In this edition of the blog’s “What Should We Tell The Public?” video series, Holt recommends that citizens “do a risk analysis” of their area and then prepare for those risks. As part of that preparation, Holt recommends that people equip their cellphones in advance with important numbers such as the local police’s non-emergency contact and the U.S. government’s terrorism tips line. And, he suggests that citizens have a responsibility to contact their local, state and federal government officials proactively to tell them what information they need to be ready for emergencies.

Jack Holt, Senior Strategist for Emerging Media, U.S. Department of Defense (”What Should We Tell The Public?”)

Exploring the Effectiveness of Transit Security Awareness Campaigns in the San Francisco Bay Area finds: ”none of the five agencies analyzed for this study measures the effectiveness of their campaigns. Whereas they all have a similar goal—to increase passenger awareness about security issues—little evidence therefore exists confirming whether they are achieving this goal.”

But also according to the report: “A positive finding of this research is the consistency with which Bay Area transit organizations address the need for passenger awareness as part of their overall security program.”

It is an issue that I have brought up on the blog previously. While the awareness of these “See Something, Say Something” campaigns are up, I have yet to see real data that indicates how well they are actually working — and could be improved. This study reinforces my inclination and the need for study and specific instructions.

The report offers some suggestions on authorities can better establish metrics for determining success for the awareness campaigns, including surveying customers. Thanks to Homeland Security Digital Library where I saw this study originally.

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.

The South Carolina Homeland Security “See Something, Say Something” binoculars.

Be Ready SC staffers distributed hundreds of the binoculars at yesterday’s University of South Carolina-Georgia football game. Chris Perez, the Homeland Security Office’s Citizen Preparedness Coordinator, told me that the response “was really positive…even from Georgia fans.”

Perez that the idea for the binoculars came as the office was trying to figure out something that would be interesting enough for people to want to keep. “At first we thought about promotional sunglasses…I found those cardboard binoculars and they were perfect because they work surprisingly well for an affordable item AND they fold flat, which encourages people to put them in their pockets and use them again.”

The Be Ready SC booth at the game.

The state is also producing a series of “See Something, Say Something” instructional videos. And, Be Ready SC recruited South Carolina football coach Steve Spurrier — whose Gamecocks beat the Georgia Bulldogs 17-6 yesterday — to do an audio preparedness PSA (below):

South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier’s audio emergency preparedness PSA.

And, Napolitano’s message was aimed equally at the general public as the uniformed services:

“So tomorrow is also a reminder that each of us bears a unique sense of responsibility to one another, to our communities, to our states, and to our nation. Whether you are a police officer on the street, a firefighter, a doctor, a businessman, a student, or a stay-at-home parent, you – we – are the very backbone of our nation’s homeland security. We are all interconnected in the effort to protect this country…

Therefore, over the past year and a half, I have made one of my very top priorities for DHS to get information, to get tools, and to get resources out of Washington, DC, and into the hands of the men and women serving on the front lines. That includes you – the first responders – but it also includes citizens, community groups, and our partners in the private sector.”

The speech follows up another address she made last year here in New York on the role of the public in homeland security at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“I said in that speech last year that we had an ‘urgent need to refocus our counter-terror approach to make it a shared endeavor to make it more layered, networked, and resilient – to make it smarter and more adaptive.’ I said we needed to enlist a broader societal response to the evolving threats we’re facing – and that requires strengthening partnerships, and focusing on values like resilience and shared responsibility. And I said that individuals, families, communities, and businesses all have important roles to play.

This represents a shift for our country. In a sense, this harkens back to when we drew on the tradition of civil defense and preparedness that predated today’s concerns. In another way, however, it makes all of us responsible for being informed about the kinds of Twenty-First Century threats we face today.

Building a culture of preparedness and resilience across the country is a significant endeavor. And it is, indeed, still a work in progress. But I’m here today – a year later – to say that we have made progress. And we need to be making progress because the myriad threats against our nation have not gone away. Indeed, they have grown even more dynamic. So, I want to share that progress with you, and let you know what I see coming down the road for us.”

Napolitano acknowledges that this topic “may not generate big headlines” [except of course on this blog]. Saying “homeland security begins with hometown security,” Napolitano touted the role of the public and spoke about expanding the “See Something, Say Something” program nationally:

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano inscribes ‘God Bless America’ and signs her name at the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“We’re taking other steps to support individuals and families, citizens and communities. Recall that it was a New York street vendor who tipped off a policeman about the bombing attempt in Times Square. It was a group of passengers on Flight 253 who intervened to stop the bombing attempt on Christmas Day. The goal of the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign is making people more aware, but also providing them with the tools they need to take action if they see something suspicious.

Through this campaign, we’re raising awareness of potential terrorist tactics, and emphasizing the importance of reporting suspicious activity to law enforcement. But that’s just one side of the equation. We also see it as a partnership between citizens and local police.

To that end, we’re also expanding the National Suspicious Activity Reporting, or SAR, initiative into a greater resource for front-line security personnel. The National SAR initiative creates a standard process for law enforcement in over two dozen states and cities to identify and report suspicious activity so it can be shared nationally to identify broader trends. We’re working with our partners in the Department of Justice, which runs SAR, and widening it to include fusion centers, transit police, and other groups….”

Napolitano also emphasized the concept of “resilience” which will increasingly be a central tenet of the Administration:

“We’ve been looking at a number of ways to create incentives to foster this kind of resilience. In the coming days, we’ll be releasing details of a new national award that will recognize people, organizations, or communities who have exhibited an extraordinary commitment to resilience. We have produced what we call a Community Resilience Registry where communities can input information on roughly a hundred different data points to develop a ‘resilience profile’ of their community.

With your help, DHS will keep supporting those of you on the front lines, and keep strengthening the networks that will keep us secure. We’ll all build, and be part, of a bigger, smarter, stronger team. And that’s how we’ll keep America safe.

In concluding, Napolitano returned to a point that she has been making throughout her tenure that she cannot guarantee that the U.S. will not be attacked again, but we are resilient enough to bounce back:

America is a strong nation. And we are a resilient nation. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have to examine and recommit to the sources of that strength and resilience from time to time. As I’ve said before, we can’t guarantee there won’t be another successful terrorist attack. The threats we face are evolving, and enemies like al Qaeda and its affiliates are determined. We can’t seal our country under a glass dome.

But if that attack comes, our enemies will still not have succeeded, because our nation is too strong, and too resilient, to ever cower before a small group of violent extremists. We have always rebounded from hardships and challenges, and come together as a people to overcome disasters, attacks, and war. And we will do so again.

Today, on the eve of the ninth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, I can pledge to you this: we will do everything in our power to prevent attacks, and to prepare ourselves. At DHS, a fundamental part of that obligation is to get information, tools, and resources into the hands of people who can use them to help all of us be more secure.

To field that bigger team – to enlist individuals, local communities, businesses, law enforcement and first responders in a network of shared responsibility – to enlist the nation in its own collective security. It’s the American way: because we all face the threats of today’s world, as well as the opportunities it brings, we’re all in this together.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has just begun rolling out a national “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign, and I saw its new advertising posters in many of the cars. I had been at DHS headquarters earlier in the day hearing more about the new launch from officials managing the program. They weren’t sure how extensive distribution has gotten thus far, and my e-mail tip confirmed that the ads were at least up all over my train. Below are a couple of the new posters hot off the presses:

A new “If You See Something, Say Something” poster just going up on Amtrak trains aimed at the public.

