In Case Of Emergency, Read Blog

A top Department of Homeland Security Department official said yesterday that the U.S. has “to start thinking very seriously about what we would actually do the day after [a biological or nuclear] attack” and explain to the public that we could recover from such an incident.

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

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

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

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

[Read more →]

I wanted to mention two events from this past weekend, which I think offer a lesson for citizen preparedness:  The first was a family preparedness event held by the American Red Cross at Fort Belvoir just outside Washington in which free readiness kits and other emergency supplies were distributed to 1100 military families. At the other one, held on Governor’s Island in New York Harbor, the New York City Department of Transportation gave away free bicycle helmets in an effort to promote bike safety. Both are terrific ideas, and they highlight the role of ‘carrots’ or incentives (including free stuff) in changing social behavior whether it be preparedness or bike safety.

According to a story on the Red Cross website about the Ft. Belvoir gathering:

Those participating in the preparedness event received Red Cross bags filled with important items such as a mini lantern, glow sticks, an Eton emergency radio, Red Cross vintage first aid kit, emergency water storage system, multipurpose tool and a family guide to first aid.

In addition, senior preparedness leaders from the Red Cross had a table with personal items—pet food, toothbrushes, snacks and children’s toys—to remind people of the kinds of things they might want to take if they had to evacuate due to an emergency or disaster. They reminded participants of the need to bring prescriptions as well as extra cash to use in the event that ATMs are not working due to power failures.

Now, there is no group that deserves free preparedness supplies than military families. But the fact that they are receiving emergency kits gratis underlines the challenge of getting the rest of the public to purchase theirs.

The Governor’s Island bike helmet giveaway is one of a series of safety events held by the City’s Department of Transportation. It is another example of a public service campaign that uses an incentive (as part of a win-win partnership with the private sector) to accomplish its goal.

However, to date, governments have tried to achieve citizen preparedness largely without any carrots or sticks. It’s just not realistic. We need to integrate incentives — such as Ft.Belvoir-type events — into readiness programs for the broader  public.

A military family at Saturday’s American Red Cross preparedness event at Ft. Belvoir (Photo: Daniel Cima)

A recent post on the New York Times’ interesting “Well” blog focused on emergency preparedness for pets. In “Disaster Planning For Pets,” Tara Parker-Pope describes her own lack of readiness when a flood forced her — along with her dogs and cats — from their New Jersey home.

When my neighborhood was evacuated because of Delaware River flooding a few years ago, I had less than 24 hours to prepare. I packed a suitcase and grabbed important documents — but then I suddenly realized that I didn’t have a plan for my pets.

Fortunately, a local groomer offered to take in my dogs, but I couldn’t find a refuge for my cats. I was staying with friends who had severe cat allergies, so taking them with me wasn’t an option. Instead, I filled up a few litter boxes and set out several bowls of water and food.

And then I had to leave…

Based on her own experience, Parker-Pope urges other pet owners to prepare, including going to Ready.Gov, the Federal Emergency Management Administration website and:

In addition to gathering important documents like passports and birth certificates, disaster preparedness also means collecting veterinary records. One of the reasons I couldn’t board my cats during my flooding crisis was that I had misplaced my cats’ vaccination information, and no boarding facility would take them without it.

I would add one other thing to this article that pet owners should know and do — find out whether the local emergency shelter will accept pets. As FEMA points out:

Identifying shelter. For public health reasons, many emergency shelters cannot accept pets. Find out which motels and hotels in the area you plan to evacuate to allow pets — well in advance of needing them. There are also a number of guides that list hotels/motels that permit pets and could serve as a starting point. Include your local animal shelter’s number in your list of emergency numbers — they might be able to provide information concerning pets during a disaster.

After Hurricane Katrina, emergency managers realized that in most disaster situations pet owners were not going to leave their pets no matter what the authorities say. So, a number of local emergency management offices, including here in New York City, integrated pet care into their evacuation shelters. I think it was a smart move and an example of government listening to the public on disaster response. (And, pet owners are among the most prepared and politically active demographic on emergency readiness in the population.)

However, the City officials have not publicized this availability, because it would rather have New Yorkers make advance evacuation plans for their pets. I understand the ambivalence, but I believe that not being completely upfront on that policy can send confusing messages to the public and can get in the way of full, accurate planning.

In the May/June issue of Emergency Management magazine, there’s an interesting “Point of View” column by Elaine Pittman, “Simplifying The Message” (p. 12 on this pdf). She begins the piece:

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

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

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

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

• Get A Kit
• Make A Plan
• Be Informed

From the Ready.Gov website

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

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

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

From the American Red Cross website

First, it’s time to define — or more precisely redefine — what preparedness means when it comes to the public. What do we want everyone to have and know? What is feasible? Or maybe preparedness is not the right word. The Obama Administration has been emphasizing the concept of societal resilience. Should emergency management officials be talking about citizen resilience in their communities rather than preparedness? If so, that too will require a clearer definition for what it means for the public. If we are serious about the public preparing for disasters (and it would seem based on recent events to be an important goal), then we need to reevaluate what is being asked of them.

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

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

David Stephenson, a leading thinker in how technology can be used for emergencies and transparent government in general, has an article in Federal Computer Week, “Future Oil Spills Could Be Averted By Regulation 3.0 Apps.”

