I wanted to post the article, because it has been a regular theme of this blog that trying to convince and activating the public on emergency readiness, the disaster preparedness community could learn from the climate change movement. I made this point in a post last year:

The global warming campaign can and should be a model for citizen emergency preparedness in a variety of ways, including getting kids to lead the way and more extensively involving the media and entertainment industries. But preparedness will also require the same kind of governmental and corporate commitment, high profile public spokespeople and incentives that has boosted the climate change effort. Yes, global warming has some skeptics, but so does emergency preparedness — ironically they are usually not the same people which may conveniently add to its complementary synergy.

In an interview last year, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff expressed to me his frustration that disaster preparedness had not received the same public attention as climate change:

“I’ll tell you what’s fascinating. If you look at like this whole global warming thing. At some point, it captured the imagination of somebody and it became a big media thing. And then all of a sudden, every kid was coming home with information about global warming. And I wish we could get that media attentiveness in the area of preparedness, so that kids come – because this – actually, this is an area where it could make a difference if everybody had the plans and the kit and everything. You could actually see every individual could make a difference.”

Hopefully, the increased connection that emergency managers are viewing between the two issues which Pittman writes about in her article will be useful in making some new inroads with the public on preparedness.

The global warming campaign can and should be a model for civilian emergency preparedness in a variety of ways, including as Chertoff noted somewhat enviously, getting kids to lead the way and involving the media. But preparedness will also require the same kind of governmental and corporate commitment, high profile public spokespeople and some governmental incentives that has boosted the climate change effort.

The two campaigns are complementary and should be more 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.

There are 27 items on Ready.gov’s list of supplies to incorporate into an emergency kit, divided by recommended supplies (12) and additional items to consider (15). At the All-Hazards, All-Stakeholders Summit on March 25 in Seattle, former FEMA Region VIII Administrator Garry Briese said the cost of these items can exceed $375 and many require replenishment, like water and food. He said although many emergency managers take comfort in telling the public to purchase these items, a community’s economic realities need to be considered when emergency supply lists are developed.

“I think we need to continue personal preparedness, absolutely, but I want people to work on the top 10 things we want them to have,” Briese said. “I don’t care if they have plastic wrap and duct tape. How do we simplify our message? We’re asking too much and sending mixed messages to the public.”

As Pittman notes in her article, some emergency management officials have been raising questions about the personal preparedness recommendations now being given to the public. For the past few years, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Ready.Gov and the American Red Cross (along with many local authorities) have used the “Get A Kit. Make A Plan & Be Informed” framework, which was developed to keep the call to action as streamlined and consistent as possible.

In fact, the nation’s top emergency management official, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, last year in public statements began tweaking that three-step message. He’s been putting an emphasis on asking Americans to “make a plan”, but largely omitting mention of a “getting a kit” and adding “getting trained,” particularly in CPR & CERT. The theme of the upcoming National Preparedness Month is “Plan Now. Work Together. Be Ready,” though the ‘kit, plan, informed’ slogan is still used on the Ready.Gov site.

• Get A Kit
• Make A Plan
• Be Informed

From the Ready.Gov website

The push back, as Pittman’s piece highlights, comes from officials who have seen their pleas rebuffed (or just plain ignored) by most of the public. Even though the Get A Kit, Make A Plan, Be Informed approach was developed to keep things simple for the public, it still has turned out to be too much financially and logistically.

In an article I wrote a couple years ago for The Washington Post Outlook Section, I cited a Red Cross survey that found 93% of Americans are not prepared for disasters. It’s an eye catching statistic. But in about eight years of reporting on this issue, I don’t think I’ve found any of those 7% who are fully prepared. Most every American is somewhere in the 93%, which is where we will always be. The paradox of preparedness is that you’re never going to be fully prepared for disaster, but you are now probably more prepared than you think.

The fact is that many Americans have some of the elements of the recommended supply kit, and it is often just a matter of taking stock, organizing, and/or updating them. Further, the reality is that most of us by our life experiences and skills are prepared to some extent for crisis and are resilient by nature. A key question is determining what can be done to best bolster that existing readiness. To me, it starts with figuring out what we’re trying to do in, and then bringing to bear all aspects of society to achieve it.

From the American Red Cross website

First, it’s time to define — or more precisely redefine — what preparedness means when it comes to the public. What do we want everyone to have and know? What is feasible? Or maybe preparedness is not the right word. 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? If so, that too will require a clearer definition for what it means for the public. If we are serious about the public preparing for disasters (and it would seem based on recent events to be an important goal), then we need to reevaluate what is being asked of them.

The confusion and lack of attention on public preparedness is not because the subject is unimportant to emergency responders, but instead is largely a result of so many other (and often more pressing) responsibilities on their plates. And, it is not as if the public or their elected representatives are banging down their doors asking for a more focused and useful preparedness message. Also, I think there has been some hesitation about talking about the terrorism part of preparedness for fear of being called a fearmonger.

But if government officials are serious about increasing public preparedness, new focus and attention should be given to the subject. I would suggest DHS/FEMA first put together a group of experts from stakeholders inside and out of government both in preparedness content (emergency management, homeland security, public health, etc) and communications platforms, including social media. With such an initiative, I think there is a way to create a new definition of preparedness that is useable and feasible and will increase the resilience of the public in crisis situations.

We use ―citizens and ― members of the public interchangeably to support readability, though the latter is the most accurate term. When readability allows, we privilege ―members of the public in acknowledgement that not all people who are affected by emergencies and other disruptions are accorded national citizenship. In fact, vulnerable populations, which include non-citizens, are disproportionately affected by such situations. Tourists and visitors to foreign countries are also affected by disruptions, and usually have fewer resources for reacting to events than residents.

I have never explicitly clarified the use of “citizen” on my blog, and — as I use the word in practically every post — I probably should have posted a similar note at some point. But what I found particularly interesting about the footnote is the point that “tourists” and “visitors from foreign countries” are often particularly at the center of crises (and have less resources to deal with them). I’ve written about non-citizens living in the U.S. but had never thought about tourists though I should have, because:

1) it stares me right in the face every year when I distribute ReadyNY preparedness guides to tourists in Manhattan’s Columbus Circle on “National Night Out” for CERT, and

2) even more recently, the The Times Square bombing attempt is a perfect example of a crisis situation in which many of the people at the site were from out of town which has implications for the response/evacuation. Similar situations are likely going forward as many potential terror targets are also often places where tourists are apt to be. The fact is that many folks in the direct area of an incident do not know the environs or the usual information sources  and have not been exposed to any type of local preparedness/response messaging. That’s an important element to think about when it comes to public disaster response. And until reading the EPIC paper this week I really hadn’t.

Tourists and locals behind police barriers in Times Square after the attempting bombing there (credit: Daily News)