The national expansion of New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign is part of DHS’s new effort to support state and local law enforcement, community groups and the public in identifying and mitigating terror threats whose theme is “Homeland security begins with hometown security”.

The new measures are based on recommendations made by the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) “Countering Violent Extremism” Working Group—comprised of chiefs of police, sheriffs, community leaders and homeland security experts—on ways DHS can better support community-based efforts to combat violent extremism in the United States.

Expanding the community and citizen role in homeland security has been encouraged by the blog, and I think it is a terrific development. Most of the new initiatives are directed towards bolstering the work of state and local law enforcement organizations — including a series of regional summits beginning this fall on successful community-oriented policing and other crime reduction programs. But Napolitano also announced some proposals focused directly on the public, most prominently the expansion of “See Something, Say Something”.

In the coming months, DHS will continue to rollout the campaign nationally the U.S. with public education materials, the poster ads and other outreach tools to engage travelers, businesses, community organizations and public and private sector employees to remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping the country safe. The focus on the state, local and public reflects an increased threat coming out of communities from around the U.S., which might not fully hit the national intelligence radar.

Poster for general aviation locations

The campaign posters will begin to become ubiquitous in the transportation sector, including on trains, general aviation sites and soon on buses and subways. It has been developed to be customizable by location. For example, in cities one of the taglines is: ”did you see something suspicious commuting to work or grabbing some lunch” along with a local contact phone number. Officials from many sports facilities and college campuses have also expressed interest in taking advantage of the campaign for their locations.

The new blue “if you SEE something logo SAY something” logo — which is a little softer and less visibly urgent than the original New York executions with yellow background and block black lettering (but now also blue) — was created by a designer at the Transportation Security Administration. If you’ve ’seen’ the new ads yourself, what do you ’say’ about them?

According to an article on the Army’s website:

In February, the Department of the Army determined Anti-Terrorism Awareness Month would be held in August each year — a month Army leaders have deemed an appropriate reminder of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

“August is a very appropriate month, given that it’s just a month before September, keeping in mind 9/11, and also September is National Preparedness Month,” said Brig. Gen. Colleen L. McGuire, provost marshal general of the Army.

The link to National Preparedness Month raises the question whether an Anti-Terrorism Awareness Month would be useful for the civilian world as well, particularly as the Department of Homeland Security ramps up a national “See Something, Say Something” terrorism tips campaign. Another possibility would be to integrate more anti-terrorism content into National Preparedness Month activities in September.

Throughout August, according to the article, Army bases across the nation will be promoting the observance by using posters, banners and displays:

“Here’s an opportunity to focus on anti-terrorism –- particularly for children and Family members who live on an installation,” McGuire explained. “It gives them the chance to become acquainted with their neighbors and become more aware of their surroundings.”

Part of the anti-terrorism, or AT awareness campaign is a focus on Army iWatch –- a community program which encourages vigilance and proper reporting to base authorities.

Some of the suspicious behaviors iWatch asks Army community members to look for include people asking security-related questions, loitering, drawing or taking photos of important buildings or entry points, wearing bulky or baggy clothes, chemical smells, and unattended cars lefts in parking lots or no-parking zones.

“Homeland security begins with hometown security, and our efforts to confront threats in our communities are most effective when they are led by local law enforcement and involve strong collaboration with the communities and citizens they serve,” said Napolitano. The announcement came in conjunction with last evening’s “National Night Out”.

The new measures are based on recommendations made by the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) “Countering Violent Extremism” Working Group—comprised of chiefs of police, sheriffs, community leaders and homeland security experts—on ways DHS can better support community-based efforts to combat violent extremism in the United States. Secretary Napolitano asked the HSAC to work with state and local law enforcement, as well as relevant community groups to develop and provide these recommendations, six months ago.

The expansion of the community and citizen role in homeland security has been encouraged by the blog, and I think yesterday’s announcement is a terrific development.

Most of the new initiatives are directed towards bolstering the work of state and local law enforcement organizations — including a series of regional summits beginning this fall on successful community-oriented policing and other crime reduction programs. But Napolitano also announced some proposals focused directly on the public:

To increase public awareness and preparedness about signs of criminal activity and violent extremism, DHS continues to expand its national “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign in coordination with law enforcement, the private sector, and community groups, integrating this effort with the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative and the transportation, sports, travel, and law enforcement sectors.

In the coming months, DHS will continue to expand the campaign nationally with public education materials, advertisements and other outreach tools to engage travelers, businesses, community organizations and public and private sector employees to remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping the country safe.

And, I would suggest that DHS officials include the public, when possible, in some of the terror prevention information sharing programs for local and state law enforcement announced yesterday, such as:

DHS will produce a series of unclassified case studies examining recent incidents involving violent crime and terrorism to educate and inform state and local law enforcement personnel and community members about common behaviors and indicators exhibited by the suspects.

DHS will produce a series of intelligence products regarding tactics, techniques and plans of international and domestic terrorist organizations—including the recruitment and training of individuals living in the United States – to better inform state and local law enforcement personnel about threats facing the homeland and their local communities.

We will be continuing to closely cover these initiatives on the blog as they develop.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Washington, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier yesterday announced a series of new community-focused, anti-terror measures (Associated Press photo).

It’s an interesting piece about how this potential growth of domestic-based terrorism, but in this post I wanted to highlight a specific aspect of the article — why it is that U.S. officials when they warn the public about specific terrorism threat often feel they need to do it anonymously and as a result why they are generally unwilling to talk directly?

In the article, Hsu writes:

…attack plots against the United States have proliferated and grown more diverse. Over the past 18 months, the federal government has charged 34 U.S. citizens with direct involvement in terrorism. The Fort Hood, Tex., shootings in November, the May 1 Times Square car bombing attempt, and last year’s New York subway plot were each allegedly carried out by Americans inspired from or trained abroad.

The killing of many of al-Qaeda’s senior operatives has weakened the group, but the growing role of Americans may reflect the inability of its core leaders to mount more effective operations, authorities said. Still, even less sophisticated attacks can be deadly.

“The threat is complicated and diverse and in many ways more difficult for us to figure out,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said, speaking on condition of anonymity so he could freely discuss counterterrorism analysis. [my italics] “The training is quicker and tolerance [for less spectacular and successful plots] are much greater . . . but the likelihood of a mass 9/11-style attack is a lot smaller.”

Reading this struck me: why does that U.S. intelligence official need to speak on a “condition of anonymity” when all he or she is doing is informing the public and the media about the government’s best guess about future terrorism here. It would seem that this type of briefing would be best done by top leaders — including sometimes the President — who could bring attention to the subject, best instruct the public on what (if anything) they should be doing and thinking about the changing threat, and establish an open and trusted line of communication/dialogue with citizens on terrorism prevention and preparedness. Using anonymity makes it seems as somehow there is something wrong or secret about broadly informing the public about the nation’s terror situation

I’m not saying there necessarily is a lot of information that has to be disseminated to the public on this right now, but there is news (positive and negative) here on the changing scope of the terrorist threat, and I don’t understand why it cannot be done in a more planned, open and straightforward way rather than anonymously in response to a newspaper reporter.