In the piece, Stephenson, the principal of Stephenson Strategies, argues that “the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico highlights the most important problem in regulating offshore drilling: a lack of transparency and real-time information” and that the situation demands a new approach that he calls “Regulation 3.0″. The article continues:

[Read more →]

Since the Times Square bombing attempt, I have been writing about the role of the citizen in homeland security and in particular the use (and potential) of “See Something, Say Something”-type campaigns. In the aftermath of the New York incident and the ‘Christmas Day bomber’ Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab – both foiled with the help of average citizens — officials have lauded the public’s role in homeland security.

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.

There’s a nice — and well deserved — profile of government/emergency social media innovator Brian Humphrey, “A Gov 2.o Pioneer,” by Michelle V. Rafter in the blog, Prime Time. Humphrey (photo left) is a veteran Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) public information officer who has made the LAFD a leader in the use of governmental social media, particularly in the area of emergency communications. Personally, I have learned a lot from his work.

Social media is now seen as an obvious communications tool for emergency entities, but not so long ago the LAFD was one of the only government operations using this new technology. It’s ironic, the article points out, as early adopters usually aren’t in Humphrey’s age demographic:

When Brian Humphrey showed up at CrisisCamp Los Angeles to help brainstorm how aid agencies could mobilize online after the Haiti earthquake, people didn’t expect the Los Angeles Fire Department’s social media expert to be 50 years old.

Humphrey gets that a lot. In an industry full of 20-somethings, the 25-year LAFD veteran doesn’t fit the image of today’s plugged-in social networker.

But Humphrey is well connected. In fact, the long-time LAFD public information officer was one of the first government spokesmen in the nation to embrace social media for disseminating information in crisis situations.

Humphrey is the first to say it’s not as hard as it looks for any government worker–or anyone, really–to follow in his wired footsteps, no matter what their age. “If we don’t master these tools, we’re not serving the public,” he says.

The article describes Humphrey’s pioneering forays into social media:

[Read more →]

The Safe America Foundation will again be holding its “9/11 Drill Down For Safety” campaign on September 11th. The Foundation is hoping to more than double the 400,000 people from 127 cities/drill sites in 27 states who participated in last year’s inaugural effort.

The campaign will include a special focus on the importance of the use of text messaging in an emergency as past instances have shown that during a significant crisis texting may still provide a way for people to communicate.

Safe America’s goals for this year’s campaign are to: “engage over 1 million people to demonstrate preparedness; empower citizens to practice preparedness texting; Coordinate with government, business, and nonprofit organizations in support of National Preparedness Month activities; solicit people to Take the Pledge now at www.safeamericaprepared.org by registering their commitment to prepare; and Take the Pledge that you and/or your organization will join other Americans this year in demonstrating preparedness.

In May, Safe America hired disaster readiness expert Brit Weber as Executive Vice President Homeland Security and Preparedness, and he will help coordinate the “Drill Down” campaign.

Last week, the Kennedy School of Government’s Arnold Bogis gave me a copy of a terrific pamphlet, “We All Have A Role: Working With Your Community to Prepare For Natural and Man-Made Disasters.” It was published by the Commission On The Prevention Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction Proliferation And Terrorism when I was in the hospital, and therefore I am posting it now.

The Commission concluded its work as a congressionally-mandated organization on February 26, 2010. The chair was former Senator Bob Graham (recently chosen to co-chair the presidential commission on the Gulf oil spill), the vice chair was former Senator Jim Talent, and the executive director was Col. Randy Larsen. The trio have formed The Bipartisan WMD Terrorism Research Center to continue work on these issues

“We All Have A Role” is a concrete result of the WMD Commission’s public outreach effort, which was central to the group’s mission. Senator Graham told me last year in an interview that informing the public on weapons of mass destruction was an “urgent” priority. And the Commission dedicated the final chapter of its report to the “Role of the Citizen.”

What I think is particularly special about “We Have A Role” is that it not only offers advice to the public on personal preparedness and response. But it also gives them guidance on how to take a leadership role as citizens to determine if their community is prepared for weapons of mass destruction, and if not, how to get it ready.

“We Have A Role” concludes with suggested questions “specifically for nuclear and biological attacks.” To me, that underscores a point I’ve made previously on the blog that the term “WMD” should be clarified for the public with the catastrophic nuclear and biological weapons in one category and serious but lesser weapons (also normally placed within the WMD rubric) such as chemical and radiological, placed in another.

On the subject of the role of games in disaster preparedness and response, an article, “Masters of Disaster” from the most recent Wharton Magazine, describes the computer simulation, Quake. It was designed by Howard Kunreuther and Robert Meyer of the Philadelphia school’s Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, to test ideas about how humans perceive risk. Amazingly, everyone who has played the game has ended up destroying themselves. This subject is even more relevant to current events as risk perception and management have become front and center topics in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

In the game, Quake players are:

presented with a little icon of a house on a map of a hypothetical country. They also get a pot of digital cash—$20,000. Players are told at the start of the game that at any time, an earthquake can hit, either severe or mild, and that three to five quakes will hit during the course of the game. Then all the players have to do, it turns out, is decide what to do with their money: they can pump it into their homes, making them safer by purchasing a series of structural upgrades (to the chimney, the door frame, the roof, etc.) or they can leave it in the bank and earn 10 percent interest. The game unfolds in real time, and up to 10 people can inhabit the same Quake world at one time. Players can see other people’s houses and observe their decisions.

Kanreuther who wrote the excellent book, At War With The Weather, last year with his Wharton colleague Erwann O. Michel-Kerjan, has run the simulation in his class for the past four years:

[Read more →]