CH20 Risk Communication Before, During and after emergencies
We can’t denied that we all live in a high emergency risk situation as we’ve discussed several cases on citrus canker, mad cow disease and avian influenza. Lots of unpredictable diseases become pandemic across the world more rapidly than ever. If the governments don’t handle the emergencies effectively, it leads to mistrust in the governments among general publics. Three examples in recent years underscore the importance of establishing trust in emergency risk communication: SARS in China (2003), mad cow disease in U.K. (2003) and anthrax in U.S. (2001). The SARS, mad cow, and anthrax examples demonstrate that it’s important to tell people what you know, what isn’t known and to correct misinformation as soon as it is discovered (p. 394). Thus, this chapter summarizing different strategies and tactics following the life circle of emergencies: before, during and after emergencies.
I am impressed by the example of former New York City Mayor when asked about the number of casualties just about hours after September 11 attacks. He simply said, “More than we can bear” to show his calmness as well as compassion. To crisis communication professionals, I guess it will be easier to stay calm than to reveal compassion because they already faced lots of crises. So, the author remind us that the first thing to keep in find is to deal with public’s emotions. Acknowledge and accept that the fear is legitimate.
The seven cardinal rules of risk communication, as identified by EPA, could highlight the core thinking of this chapter.
1.Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner.
2.Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts.
3.Listen to the public's specific concerns.
4.Be honest, frank, and open.
5.Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources.
6.Meet the needs of the media.
7.Speak clearly and with compassion.
Based on step by step planning, I found some useful checklists and work sheets that can help us work on detail implementation of the communication process. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/riskcomm/tools/default.shtm
Also, the New York City’s West Nile Virus Response could be viewed as another case study. The first outbreak of West Nile virus in New York City occurred in late Summer 1999. By the following summer, the New York City Department of Health had developed a detailed response plan that included public education and outreach. The three objectives for public education and outreach plan were 1) to improve the public’s awareness of risk for disease; 2) to improve the public’s participation in eliminating potential breeding sites; and 3) to provide timely and accurate information related to insecticide spraying. Channels of communication included television and radio public service announcements; press releases, extensive media outreach, and announcements during the scheduled daily Mayoral press conferences; brochures and fact sheets, prepared in 10 to 15 languages; posters placed throughout the city; bill inserts mailed with the cooperation of city utilities, including the Consolidated Edison Company of New York and the Water Department; phone lines staffed and answered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at the height of the outbreak, including the handling of over 150,000 calls; a Web site that included general information, a question-and-answer section, forms for reporting standing water and dead birds, insecticide fact sheets, and press releases issued during the outbreak; and a limited number of town-hall public meetings.
The primary spokespersons were the New York City Health Commissioner and the Mayor. In the outer boroughs, the Borough President often assumed the Mayor’s role. The majority of the press releases addressed spraying and included telephone numbers to call for more information. Print materials, generally written at a high school reading level, contained information about personal protective behavior
(e.g., sheltering-in-place and protection against mosquitoes) and included a request that the public assist government agencies by eliminating sources of standing water where mosquitoes might breed.
In general, report suggested that the New York City risk communication effort related to the West NileVirus epidemic was far-reaching, resource intensive, competently handled, and effective.
For more information about this case, please see
http://www.centerforriskcommunication.com/pubs/crc-p1.pdf
I am impressed by the example of former New York City Mayor when asked about the number of casualties just about hours after September 11 attacks. He simply said, “More than we can bear” to show his calmness as well as compassion. To crisis communication professionals, I guess it will be easier to stay calm than to reveal compassion because they already faced lots of crises. So, the author remind us that the first thing to keep in find is to deal with public’s emotions. Acknowledge and accept that the fear is legitimate.
The seven cardinal rules of risk communication, as identified by EPA, could highlight the core thinking of this chapter.
1.Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner.
2.Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts.
3.Listen to the public's specific concerns.
4.Be honest, frank, and open.
5.Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources.
6.Meet the needs of the media.
7.Speak clearly and with compassion.