My sense and hope is that Obama Administration as part of its development of a national See Something, Say Something” campaign and promise to provide a “clear appraisement” of terror threats will be providing more high profile briefings to the public and the media without the need for a condition for anonymity.

The senior class photo of terror suspect Zachary A. Chesser, 20, from Oakton, Virginia, arrested last month  (credit: Washington Post)

I am supportive of this new initiative. But I received two critical comments on the post, which I think nicely represent the skepticism that a good deal of the public has about these citizen terrorism awareness campaigns. They prompted me to write this separate post pointing out the difficult (yet do-able) challenge facing DHS and FEMA in designing both the content and then carefully implementing a meaningful program.

(This skepticism will only be increased by the publication this week of a major Washington Post series, “Top Secret America”, which will raise more questions among the public about the need to further expand security. Its thesis: ”The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.”)

The two comments I received last week on the blog post:

“Hmmm, to what extent do these programs produce valuable intelligence versus wasting law enforcement time and effort and infringing citizen privacy and rights by putting public security surveillance in the hands (and eyes) of untrained people.” (Roberto)

“FEMA is wasting tax money by interfering with local law enforcement citizens and law enforcement have already demonstrated capacity to respond but FEMA has not FEMA needs to do what it is qualified to do: write checks.” (Dr. Marchand)

These are typical of the reaction I hear from some Americans — coming from all political stripes — who question such a citizen role whether it be for philosophical or logistical reasons. It echoes the feedback Janet Napolitano heard last year at a major speech on public involvement in homeland security she made at the Council on Foreign Relations.

A small portion of her remarks that morning touched on her plans to have the agency take “a much closer look at how we can support and inform our greatest asset, individual citizens, and with them the private sector. You are the ones who know if something is not right in your communities, such as a suspicious package or unusual activity…with basic training, every one of us can become better first preventers as well as first responders.”

Afterwards, it was a little surprising but revelatory that the much of the question-and-answer portion was taken up by audience members expressing concern about that making Americans better “first preventers” might impinge on civil liberties. And, this was from a politically friendly and highly sophisticated crowd.

So, as DHS and FEMA start planning how to expand the program, I wanted to relay the input I have received on this issue. These comments have only reinforced my reporting that it will be challenging to develop and implement a program that really does capitalize on the public as a homeland asset but does so in a careful, sensitive and useful way. It will require research on how these unfamiliar threats should be best communicated to the public using new technologies.

It will need to show specifically how the public can be helpful in helping law enforcement and share more success stories as models. And, it should emphasize that any anti-terror initiative will ask the same things of the citizenry that many of us are already doing in our communities on crime prevention as part of efforts like Neighborhood Watch.

The Washington Post series will undoubtedly raise questions about creating even more security initiatives and might have an impact on the development of the national “See Something, Say Something” campaign. But I think that would be a mistake. There is a need to further involve the public as an asset in the nation’s homeland security. But what it does underscore is that any program needs to have a sharp focus, clear objectives, ongoing communication and followup if it is to work.

In order to help develop the new program, FEMA’s Individual and Community Preparedness Division is partnering with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to research how to improve the public’s response to suspicious activity. FEMA and IACP plan to present the research findings and recommendations at the police group’s Annual Conference in late October.

I think it is a terrific partnership which recognizes that the while the local “See Something, Say Something” campaigns are viewed as successful, law enforcement authorities are not yet fully tapping the public’s potential as a homeland security asset. The challenge is new, sensitive and requires some careful study both in the content and distribution which I expect it will receive from the joint FEMA/IACP research.

More details on the project should be forthcoming soon, and I will report on them here.

Napolitano made the announcement in New York City’s Penn Station at the beginning of a daylong train tour down the northeastern corridor highlighting rail security.

The “See Something” campaign was initially created by New York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority; it received a lot of attention recently when vendors in Times Square tipped off police to a bombing attempt.

According to the DHS press release:

In the coming months, DHS will expand the “See Something, Say Something” campaign nationally with public education materials, advertisements and other outreach tools to continue engaging travelers, businesses, community organizations, and public and private sector employees to remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping our country safe.

I think the expansion of the “See Something, Say Something” campaign is a terrific development that this blog has long been advocating for. I would suggest that the campaign be more specific and robust in explaining what the public should be seeing and saying if it is to be most effective. There is a need to better educate citizens about what “somethings” to look for in part by offering more instances of successful civilian tips.

In addition to the “See Something, Say Something” announcement, Napolitano held a swearing-in for the new head of the Transportation Security Administration John Pistole inside Penn Station waiting area.

What rankles Raymond W. Kelly? Two things, he tells me as we sip lukewarm coffee in his conference room on the 14th floor of One Police Plaza, the dilapidated police headquarters overlooking the Brooklyn Bridge.

The first, New York’s police commissioner tells me, is “incompetence,” an inescapable fact-of-life, or so it would seem, in any large bureaucracy (he has 50,000 employees).

A second is the media’s tendency to downplay New York’s hard-won victories against terrorism—the failure or foiling of some 11 serious plots against the city since 2001—by describing the would-be perpetrators as incompetent or stupid (my italics).

Faisal Shahzad, who was indicted on Thursday for trying to blow up his SUV in Times Square last month, was not a stupid bumbler, Mr. Kelly says. “The people who interviewed, interrogated him said he is very smart, and has a very keen memory.” Federal law enforcement officials say they are making good use of that memory, using information he’s been providing to help target terrorist recruiters, handlers and facilitators in Pakistan, where Mr. Shahzad went for training.

So why did Mr. Shahzad buy fertilizer that wouldn’t detonate? “He was forced to do . . . things . . . that reduced the potency of his device,” Mr. Kelly says, because “it’s hard to get explosive materials in this country.” That “led him to try to substitute materials.”

Earlier this month Mohamed Mahmood Alessa, 20, and Carlos Eduardo Almonte, 24, were arrested at JFK International Airport. They were en route to Somalia with the stated intention of joining an Islamic extremist group to kill American troops there. Yet a profile in the New York Times quoted anonymous friends who described them as “hapless blowhards, more pathetic than perilous.”

Kelly’s complaint to Miller about the media portraying terrorists as the ‘gang that couldn’t shoot straight’ to the public is similar to one he made to the author Chris Dickey last year in the book Securing The City. At that time, I recommended that Kelly and other law enforcement officials needed to be more open and candid about the seriousness of the terror threat if they want the media and the public to take it equally seriously.

Officials like Kelly are understandably concerned about (or being accused of) ‘fearmongering’ by talking too much about terrorism. However, when the government won’t talk about the terror threat then it shouldn’t be surprised if there are misperceptions in the media and public. But I would argue that by developing an ongoing, honest and transparent (when possible) dialogue would help address Kelly’s concern about the media and the public laughing off terrorism.

…was created to establish formal standards for reporting suspicious activity and information sharing between law enforcement agencies. SARs contain information that might suggest terrorist or other criminal planning or intelligence gathering activity. Alert citizens who notice suspicious activity possess critical knowledge, and this information can be used to uncover potential threats, if shared with the proper authorities.

