Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model?

The crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model, is presented as an alternative to the seemingly perceived inadequate traditional models of risk and crisis communication in effectively responding to the new and emerging global threats and bioterrorism. The authors describe the scope and nature of communication efforts proposed by the model as being ‘broader than many traditional models of risk or crisis communication (p.49)’. They draw mainly from the anthrax episode (which followed the 9/11 attacks) to justify the expediency of the model. The model was initiated by CDC in an attempt to facilitate effective communication within a context of immediacy, threat and high uncertainty.

Noteworthy points about the model

1 Incorporate principles of effective risk and crisis communication throughout the evolution of a risk factor into a crisis event and on through the clean-up and recovery phase.

2 Merged many existing activities into more comprehensive systems of communications.

3 Grounded on a recognition of the five staged development features of crisis – ‘from risk, to eruption, to clean-up and recovery on into evaluation (p.51)’

4 Based on the notion that effective communication regarding crisis and emergencies must begin long before an event erupts and continue after immediate threat has subsided (p.53).

5 Offers a comprehensive approach within which risk and warning messages and communication activities can be connected into a more encompassing communication form (p51).

6 Crises are threats and actual events; often a combination of the two.

7 Acknowledges limitations based on the following

Stages of a crisis are not necessarily mutually exclusive - crises rarely develop exactly as expected. They may skip stages or actually move back to earlier stages.

Dynamic nature of crisis dictates that specific needs and conditions cannot be predicted precisely.

Development stages of crisis in CERC

1. Precrisis

Focus of communication – public and response community

Purpose: To inform the general public and stakeholders about the risk and encourage behaviors that reduces the chances of exposure.

· Pre-event communication e.g. education campaigns, issue press releases, message development testing.
· Forging alliances with stakeholders

2. Initial event

Focus of communication – general public and affected groups

Features: Immediate and focused communications to the general public and those affected using designated spokesperson, established channels of communication and other important features of crisis communication.

3. Maintenance

Focus of communication – general public and affected groups

Purpose - to update and provide feedback about the crisis and to correct any rumors or misunderstandings.

4. Resolution

Focus of communication – General public and affected groups

Purpose – updates regarding resolution, discussions and cause and new risks/new understanding of risk.

5. Evaluation

· Focus of communication – agencies and response community

· Purpose – postmortem, assessment and learning of the effectiveness of the communication activities, re-examination of the crisis communication plan for any deficiencies or areas that need development and lessons learned.

Views regarding the model

The key feature about the CERC model is that it blends the risk and crisis communication activities into a more comprehensive system. In so doing it gives communicators a sense of what to expect as a crisis develops and specifies some of the communication activities that may be appropriate at different points in a crisis. However, literature on both risk and crisis communication highlights these issues, though separately from the respective fields’ point of view.

In terms of the developmental stages of crisis, the model does not differ much from Mitroff (1994) and Fink (1986) staged models of crisis communication as well as Coombs (1999) three-staged model, further divided into sub-stages. Just as the different developmental stages of a crisis proposed by these three authors mainly differ in the number of stages, the main thing is that they do not differ in key elements and features and intervention strategies. The CERC model as proposed in no different. The precrisis phase of the CERC model focuses entirely on the ideals, principles and strategies of risk communication and is aimed at prevention. The rest of the stages borrow much from effective crisis communication principles and strategies.

The CERC model, as presented in the article, is simply an attempt to bring together components of risk communication and crisis communication. Apart from that, I don’t see anything new about the model. This point is demonstrated by the fact that reading throughout the article provided a good overview of what we have already learned in class throughout the semester concerning risk and crisis communication. However, since the model is still new and presented as a working model, it may develop further with time and testing to distinguish itself from the current existing models.