|
|
|
The State of Public Warnings in the USA In the rapidly changing wired and unwired world we find ourselves in, many of us are "connected" except while we are asleep. However, are we reliably connected to warnings about all the events that can put us in harm's way? After September 11, 2001, the New York Times and other publications raised serious concerns about public warnings. Government was not able to respond to these warning criticisms effectively for several reasons. The nature of the September 11 domestic terrorist attack was not a threat that we had faced as a nation before. Meaningful warnings would have required lead time that we now know was not possible on September 11. And, strange as it may seem, the US then and now does not have a nationwide public warning policy. While the United States had warning systems predating the legendary ride of Paul Revere, the US has never had an overall national warning strategy. Formal national warnings had their roots in World War II when fears of enemy attack on US soil were high. The CONELRAD broadcast warning system was evolved to warn us. It was also designed to thwart radio direction finders that were the "high tech" on bombers of that era. When bomb dropping technology made CONELRAD's spoofing abilities moot, the system was changed and became the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS). EBS adopted more of a local and state flavor as the emphasis on Cold War enemy warnings was played down. The good people at the National Weather Service came to the rescue. They were aware that some risk-prone local communities had worked with local radio and TV stations to get warnings out for local weather disasters. One of the best practices cited was identified in Parkersburg, West Virginia. Emergency managers and broadcasters in Parkersburg had put together an effective flash flood warning system. Based on such best practices, EBS added local civil and weather warnings to the less likely but still possible need for national warnings for enemy attacks. FEMA, the FCC and state emergency management conducted a series of meetings across the nation in 1976 to roll out EBS and its new local role to broadcasters and local emergency managers. The Emergency Alert System (EAS) brought improved technology to the national warning mission in 1997. However, in the opinion of some broadcast warning experts, it still fell short of solving many warning problems. EAS was the result of a multi-year inquiry by the FCC into how EBS could be improved. The EAS as the FCC approved it was built on a much more technically sound platform than EBS. Even so, there was still no national warning strategy in place that spanned all government agencies and levels. There were other problems. For example, EAS, like EBS before it, still operates separately from warnings issued by the National Weather Service. There was nothing in the new EAS rules to make sure local civil warnings could get back into he National Weather Service's NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) national network of Weather Radio transmitters. These VHF radio channels can be monitored by scanners and marine radios by segments of the public who might not be listening or watching on-air broadcasting. There is also a very large Catch 22 inherent in the EAS. Participation in the EAS by broadcasters at the local and state level is voluntary. The FCC does mandate compliance for broadcasters to install EAS equipment, maintain it, test it weekly and monthly, relay national level warnings, and keep records. Relaying local and state EAS messages is not mandatory for broadcasters. Making matters worse, while there was once some government funding for equipment and training, that has all but disappeared. This literally makes EAS a voluntary unfunded Federal mandate. EAS is not the whole warning picture. Despite significant progress, EAS, NWR and the entire range of warning devices (including sirens) have never been coordinated elements of a national all hazards warning system. Civilian and government warning experts met in November 2001 in McLean, VA to outline the scope of the warning problem. The Partnership For Public Warning (PPW) that those 120 experts envisioned in late 2001 was incorporated as a not-for-profit in early 2002 to explore the warning issues they identified. PPW's initial challenge: To draft a national warning strategy and its supporting elements. PPW has since conducted two major warning workshop retreats at the FEMA training facility in Emmitsburg, MD and convened task forces to write other work products. PPW has so far published major reports based on these workshops available on the PPW website [www.ppw.us]. The PPW reports on the draft strategy and a critical assessment of the Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) were requested by the then newly formed Department of Homeland Security. Warning strategy, the need for a common warning protocol, the EAS, and common warning terminology has been key areas of investigation for subsequent PPW's reports. However, without a clear mandate and much needed resources from the Federal government, the public warning function could remain an unfunded voluntary hole in our nation's protective armor. Looking to a future beyond the hoped-for national warning strategy, some warning experts believe that emergency information itself should be thought of as a resource to be managed. Most people would agree that at any given point during an emergency response emergency managers would like the public to either do or not do something that could help bring the event to a more rapid satisfactory outcome. Warnings, in this view, could be thought of as a subset within the entire managed resource of emergency information. Information then can be seen as the overall managed resource from the origination of the initial public warning on to announcements from emergency managers that Response has ended. Conclusion: A major lesson we have learned is that technology by itself is not the answer to effective warnings. We need to include all stakeholders in the public and private sectors in the still evolving process to make sure we have all our warning bets covered. The PPW has been developed as a non-profit and solution-neutral meeting ground to explore and outline all the elements of a viable national warning strategy. PPW has concluded that no one agency is now in charge of the overall warning mission. Fixing responsibility at a high level in government for warnings is a priority for PPW, and should be for all of us.
About the Author Richard Rudman |