Appropriately, privacy and civil liberty protections are critical SAR requirements. We have a duty to ensure that our policies against alleged criminals do not harm or alienate innocent people. In furtherance of these protections, SARs inherently support objective analysis. They are centered on activity; behavior is the driver, not race, nationality or religion.

Enhancing the SAR effort, the Los Angeles Police Department recently launched “iWatch.” This community initiative educates the public about suspicious behaviors and how to report them. A simple phone call or report may lead to actions that disrupt a terrorist attack. The iWatch program, easily adaptable to other municipalities, is expected to spread nationwide.

I was struck to read that Southers feels that iWatch-type programs — which give the public more information about what kind of terrorist behavior they should be noticing — will be implemented across the U.S. I think that would be a terrific development for which this blog has been advocating over the past couple years. The question is whether that is going to happen on a national level through DHS and the FBI and/or through local/state authorities. I would argue that it requires both.

I think a first step would be to better explain to the public and the media what the SAR’s are, what the SAR initiative is and what is the role of citizens in homeland security. To get and maintain public buy-in, it is important that there is followup when possible. Southers gives an example of a successful citizen tip though it didn’t get all that much attention:

This month, two New Jersey men were arrested at JFK airport, planning to travel to Somalia to “wage violent jihad.” They also had expressed a willingness to commit violent acts in the United States. Both men were American citizens. The FBI received a tip regarding the men’s activities in October 2006. In the intelligence community, that tip is called a “SAR” – Suspicious Activity Report.

That is not a well known story. It should be. These examples of citizen tips helping authorities need to told (when possible) in a bigger way to the public and the media so Americans understand and don’t dismiss their role. The full article can be read here.

However, despite reports that the terror threat to the U.S. is increasing and experts extolling the importance of citizen awareness, there hasn’t yet been a subsequent effort to try to broaden or improve civilian involvement.

There are some training materials for citizens that are publicly available which have had limited release, but government officials are not publicizing them widely. It’s as if we’re only going halfway on citizen involvement even with the new emphasis on the public’s role and the rising threat. One of the resources is a video I recently posted produced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “What’s in Store: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Events,” aimed at helping employees spot suspicious activity. This video was made for the retail industry, but the “suspicious activity” examples shown include mall customers making observations, and so it would be useful for any citizen to see.

DHS’ “suspicious behavior” training video, “What’s In Store: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Events” (above)

Another useful ‘tips’ video was produced by the Denver’s Center for Empowered Living & Learning (CELL), “Recognizing 8 Signs of Terrorism,” narrated by former NFL star quarterback John Elway to help citizens identify signs of terrorist activity.

“Recognizing 8 Signs of Terrorism” video (above)

Both of these videos are publicly available, but neither has been highlighted by officials nor has their specific content been widely distributed. One major city, however, has launched a major public awareness/tips campaign with more specifics. The Los Angeles Police Department’s iWatch program offers a list of “suspicious behaviors” that citizens should be aware of along with a series of videos.

Los Angeles Police Department iWatch community training video (above)

There is a major caveat in any expansion of the citizen role. It is crucial that in empowering the public to play a role in the nation’s homeland security that we do not overdue things. There is a balance between informed/engaged and paranoid/overaggressive. However, I think is important that if indeed security officials believe that average citizens are integral to the nation’s safety then they should further educate them so they can be the most useful. The initiatives listed above offer the kind of information and training that I think would be helpful, and I hope that officials will begin broadening their use to the citizenry.

“We all share the responsibility to fight terror and criminal misconduct. But as someone who works in a store, mall, shopping center, or market, you have an obligation to help. Because sometimes ordinary people can stop extraordinary events…

When you witness things like this people leaving packages or bags behind…strangers taking photographs or video…drivers leaving vehicles in odd places the temptation will be strong. You will want to ignore your instincts…turn away…assume someone else will act if necessary. But the threat is real. Report suspicious behavior.”

This video was made for the retail industry, but the “suspicious activity” examples shown include mall customers making observations, and so it would be useful for any citizen to see. I have argued previously for an expansion of the “See Something, Say Something” campaign by giving the public more information. This type of video offers the type of more specific guidance I would suggest be provided to the broader population.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s “What’s in Store: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Events” training video.

The National Terror Alert reports that DHS held a conference call last week asking the retail sector to heighten its level of awareness and report anything suspicious to law enforcement. The video is meant to be used as a training tool:

According to the Department of Homeland Security, businesses have to operate under the premise that other operatives are in the country and could advance plotting with little or no warning.” They also said U.S. officials “lack insights in specific details, timing and intended targets,” but trends indicate terrorists are looking for “smaller, more achievable attacks against easily accessible targets.”

During the call with business leaders, Homeland Security officials requested private sector companies to consider the following points:

*Institute aggressive awareness campaigns

*Identify entrance areas where crowds will collect and common traffic choke points exist.

*Pre-identify primary and secondary evacuation routes.

*Look at how you asses unattended vehicles in your area.

*Vary security patrol and surveillance routines.

*Rely on the people working in your buildings and stores every day. These folks will be more aware of things out of place in their normal environment.

*Remain alert for potential secondary devices. (In one case, small devices were used to force an evacuation, then larger devices were triggered to kill people.)

“What’s In Store” is one of several instructional videos that can be found on DHS’ Commercial Facilities Sector Training & Resources webpage.

aims to train thousands of parking industry employees nationwide to watch for and report anything suspicious — abandoned cars, for example, or people hanging around garages, taking photographs or asking unusual questions.

Organizers say parking attendants and enforcement officers are as important to thwarting attacks as the two Times Square street vendors who alerted police to a smoking SUV that was found to contain a gasoline-and-propane bomb.

“We can no longer afford as a nation to say, `It doesn’t impact me or my family, so therefore I’m not getting involved,’” Bill Arrington of the Transportation Security Administration told parking industry professionals at a convention this week in Las Vegas. “We’re saying, `Please, sir, get involved.’”

It makes a lot of sense for officials to educate those citizens who are more likely to see suspicious behavior. Similarly, as part of its outreach to the private sector, the New York Police Department has been training workers who spend their day on the street level, such as building doormen. In Boulder, Colorado, city employees who write parking tickets also receive special anti-terror training.

The AP article continues:

The program is part of a larger effort by the government since 9/11 to enlist ordinary people — airline passengers, subway riders, bus drivers, truckers, doormen, building superintendents — to serve as the eyes and ears of law enforcement.

But while all the “ordinary people” mentioned in the article are being enlisted “to serve as the eyes and ears of law enforcement,” not everyone is receiving training or briefings. Ordinary people who are not part of the industries covered by the authorities aren’t being included.

I would argue that with an apparently increased threat the nation is in sort of a halfway, ambivalent position when it comes to the role of the public in homeland security. Officials say they want civilians to see and say something and are an integral part of the anti-terror team. But are they giving them the information necessary to be most effective? This may be especially important now as experts are warning about the possibility of new attacks, particularly from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) such as the one Faisal Shahzad tried to set off in Times Square.

In fact, Mark Mueller, Acting Deputy Chief, Office for Bombing Prevention, National Protection and Programs Directorate at a recent Homeland Security Policy Institute forum on the increased domestic IED threat stressed the necessity of providing concrete guidance to the public, and underlined the role citizens play in providing key intelligence explaining that “quite often it is the alert clerk, it’s the off-duty police officer, it’s the neighbor” who notices key indicators that enable law enforcement and national level assets to intercede before a threat comes to fruition.

