve Flynn is the most high profile advocate for the concept of societal resilience, which he has outlined among other places in his terrific book, Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding A Resilient Nation. One of (if not the) most important points Flynn has made is the need to engage the public in their own homeland defense (as the title of his House testimony “Tapping America’s Greatest National Asset: An Informed and Engaged Civil Society” indicates). He spoke to the “Resilient Homeland” Committee’s Intelligence Subcommittee hearing ”How DHS Intelligence Should Empower America to Prepare for, Prevent and Withstand Terrorist Attacks.” His conclusion nicely sums up how important (and overlooked thus far) he views the public’s role in ensuring a resilient nation.

“…America’s greatest asset has always been and remains the industry, inventiveness and patriotism of its people. Actively, engaging the public in the work of managing the hazards of our post-9/11 world must be the top priority for the next president and the U.S. Congress.”

Though I anticipated Flynn’s emphasis on informing and activating the public in his remarks, I was surprised (pleasantly) by the testimony of DHS Assistant Secretary of Policy Stewart Baker. I was struck by the importance Baker put on that objective as well:

“At the end of the day, building a resilient homeland requires us to trust our citizens. We must inform them — and trust them to inform others. We must equip them with the right tools and technologies — and trust them to use those tools to help themselves and others.”

“Ordinary American citizens are our strongest asset in protecting the nation and ensuring our common security. In order to maximize this potential, however, citizens need information so they can make informed decisions. We can unlock powerful, self-organizing responses to disasters if we can get good information to indviduals quickly. New technologies are creating new ways to deliver good information about disasters to the people who need it most. Our job is to identify these technologies and deploy them where they will do the most good.”

Baker’s focus on empowering the public with information in part through the use of new technologies has been an important theme of this blog from its inception. Seeing the DHS’ top policy official make that a focus of his testimony indicates a clear move in that direction from all parts of the homeland security spectrum.

Resilience is a term I believe (and hope) we are going to hear a lot about during the presidential campaign. Though, as Secretary Baker notes, the term is less important than the objective:

“Some say that we need to characterize our national efforts to secure the homeland as “resilience,” as opposed to ‘preparedness’, or even ‘homeland security’. We should not spend too much time on a purely semantic argument, but there is no doubt that resilience — described by some as our ability to ‘bend not break’, or the ability to absorb the impact of a catastrophe without losing the capacity to function — represents an important dimension in our security efforts.”

 

 

In fact, though yesterday’s hearing was called “Nuclear Terrorism: Providing Medical Care and Meeting Basic Needs in the Aftermath”, a good deal of the witness statements focused on public communications shortfalls. There was a consensus in the hearing that there is a real need for far better public communications before and during a nuclear attack. According to Committee Chairman Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) improving that area could ”save a lot of lives.”

The hearings have reinforced my strong belief there is a need to develop a new strategic plan for public communications before and during a nuclear attack but also for any catastrophic emergency.

At today’s hearing, witnesses agreed that the American public is not at all prepared or informed enough about the nuclear threat. There were a number of reasons discussed to explain for the current situation. But I was struck most by Senator Lieberman’s observation that emergency response officials — both national and local — shy away from talking about the possibility of a nuclear incident with the public. In fact, he observed that officials are very happy to discuss hurricane plans with their citizenry but not other more ’scary’ threats like nuclear terrorism. It is something that I have seen as well and have expressed concern about.

In his testimony, Joe Becker of the Red Cross pointed out:

“The investment in telling American citizens ahead of time what to do in a nuclear scenario has not been made on the appropriate scale. We need to make it easy for Americans to know — and to have accessible in advance — what steps to take in a nuclear terrorism event.”

Ira Helfand of Physicians for Social Responsibility offered a specific example in his statement:

“We need to have in place an effective means of communication an order to evacuate or to shelter the public, and we need to do enough prior education so that people ordered to shelter in place will be able to understand why this is the best thing to do instead of jumping in their cars and trying to drive as fast as they can away from that terrible mushroom cloud hanging over their city.”

Columbia University’s Irwin Redliner pointed out the need to correct some some myths about a nuclear attack, including “The Myth of Extreme Improbability” and ”The Myth of Planning Futility”, so the public (and their leaders) understood the situation. In the questioning, Redliner even offered some concrete tips (ie. don’t stare into the fireball) about reacting to nuclear explosion that he has told his kids who live in New York and that he feels every American (including Senator Lieberman’s kids who live there as well) should be told in advance.

As these hearings have underscored, there is a real need to look at our existing disaster communications for citizens — from DHS, CDC, FEMA, states, cities, the Red Cross, etc. — and begin to build a new model reflective of the threats and challenges of the 21st Century.