Based on step by step planning, I found some useful checklists and work sheets that can help us work on detail implementation of the communication process. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/riskcomm/tools/default.shtm
Also, the New York City’s West Nile Virus Response could be viewed as another case study. The first outbreak of West Nile virus in New York City occurred in late Summer 1999. By the following summer, the New York City Department of Health had developed a detailed response plan that included public education and outreach. The three objectives for public education and outreach plan were 1) to improve the public’s awareness of risk for disease; 2) to improve the public’s participation in eliminating potential breeding sites; and 3) to provide timely and accurate information related to insecticide spraying. Channels of communication included television and radio public service announcements; press releases, extensive media outreach, and announcements during the scheduled daily Mayoral press conferences; brochures and fact sheets, prepared in 10 to 15 languages; posters placed throughout the city; bill inserts mailed with the cooperation of city utilities, including the Consolidated Edison Company of New York and the Water Department; phone lines staffed and answered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at the height of the outbreak, including the handling of over 150,000 calls; a Web site that included general information, a question-and-answer section, forms for reporting standing water and dead birds, insecticide fact sheets, and press releases issued during the outbreak; and a limited number of town-hall public meetings.
The primary spokespersons were the New York City Health Commissioner and the Mayor. In the outer boroughs, the Borough President often assumed the Mayor’s role. The majority of the press releases addressed spraying and included telephone numbers to call for more information. Print materials, generally written at a high school reading level, contained information about personal protective behavior
(e.g., sheltering-in-place and protection against mosquitoes) and included a request that the public assist government agencies by eliminating sources of standing water where mosquitoes might breed.
In general, report suggested that the New York City risk communication effort related to the West NileVirus epidemic was far-reaching, resource intensive, competently handled, and effective.
For more information about this case, please see
http://www.centerforriskcommunication.com/pubs/crc-p1.pdf
posted by Jiun-Yi (Jenny) Tsai at
2/17/2007 03:21:00 AM
1 Comments:
More on Chapter 20
This rather long chapter covers many specific elements of risk communication during a crisis or emergency. I have chosen to highlight a few of these elements for further discussion.
Credibility and Trust
Building trust takes time and should be in place before an emergency. This is a crucial element of any risk communication. In the fall, I attended a crisis communication conference in Kansas. It was interesting to hear this concept as a recurring theme. In times of crisis or emergency, reporters said that the trust they had established with key figures in the community (police, hospital staff, government officials, etc.) helped them communicate with their audience. Because they had relationships with these people, they were able to go to them in times of uncertainty. I especially remember a reporter for the Times-Picayune in New Orleans who said the most important source of information he had during Katrina was a local morgue director. His prior relationship with this person allowed him to report a more accurate number of the people killed in the storm.
Although the media are only one piece of a risk communication effort, in a time of emergency, they can also be the most effective at reaching large numbers of people. It became clear after 9/11 that in times of crisis, we seek information. I remember being glued to the television, radio and Internet in the days and weeks after the terrorist attacks. I couldn’t get enough information.
The books mentions several ways trust and credibility can be eroded: disagreement among experts; lack of coordination among risk management organizations; lack of listening, dialogue, and public participation; an unwillingness to acknowledge risks; not disclosing information in a timely manner; and not fulfilling risk management responsibilities (p. 394, originally from Chess et al. 1995; Covellow et al. 1989). How many of these errors were evident during Katrina?
Internal Communication
In any crisis or emergency plan, I think the most difficult thing is to “plan for the unexpected.” However, by planning for seemingly impossible events, when something less severe occurs, the organization will be prepared. The book offers some key advice to for organization to prepare for such unexpected events.
Check your attitudes at the door – Attitudes about the risk, audience, and personal responsibilities can inhibit the appropriate response to an emergency. Organizational constraints (i.e. lack of resources, conflicting requirements, etc.) and ethical issues must be addressed so they do not interfere with appropriate communication strategies during a crisis or emergency.
Determine staff roles – Organizations need to be clear about internal and external roles. In a crisis situation, organizations will have different responsibilities and will need to team up with other agencies. Staff members need to understand how they must operate in the organization, and how it will benefit the larger response effort.
Ensure worker communication – In a crisis, you cannot ignore your own staff. An internal emergency plan should be in place so they know what is expected of them and how to protect their own safety as well as doing their part to protect the public.
My department conducted a study after the 2004 hurricane season when four hurricanes hit Florida within six weeks. This study examined how Extension personnel responded to the crisis both personally and professionally. The results indicated that Extension agents were often had home damage, had to take care of family, and then had to decide how to continue to do their jobs. As a result of this study, the Extension service has placed more emphasis on how to help their own employees in a time of crisis as well as their clientele.
What should organizations do to communicate effectively with their internal staff?
By
Courtney, at 12:31 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home