The National Terror Alert website offers a detailed list of “suspicious behavior” citizens should look for with a mnemonic, SALUTE. Former football star narrated a video for Denver’s Center for Empowered Living & Learning, “Recognizing The 8 Signs Of Terrorism.” However, that level of guidance is not normally provided to the general public. Now, an argument can be made that it’s too much information for average citizens to know (or to have learn). Further, you don’t want Americans obsessed with being tipsters, especially in areas with little terrorist threat. It’s a balance. But I don’t think government officials have found it yet.

The question is if the government is training the outer rings of the security concentric circle should it begin to put a little more emphasis on the next circle out — the rest of the “ordinary citizens”? Officials have said that a more informed public is a stronger public, but have not yet figured out how to accomplish that goal. It’s not easy, because these are sensitive topics. And there is a question of what and how much to do. I don’t think we know the right answer. It will require some study and analysis. But it is important and I think can be done quickly if authorities are willing to try.

Politicians, newspaper editorial pages and fellow citizens have all rightly celebrated the campaign and the T-shirt vendors over the past week. But there has still been little discussion about whether “See Something, Say Something” and citizen involvement in homeland security in general are working as well it could. And if not, how it might be improved?

NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the number of reported suspicious packages was up about 30% since last Saturday, according the New York Daily News. There were 145 calls to the NYPD on Thursday, Kelly said, up from the typical 90-100 per day. And, many experts say that the City and the nation may need to prepare for more of these attempts as terrorists shift their strategy to smaller less-sophisticated violent attacks on soft targets.

Law enforcement in New York and around the U.S. will continue to be receiving and relying on the kind of “See Something, Say Something” tips that helped short circuit the Times Square car bombing. However, I would argue that presently there is not a very good understanding of these citizen tip programs, both among the citizens themselves as well as the media. (In fact, during Friday’s coverage more than one news anchor who seemed surprised by the volume of tips that come in regularly to the NYPD.)

The Police Department and other security officials don’t speak much about citizen tips (other than asking for them), which is understandable due to the sensitivity of the subject. But I think it would be helpful to them to brief the citizenry a little bit more — both in giving more guidance but also in helping understand the work of law enforcement in homeland security. I wrote on this topic last week but wanted to elaborate a bit.

The lack of attention on and public/media knowledge of the subject of citizen tips was underscored in a 2008 New York Times article by William Neuman about the transit authority’s “See Something, Say Something” subway and bus campaign posters that featured the tagline: “Last year, 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.”: Neuman had a couple of questions.

But the new posters, also placed in the commuter railroad trains, left out two things: What, exactly, did those 1,944 New Yorkers see, and what did they say? Presumably, no active terror plots were interrupted, or that would have been announced by the authorities.

Neuman wasn’t able to find the answers:

“[The Metropolitan Transit Authority's Christopher] Boylan said he did not know exactly how the authority had come up with the number. “I don’t want to say that the accuracy of the number is secondary to the message,” Mr. Boylan said, “but the message that we wanted to get across is that those calls are, in fact, having an impact.”

For the article, the Times requested the (theretofore undisclosed) “See Something, Say Something” statistics from NYPD:

The hot line received many more calls in 2007, possibly because of the authority’s advertising campaign, Mr. Browne said. Through early December, the counterterrorism hot line received 13,473 calls, with 644 of those meriting investigation. Of that group, 45 calls were transit related. Indeed, no terrorists were arrested, but a wide spectrum of other activity was reported.

In fact, one reason I would guess why authorities have kept these numbers close to the vest is that it might seem as if the program is not succeeding in helping fight terrorism. But I would contend that’s actually an opportunity to underscore that public involvement for terrorism prevention is not so different than civic vigilance on street crime — that terrorism awareness is just another part of general community resilience.

Communicating with the public in this area is a careful balance. Authorities want to: encourage tips but don’t want to make it an obsession, keep citizens vigilant but not frightened, and not overstate the terror threat but not understate it either. Yet more information would be useful in providing the public with more context and a better understanding of how they fit into the nation’s security effort.

Among the questions that could be addressed: Is law enforcement satisfied with the current level of public input? Do they think it could be improved? When reporting tips, do the authorities rather citizens err on the side of calling if they’re not sure? When citizens offer tips, are law enforcement officials encouraging and positive even if the tip doesn’t pan out? And is there follow up with citizens when possible?

Further, are there other ’success stories’ of citizens getting involved resulting in arrests that can serve as models, guidance? Are there more specific things beyond just “See Something, Say Something” that citizens can look for? (The campaign suggests: “Be alert to unattended packages; Be wary of suspicious behavior; Take notice of people in bulky or inappropriate clothing; Report exposed wiring or other irregularities,” but are there other signs based on previous terror incidents here and abroad?)

It is clear that terrorism will continue to be with us for the foreseeable future, and the public’s role in combating the threat will continue to be central. (which has been underscored that the last two known terror attempts in the U.S. — both in Times Square and on Christmas Eve  – were stopped by civilians.) President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan reinforced the point on “Fox News Sunday”. ”We rely heavily on vigilant citizens,” he said.

Further engaging with those citizens and making them feel part of the country’s homeland security effort will not only bear more and better tips, but it will also make citizens feel more like active participants and less like helpless victims.

This weekend, I posted Clarke’s Washington Post piece op-ed, “The Times Square Bomb Failed. What Will We Do When The Next Bomb Works,” in which he suggests seven points that political leaders of both parties should agree on in advance “about our efforts to battle terrorism”.

But I was even more struck by an interview he gave to Fareed Zakaria on Sunday’s CNN show “GPS”. Clarke came to national attention for stating, during the 9/11 Commission Hearings, “Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you.” He made a similar kind of declaration in this interview, saying: “we panicked, everyone did, we overreacted.”

“We are going to have one of these attacks succeed and I think what we have to start talking about now, as a nation is what our reaction is going to be, because the last time 9/11 happened and we panicked. I panicked, everyone did, we overreacted, and in many ways the things we did were counterproductive.Other things we did were wasteful. Some things we did destroyed our own value system. So, we should have this discussion now, if there is another attack and it’s successful, what are we going to do and what are we not going to do this time?”

Though his statement may be taken as a political point, put that aside for the moment and focus on the general theme. I think most Americans would agree that after 9/11 many of our institutions reacted (understandably) in sometimes extreme or at least abnormal ways — some counterproductive, some productive, some necessary, some still debateable. Clarke is just saying it would be helpful to discuss how we should as a society and a political system deal with the next successful one, particularly as we are getting so many warnings it is going to happen.

It is often argued that England, which went through the wave of the Irish Republican Army attacks, is a useful model for how U.S. society should react. Clarke says that’s true but to a point:

…Their reaction is don’t panic, carry on. That is sort of the World War II spirit from the blitz and they did very well with that after the attacks in the London underground. But the British and the Israelis, another example of a country that has a lot of terrorist attacks and gets on with it both Israel and Britain have changed as a result of the terrorism that has been taking place over the years.

Their laws are a little bit more draconian, their civil liberties are a little bit more restricted and I think we have to be very careful in this country that we don’t change in that way. Because it’s not necessary in order to fight terrorism to really erode your own civil liberties.

