Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management

Crisis and Emergency Management

Newsletter Website
return to mainpage

 

 

 

January  2004                                                         Volume 5 - Number 4

 

 

 Related Sites:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communications...

 

 


The Disciplines of Emergency Management – Communications

By David Diec

 

 The September 11, 2001 event illustrated that as a nation, we are no longer an ocean separated and a far-reached continent of the world.  Conflicts elsewhere in the world – whether from the differences in philosophical or religious beliefs, or from groups zealous of U.S.’s international policies – are no longer isolated events specific to a geopolitical region.  The political and social affects of those are no longer confined to such area, but our own security structure, social and financial stability.

 

America was stunned.  The people were stunned and surprised of such hatred from a relatively small group of terror.  America thought that such things could not be happening and would not conceivably be carried out by a civilized society or its people.  America – was reaching out to the world of its ideology and belief in human rights, religious tolerance, and financial affluent – bewildered to realize that human rights and religious tolerance have a completely different meaning to others from different corners of the globe.  America was wounded, not militarily but financially and socially.

 

The actions taken by those terrorists have made American realize that the land-of-the-frees and an open democratic society would no longer be the same.  America needs to protect itself, its people, and its infrastructure from another attack.  As a result, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in March 2001, introduced the Homeland Security Advisory System, an early warning system, as part of its emergency and preparedness, to communicate to and alert its people to the possible dangers from terrorist acts.

 

Homeland Security Advisory System

 

The Homeland Security Advisory System is used to convey a possible danger message of terrorist attacks to the general population, States, Locals, and other Federal authorities.  This system provides warnings in the form of a set of graduated threat conditions that would increase as the risk of the threat increases (ref. 1).

 

This system is intended to create a common risk communication and structure for an ongoing national discussion about the nature of the threats that confront the homeland and the appropriate measure that should be taken in response.  There are five levels of threat from lowest to highest.   Each is identified by a description and corresponding color.  The Lowest threat level is colored green.  The Guarded threat level is colored blue.  The Elevated threat level is colored yellow.  The High threat level is colored orange, and the Severe threat level is colored red.  The higher the threat condition, the greater the risks of a terrorist attack.

 

Since the introduction of this system, a number of High threat (Orange level) alerts had been publicly issued to heighten the risk of terrorist attacks to the homeland and the American people.  The list below may not be a complete chronological declaration of national alerts issued by the Department of Homeland Security.  It is intended only to illustrate the number of declarations made (refs. 2, 3, 4, and 5).

 


!                   September 10, 2002

!                   September 24, 2002

!                   February 8, 2003

!                   February 24, 2003

!                   March 17, 2003

!                   April 16, 2003

!                   May 20, 2003

 

In each of these public announcements, the general public was uncertain as to what to do with and how to respond to the intended alert message.  The expected actions, if any, taken by the public, were at times did not make sense.  The actions as discussed in each of the threat levels seem to apply to audience other than the general public.  For example, the public was advised to purchase adhesive tapes and plastic sheets as part of mitigative actions based on a perceived threat.  Instead, some people bought toilet paper because they thought it could somehow help to mitigate the danger posed by a bio terrorism event.  People were found to be ill prepared and lacked of understanding of the consequences of the terrorist threats.

 

Who Are The Intended Audience

 

In formulating the color-coded alert levels, DHS considered a variety of factors to assess the threat.  Questions were asked whether the threat is credible, is substantiated, is specific or imminent, and how likely is the threat.  Actions were then assigned to each of the color-coded threat levels.  Detailed response actions associated with these alert levels can be found on DHS public web site.  For example, the following definition and response actions are defined for High threat condition, Orange:

 

!                   Definition:  High risk of attack

!                   Responses:

"                   Coordinating necessary security efforts with armed forces or law enforcement agencies

"                   Taking additional precaution at public events

"                   Preparing to work at an alternate site or with a dispersed workforce; and access to essential personnel only

 

The public clearly do not have the capability nor the know-how to effectively implement the above expected actions during an emergency event.  The message and expectation of these actions are meant for intra-agencies or internal agency communications.  Yet, this information is published as if the public’s actions are expected during an emergency event.

 

Psychological Impacts

 

The likelihood that the risk of attack by terrorist was perceived high such that an increase in the threat level was justified, as discussed in the Homeland Security Advisory System section.  As a result, the nation experienced multiple increases to Orange from Yellow risk level, without a clear rationale.  For example, in the February 8, 2003 announcement, the rationale for the decision to increase the threat level was based in part from recent arrests in Britain of terrorism suspects with the chemical agent ricin, in France with cyanide compounds, and in Spain with other chemicals (ref. 6).  Each time, the public wondered and contemplated about what appropriate responses would be, when the increased threat level was announced, and no terrorist threat events had occurred.  The threshold used to justify the increases appeared to be random and unsubstantiated.  Consequently, the public may be unnecessarily alarmed (ref. 7), the integrity of these announcements could be compromised, and the expected public actions could be ignored.

 

What Is In It For The Public

 

The current actions discussed in the Homeland Security Advisory System for different alert levels are intended for States, Local, Federal, and other agencies.  In order to participate and respond to national alert levels, the information would have to be directed to the public, follow by specific actions.   The message should be simple and easy to understand.

 

Training, exercises, and drills as part of emergency preparedness for the public are equally important to ensure effective emergency response.  Although this approach intrusive at times and impose unnecessary fears to the public, it is, however, important that the general population recognizes the basic response to an emergency event as part of education, thereby minimizing the uncertainty.

 

Media Role and Responsibility

 


The media can be an effective medium to disseminate emergency messages.  It is equally true that the media for marketing and headline grabbing purpose can play-up the same information.  Each time the national alert level changed, the media, using a number of self-proclaimed experts, speculated the possible national targets, vulnerability, infrastructure weaknesses, and doubts on emergency preparedness.  While these types of discussions maybe ultimately strengthen the nation’s capability to respond to all types of terrorism events by enhancing awareness of the government and public of the possibilities, it may also be inadvertently encourage terrorist groups by providing them with insights they would otherwise have no knowledge of.  Thereby, sending fears to the general population.

 

The media needs to be mind full of all possible unintended consequences, which could potentially compromise national security, while exercising its rights to freedom of expressions.  The government authorities need to also be forthright about sharing intelligent information that would ensure the public safety.  Balancing the need between public awareness and national security is essential and requires a coordinated partnership and trust between the authorities and media outlets.  This delicate act should be exercised vigilantly.

 


Recommendations

 

  • Messages embedded in each of the national color-coded alert level must address to the intended audience (internal or external, not both), follow by appropriate actions
  • Security thresholds that precipitate an increase in alert level must be credible and imminent
  • Public education must be the first priority of the responsible government authority
  •  Partnership with the Media on security and intelligent information sharing and protocols

 


References:

 

1.                  Department of Homeland Security

2.                  http://www.CNN.com, Official: Credible Threats Pushed Terror Alert Level Higher

3.                  http://www.cortland.edu, New York State University Police

4.                  http://www.hkchcc.org, Hong Kong China Hawaii Chamber of Commerce

5.                  http://www.ABCNEWS.com, News Channel 10, US Elevates Terror

6.                  http://www.CNN.com, FBI Seeking Pakistani Man For Questioning

7.                  http://www.bayarea.com, Higher Threshold for Public Warnings of Terror Attacks