As Clarke notes, it is so important that we regain our societal equilibrium after the next terror attack. Though political leadership may be the most important element in finding that balance, the public also has a role in helping guide its leaders on where it should be. The Obama Administration has been talking about societal resilience but has not been as frank and specific as Clarke has been over the past couple days. It’s not an easy public discussion to have — acknowledging that we’re going to get hit (even if we’ll bounce back). But I think by raising the subject in advance will only strengthen the chances they’ll be a resilient mindset afterwards.

One of the vendors, Lance Horton, even put in a plug for public involvement when asked by a reporter what advice he would give his fellow citizens: “See Something, Say Something,” echoing the slogan of the New York transit authority’s ubiquitous information campaign.

Homeland Security Department (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano, who has made citizen engagement a major theme of her tenure, was among the government officials who cited the vendors’ actions as a model for all Americans: “What happened on Saturday shows the critical role that the American people play in the security of our country. If anybody ever had any doubt about it, this failed bombing attempt clearly shows the value of the saying, if you see something, say something.”

The attention given to this successful example offers a terrific opportunity to assess the public’s role in helping the authorities on terrorism. Are Americans “seeing” and “saying” enough? Most law enforcement officials I have talked to believe the “See Something, Say Something” and other similar efforts have been successful raising awareness, but that they have not fully tapped the huge asset that is the U.S. public for homeland security effort.

And, the concerns often expressed by political leaders and security officials about the need for citizens to be “vigilant” and avoid “complacency” as time passes since 9/11 seem to imply that authorities want more and better information from the general public. If so, that needs to be explained more explicitly. In fact, I think it would be helpful for officials to tell us what specifically does “be vigilant” and “don’t be complacent” mean for the average American.

Further, a major DHS survey last year found more work was required in this area. As one of the report’s conclusions stated: “Individuals believed they had a personal responsibility to report suspicious behavior, but greater collaboration between citizens and law enforcement is needed.”

“See Something, Say Something” is an easy slogan to understand and remember. But does it provide enough guidance on its own? This was a smoking car which is — not taking anything at all away from the actions of the hero vendors — a relatively evident potentially dangerous sign to spot. Could the public could use some more direction on what is suspicious and what is not?

The answer, according to an article in Slate by Noreen Malone, “If You See Something, Say Something? You’d never shut up. An afternoon observing ’suspicious activity’ in Times Square,” is probably yes. The piece half seriously but aptly illustrates that seeing and saying the right things is not all that clear cut for the typical civilian (or reporter). Malone set out for Times Square on Tuesday afternoon to try to identify “suspicious behavior” (following the “See Something” campaign’s instructions to “Be alert to unattended packages; Be wary of suspicious behavior; Take notice of people in bulky or inappropriate clothing; Report exposed wiring or other irregularities.”) She found a lot of unusual if not “suspicious behavior” in Times Square;” the difficulty was figuring out what (if anything) to report:

I met a Brazilian tourist who had way too many shabby bags in tow, and an off-duty Indian pilot who was carrying a grocery bag around his neck like a cape, food stains running down his shirtfront. I sidled up to a guy scalping Broadway tickets because he was wearing a sweatshirt in the heat. I eyed vendors covering their knockoff (or stolen) sunglasses display with a cloth—what if they weren’t worried about copyright law? What if they had a bomb under that cloth?

Malone ends her piece by asking for some guidance: “But I saw packages everywhere. Every tourist stands around looking lost, a big bag slung over their shoulder. How do you know what is truly dangerous? I would argue that government authorities need to answer that question more fully. In a playful way, the article does point out out that the public could use more than just “See Something, Say Something” to most effectively play the critical role officials say they play in homeland security.

Clearly, there is a limit to what can be disclosed without compromising intelligence sources and methods, but many security officials believe that more can and should be told to the public. In fact, a number of them have told me that they would like to offer more information so Americans understand the threat situation better. It makes their jobs easier, establishes more credibility, and may better innoculate the nation when/if something does happen. And it is in the interest of law enforcement to be candid with voters if they want them to urge their elected officials to continue to support government investments in preventing and responding to terror threats. A goal of that educational process should be highlighting how citizen involvement actually helps and more precisely what citizens should (and should not) be doing.

In New York, the Police Department has set up a program to train and partner with private sector personnel, including those who work on the streets (ie. doormen), in reporting unusual behavior. (I don’t think vendors have been part of the program, though after Saturday night that might change). NYPD has smartly reached out to the concentric circles of society to assist them. The question is how the outside circle, the public, be best included?

Of course, the idea of expanding public involvement in homeland security can touch on some sensitive political areas. President Obama and Secretary Napolitano have said they don’t want to instill fear among Americans nor raise civil liberties concerns.  As Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson wrote in the Washington Post yesterday, “there is a delicate balance between vigilance and panic, resilience and over-preparedness, vigorous law enforcement and a police state.” It’s tricky line to walk, but it’s doable with leadership and communication.

Secretary Napolitano has called for Americans to be in a “state of readiness,” and she has pledged to treat the public as “an asset” in the nation’s homeland security as part of the “shared responsibility for preparedness.” As part of that shared responsibility, Napolitano has said, correctly, that the public should be viewed as part of the nation’s homeland security team. To continue the metaphor, if the public is to play its best as players on that team, they need more coaching as well as more info about the ‘game plan and the ’scouting report’. The difficulty is that the authorities don’t have easy, pat answers to what, how and when. Granted, that’s a tough communications challenge. Yet, I think the public will accept that uncertainty if the government is straight-forward and open with them.

For example, should Americans expect more improvised explosive devices (IED’s) along the lines of the Times Square incident as some experts have warned? At a panel at George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute last month, the Washington, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said citizens have a primary responsibility in helping the authorities prevent IED’s here. Gallup’s Darby Miller Steiger released a survey reporting that “while 8 in 10 report familiarity with the term IED, this does not necessarily mean that the public understands the threat and how to respond.” Also, on the panel, Mark Mueller, Acting Deputy Chief of DHS’ stressed the necessity of providing concrete guidance to the public, and the role citizens play in providing key intelligence.

Part of the information effort should include ongoing followup with the public whether that be reporting on “See Something” tips (this is one of the only examples of a successful terror tip most of us have heard about six years after the campaign’s launch) or lessons learned from actual incidents (when the authorities complete their after action report on the Times Square evacuation, they should brief New Yorkers on what was learned, particularly regarding public action).

Though the response was widely regarded as very successful, they were some teachable questions. Why, for example, were guests evacuated and not allowed into the Marriott Marquis hotel while the police kept the audience in the theater downstairs in the same building locked down? (Of course, many of those in Times Square were tourists, but this type of discussion would be helpful nonetheless.) The evacuation vs shelter in place is something that deserves some attention from the authorities, because it will almost definitely come up again, maybe after an actual explosion.

One other important reason to focus on emergency communications between the authorities and the public is the proliferation of mobile communications devices and social media. This new technology offers great opportunities for a two-way information flow, but it also presents a challenge as well. Going forward, citizens have the ability to see and say things in many more ways. And, homeland security consultant David Stephenson has recommended that government should be “coaching us on what kind of information would be helpful in an emergency, and, when one happens, both factoring in real-time location-based info from the public into their actionable intelligence for responding, and using social media to guide us.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the City was “very lucky” to “avoid what could have been a very deadly event”. Giving citizens more information and making them closer partners in the homeland security enterprise may help them ’see’ and ’say’ more and in turn improve our luck in the future.

a T-shirt vendor on the sidewalk saw smoke coming out of vents near the back seat of the S.U.V., which was now parked awkwardly at the curb with its engine running and its hazard lights on. The vendor called to a mounted police officer, the mayor said, who smelled gunpowder when he approached the S.U.V. and called for assistance. The police began evacuating Times Square, starting with businesses along Seventh Avenue, including a Foot Locker store and a McDonald’s.

Police officers from the emergency service unit and firefighters flooded the area and were troubled by the hazard lights and running engine, and by the fact that the S.U.V. was oddly angled in the street. At this point, a firefighter from Ladder 4 reported hearing several “pops” from within the vehicle. The police also learned that the Pathfinder had the wrong license plates on it.

The vendor, according to the Times, who wore a white fedora, had a limp and walked with a cane, was swarmed by television cameras as he tried to make his way to a taxicab on 44th Street. As he got into the taxi he was asked by a reporter what he had to say to his fellow citizens. His answer will be repeated a lot by the authorities in the days to come  – “See something, say something”.

The t-shirt vendor who ’saw something and said something’ to police about a suspicious car in Times Square yesterday. (credit: New York Times)

It was part of the Secretary’s effort to engage a broader audience, particularly as part of the H1N1 flu public information effort. I thought that both shows in their own styles elicited some interesting, informative and sometimes humorous answers on a variety of questions, many of which may be on the minds of their viewers.

On “The View,” Barbara Walters called Napolitano a “brave woman” for taking the top DHS job, adding with a laugh: “If it works, great. If it doesn’t, it’s all your fault.” Napolitano then took questions from the four-woman panel on a number of hot button homeland security-related issues. The link to the video of the show is here.

The questions (and answers) included: does the government’s H1N1 response comes under the umbrella of Homeland Security? (”It does in a way…We have a coordinating role”); why is the government only vaccinating half the population for H1N1? (They’re not; everyone can be vaccinated.); did the ‘Right-Wing Extremism’ report “discredit the Department” (”It was poorly done as you suggest, and we retracted it.”); “You have not been without controversy?” (”The office is not without controversy.”); what’s the current status of terror alerts system or as Whoopi Goldberg broke out into song, “Where have all the colors gone?” (”The problem is ‘a’ people use it for humor, thank you. But also it didn’t communicate information. ‘What are you supposed to do?’…We are relooking at that system. Is it the right way to communicate good information to people?”); and should Americans still be preparing for terrorism and other disasters? (”Yes.”).

Finally, Barbara Walters asked: “Do you think it’s still ‘if and not when’ in terms of a terrorist attack?” The question was asked, I think, out of real curiosity and not as a gotcha. But it’s something I have not heard the Secretary answer in a public setting. As she started to do so, Walters about to hit a commercial break, asked for a quick answer: “We’re going to be prepared either way,” Napolitano said. A video of Monday’s episode can be found here. The interview comes at the end of show.

DHS SECRETARY NAPOLITANO AT “THE VIEW”

On “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart’s first question was also about the terror color alert system. Napolitano told him that the Department was “revisiting” it, because “They are the subject of late night humor as you might have noticed.” The video of the “Daily Show” interview can be found here.

Stewart asked about the H1N1 vaccine in his own typical way: “Is it something you would recommend to people or do you not trust the government?” It gave Napolitano a chance to get the government’s flu prevention message out to the “Daily Show’s” young demographic, a focus of the flu outreach effort. She said “this is a bad flu, and it’s a very safe vaccine.” Stewart asked if the government was adding LSD to the vaccine. (Napolitano denied it; Stewart seemed convinced.) Even without the use of LSD, Napolitano said the nation would handle whatever the H1N1 dealt us this year. ”We’ll work the problem…We’ll get through it.”

Stewart concluded the interview by noting, “And if we see something…we should say something” adding, “because I live in New York City, and I see a lot of unusual things.” That actually was a good transition to the third television appearance Napolitano did yesterday — with another ‘new’ pillar of the media establishment Bloomberg Television yet in a more traditional format. In the interview, the Secretary said that there are people with terrorist leanings are currently in the U.S., “It is fair to say there are individuals in the United States who ascribe to al-Qaeda-type beliefs.”

The 8-minute video can be seen below or found online at www.thecell.org.

“RECOGNIZING 8 SIGNS OF TERRORISM” VIDEO (ABOVE)

Napolitano has spoken often about using the public as an asset in the nation’s homeland security yet the challenge is offering Americans guidance on exactly how to do so. This type of video is helpful in doing so. I would suggest that more law enforcement agencies around the U.S. use it or something similar to educate the public.

The video, produced with DHS grant funding, is narrated by Elway with Denver television reporter Kim Christiansen. It was produced through a partnership between the Colorado Office of Homeland Security, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Information Analysis Center (CIAC) and the Center for Empowered Living & Learning (The CELL) — a non-profit institution dedicated to addressing the global threat of terrorism. The video was shown during Secretary Napolitano’s tour of the CELL’s current exhibit, “Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere: Understanding the Threat of Terrorism.”

One answer was offered by DHS Secretary Napolitano in an interview with the Washington Post earlier this month. When asked about what keeps her up at night, she said, “Complacency…The fact that it has been eight years since 9/11, and people just assume the government is going to take care of that. . . . Safety, security is a shared responsibility. It doesn’t take much for everybody just to take a deep breath and say, ‘Okay, what would I need to do to be prepared?’

To date, the most tangible way the public has been told to stay “vigilant” has been to keep an eye out for suspicious activity by such awareness programs as “See Something, Say Something”. Most officials I have spoken to have told me they feel these types of campaigns have been useful (though there has not been much feedback to the public on exactly how). But do the concerns expressed by officials about “vigilance” and “complacency” mean that law enforcement want more and better information from the general public? If so, that needs to be explained more explicitly.

Secretary Napolitano has called for Americans to be in a “state of readiness,” and she has pledged to treat the public as “an asset” in the nation’s homeland security. (She will be elaborating on these themes in a speech on Wednesday at the American Red Cross in Washington that will emphasize, according to a DHS press announcement, “the nation’s shared responsibility for preparedness” and “will focus on the important role that citizens must play in building a national culture of readiness and resilience.” It will be streamed live at www.dhs.gov)

As part of that shared responsibility, Napolitano has said, correctly, that the public should be viewed as part of the nation’s homeland security team. To continue the metaphor, if the public is to perform best as players on that team, they need more coaching as well as more context about the ‘game plan’ and the ’scouting report’.

Clearly, there is a limit to what can be disclosed without comprising intelligence sources and methods, but many in law enforcement believe that more can and should be told to the public. A goal of that education process should be highlighting how citizen involvement actually helps and more precisely what citizens should (and should not) be doing.

That was actually the finding of a recent FEMA/Citizen Corps public survey which which noted : “Individuals believed they had a personal responsibility to report suspicious behavior, but greater collaboration between citizens and law enforcement is needed.”

Of course, the idea of expanding public involvement in homeland security can bump up against some sensitive areas. And, as DHS Secretary Napolitano has said on a number of occasions she does not want this to instill fear among Americans nor raise civil liberties concerns. It is indeed a careful balance.

Another aspect of addressing public “complacency” was raised by Former DHS Secretary Chertoff, in an interview last month. He expressed his concern that Americans not be “complacent” in their role as voters/citizens and urged them to continue to support government investments in preventing and responding to terror threats, particularly in the biological and nuclear area.

Both parts of that challenge involve a difficult balance. On the first, many homeland security officials worry about citizen complacency and would like do a better job of conveying that there is still a significant terrorist threat to the nation. However, in doing so they do not want to unnecessarily scare the public or give away intelligence sources and methods.

As for the second part, officials believe that civilians are a significant information resource that they would like to do a better job utilizing. And, in fact, better utilizing the public in the homeland security enterprise has been an early theme of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Last month, Napolitano told the Council for Foreign Relations in New York City “for too long we’ve treated the public as a liability to be protected rather than an asset in our nation’s collective security,” adding:

“we’re taking a much closer look at how we can support and inform our greatest asset, individual citizens, and with them the private sector. You are the ones who know if something is not right in your communities, such as a suspicious package or unusual activity…

...With basic training, every one of us can become better first preventers as well as first responders…You know, I think there’s actually an important role that we can play in educating even our very young about watching for and knowing what to do if – if you’re in an airport and you see a package left with no one around; you know, that sort of thing. I also think we could do a much better job at educating young people about how to — how to prepare how to handle themselves so that they can protect themselves also if something untoward were to happen…”

But she acknowledged that work needed to be done in figuring out how to do so:

“…So do we have a plan in that – in that way, or have we actually worked that angle of this? Not yet. But I think you’re getting the gist of what I’m saying, which is to say we need a culture of collective responsibility, a culture where every individual understands his or her role…”

Interestingly, the difficulty developing such a plan was underscored in the post-speech audience questions, a number of which expressed concerns that any new effort  on making Americans better “first preventers” might impinge on civil liberties.

JANET NAPOLITANO (ABOVE) SPEAKS TO THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS IN AUGUST (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images North America)

Napolitano’s task is made more difficult because the country has not been attacked since 9/11, and the public may not perceive a continued threat. In an interview in the Washington Post last week, the Secretary was asked “if the American people could see what you see — if they were privy to intelligence reports and they saw the whole spectrum of what was out there, do you think they would have a different view of preparedness?”

Her reply: “Oh, yes, perhaps. But on the other hand, I think what is important for them to recognize is that we have hundreds of thousands of people working on this every day.” Even as she would like to get the public’s attention, the Secretary understandably does not want to unnecessarily stoke concern. Finding that balance is key. Yet, if they want to address “complacency,” officials will have to find ways to better illustrate what is “out there,” to narrow the gap between what they see and what the public does.

Clearly, there is a limit to what can be disclosed without comprising intelligence activities, but many in law enforcement that I spoken to believe more can and should be told to the public. In fact, many have told me that they would like to offer more information so Americans understand the threat situation better. It makes their jobs easier, establishes more credibility, and may better innoculate the nation when/if something does happen. A goal of that education should also be showing how citizen involvement actually helps and more precisely what citizens should (and should not) be doing to help.

In her Council for Foreign Relations speech, Napolitano noted some examples of citizen involvement:

“Three years ago, it was an attentive store clerk who told authorities about men trying to duplicate extremist DVDs. This led federal agents to eventually round up a plot to kill American soldiers at the Fort Dix army base here in New Jersey, in New Jersey. Just last month, a passenger saw two employees exchange a bag at the Philadelphia airport that had not been properly screened. That passenger’s vigilance ultimately stopped a gun from getting onto the plane.”

More recently, Napolitano thanked a commuter who took a photo of a sleeping guard at the George Washington Bridge over the Hudson River, telling CNN, “Catching those lapses is an important reminder that none of us can be asleep on the job,” Napolitano said. “Security … safety is something that we all have a responsibility for.”

Highlighting those examples are helpful. But more detail is necessary to get the public’s attention. One thing I might suggest is to make more use of security videos of people caught (or at least suspected of) surveilling infrastructure. Again, that would be done in a careful, sober manner, not to stir panic or fear but to better illustrate the threat and what is being asked of the public. Along those lines, former Secretary Chertoff — who expressed a similar concern about public complacency in his recent book – told me that government has to do a better job of “packaging and presenting” the threat.

There is also a need to provide the public with more context for their role. Earlier this summer, Napolitano appointed a task force to look at the future of the Homeland Security Advisory System. And, I think any type of new system should include more information for the public about why an alert is being raised and lowered along with guidance on what to do when it changes.

“A few days ago a reader passed along information on the DHS “First Observer” program. Enclosed with the Email was a brief blurb promoting a training event, “By participating in this 9-11 web cast, you will be a certified First Observer. You and thousands like you will help us put together pieces of complex security puzzles and allow us to solve those puzzles and prevent Attacks in a way we were unable to do prior to September 11, 2001.” The reader had entitled the Email, “Calling George Orwell,” but otherwise reserved comment.

On the street where I grew up our first observers were Alice Bobo, wife of the firefighter next door, and across the street my Aunt Mae, wife of my grandmother’s half-brother Bob. They were our intelligence service, border security team, and public health unit all wrapped into a wonderfully collaborative and unified operation. I have never since encountered a surveillance and response capacity quite as effective…

Together Mrs. Bobo and Aunt Mae handled the whole block and most of the alley north of Fulton street. If some eight-year-old tried a cigarette, one of them (both prodigious smokers) would let his or her mother know. When the Morgan’s mother was gone and there was no food, Aunt Mae would show up with some of her Hungarian Goulash, which I have since learned was much more Midwestern than Magyar, but boy was it good. Someone else would bring food the next day, and the next, until Mrs. Morgan returned.

One Sunday morning while we were at breakfast, Mrs. Bobo called my Dad about a little girl being beat up at a house two blocks away. He ran out faster than I had ever (have ever) seen him move. Dad returned shortly after with the girl. She stayed with us a few days. Okay, not exactly international terrorism. Not exactly a 5.0 hurricane or a 7.5 earthquake. But not entirely irrelevant either. What Aunt Mae and Mrs. Bobo did was combine ongoing close-in surveillance with trusted communication. They took coordinated action to prevent, mitigate and respond. They were there, and organized others, to assist in recovery…

The vocabulary is different, the setting is dramatically changed, but the human realities are the same. Aunt Mae and Alice Bobo knew their community, cared about their community, and the community trusted, supported, and worked with them…I probably don’t want a latter-day Alice Bobo “deputized” to enter information in compliance with 28 CFR, Part 23. But I expect George Orwell’s Big Brother is only possible where there are too few George Baileys actively engaged in their communities and neighborhoods. With Aunt Mae and Alice Bobo working with the rest of us, Big Brother ain’t got a chance… and neither do others who wish us harm.”

Phil does a good job of pointing out that citizen involvement community security is nothing new, and we can find a way to engage Aunt Mae without also inviting Big Brother. (Though, of course, it will always be a delicate balance.) As the Obama Administration develops its approach for better engaging and tapping the public in homeland security, offering this kind of context would be helpful.