University of Colorado at Boulder
Home A to Z Campus Map

Natural Hazards Observer

July 2005
Volume XXIX | Number 6

Next Page | Table of Contents

Warning and Informing the Public

Since September 11, 2001, an unprecedented amount of attention and resources have been invested in homeland security and emergency management. Every level of government—federal, state, local, and tribal—is focused on protecting, detecting, and responding to emergencies, natural and otherwise. While these efforts are vital, most emergency managers recognize that government is only part of the solution. Individuals must make informed decisions and take appropriate actions to protect themselves and their families. To know what to do and when during an emergency, the public depends on receiving timely, accurate, and useful information from the government. Unfortunately, recent events (e.g., the May 11, 2005, evacuation of the White House and Capital) have demonstrated that this is an area where much can be improved.

State and local emergency managers have long known that effective warnings save lives, reduce property losses, and speed economic recovery. They have also known that the nation’s existing public warning systems are fragmented, rely primarily upon radio and television, are not interoperable, and often provide contradictory or inconsistent information. Existing systems often fail to provide information that can be understood by those citizens with special needs (such as the 40 million Americans who are hearing impaired) and those who do not speak English. The bottom line is that these systems fail to reach many individuals who are at risk while unnecessarily warning many who are not. This article tells the story of a grass-roots initiative that sought to focus attention on the issue of public warning.

In early 2001, emergency managers from state and local government, after discussions with representatives from industry, academia, and the nonprofit community, decided to hold a public warning summit in Washington, DC, in December 2001. On September 11 of that year, the world changed. And, when over 130 individuals from government and the private sector came to Washington for the December summit, the fact that not a single public warning system had been activated on September 11 was undeniably top of mind.

Summit participants agreed that improving America’s public warning capability should be made a national priority. They also agreed that achieving this objective would require cooperation and collaboration among a wide variety of stakeholders, both public and private. To foster this collaboration, attendees decided to launch an objective, consensus-based forum where government, industry, and other interested stakeholders could work together. A few weeks later the Partnership for Public Warning (PPW) was created as a public-private partnership.

The PPW’s first initiative was to assist the federal government in the development of a terrorist threat system. This was followed by a comprehensive assessment of the Emergency Alert System, which set the stage for the PPW’s development of a national strategy and implementation plan for improving the nation’s public warning capabilities; further work on the Homeland Security Advisory System; and the development of a standard for communicating public warning messages across different technology platforms.

By 2004, the partnership was having funding difficulties. The majority of the PPW’s funding had been privately raised and consisted of dues, grants, and contributions, but the organization was in dire need of federal funding. Congress had appropriated $10 million to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for public warning and there was hope that a portion of this funding would be used to support the PPW. Despite its recognition as the only national organization addressing the issue of public warning and numerous conversations with senior government officials, no funding made its way into PPW coffers. Ultimately, in April 2005, the Partnership for Public Warning was officially dissolved (see the Observer, May 2005, p. 7).

During its short life, the PPW had a number of significant accomplishments. Significantly, the PPW:

  • Conducted the first comprehensive review of the Emergency Alert System and provided recommendations on how to make it more effective.
  • Provided recommendations on how to improve the Homeland Security Advisory System (the color-coded terrorist alert system).
  • Provided the leadership that led to the first interoperability standard for alert and warning, the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), which was adopted as a national standard by the OASIS XML standards group.
  • Led the public warning community to the recognition that better public warning is not a technology problem and that the major problems with the nation’s existing public alert and warning capability include inconsistent warning systems, lack of clear and consistent messages, lack of clear policies and procedures, failure to implement and maintain warning systems, and lack of public education.
  • Developed a national strategy for addressing the above problems and improving America’s public warning capabilities that recommends the following:
    • Develop one integrated all-hazards warning capability;
    • Develop standard terminologies and threat scales;
    • Develop clear guidance on what constitutes an effective warning message;
    • Develop clear policies and procedures regarding the dissemination of warning messages;
    • Promote interoperability standards to permit the dissemination of warnings across multiple platforms;
    • Develop policies and procedures for regularly testing community warning systems;
    • Educate the public as to how they will be warned, what the warnings mean, and how to react; and
    • Provide a collaborative, consensus-based forum where government, industry and other interested stakeholders can work together.

      • While many communities would benefit from an investment in new systems, these activities do not require major new financial investments or a significant amount of time. The PPW developed an implementation plan for the national strategy that could be completed in a mere 24 months and for less than $10 million.

  • Developed criteria that emergency managers, public officials, and citizens can use as benchmarks in assessing public warning systems. While not every system will fulfill all the criteria, the same criteria are applicable to systems at the local, state, and federal levels. Features of an effective warning system include:
    • Supports multiple types of hazards;
    • Does not put message provider or recipient at risk;
    • Is always on and always ready to warn;
    • Is reliable, redundant, and secure;
    • Can reach and address everyone (including individuals with special needs, non-English speakers, and transient populations) in affected locations or areas;
    • Supports multiple distribution channels employing multiple technologies (e.g., telephones, cell phones, personal digital assistants, personal computers, televisions, radios, and other consumer electronics); and
    • Employs clear, uniform alert and warning terminology.
  • Developed a public warning primer for public officials, which includes the above criteria and issues such as the “cry wolf” and “too much information” myths and provides guidance on developing effective public warnings. The most effective public warning messages employ:
    • Easily understandable “trigger words”;
    • Words that the majority of the population find simple and memorable;
    • Words that are transferable across hazards;
    • Words that easily translate into other languages; and
    • Words that can be used across media, such as a 10-character pager, a 12-character cell phone, or a 60-character short messaging appliance.

While there is still much to do, the partnership’s efforts have had an impact. CAP is gaining widespread acceptance among state and local emergency managers. And, as communities and states begin discussions about implementing new public warning capabilities, many of the PPW’s recommendations regarding effective systems and messages are front and center.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently undertook a major initiative seeking public comments on steps that should be taken to improve the nation’s public warning system. The FCC stated that this inquiry was based partly upon the work done by the PPW. While it is unclear as to what will happen as a result of this inquiry, it is encouraging that at least one federal agency is seeking input from the public and other concerned stakeholders.

The PPW’s work has also had an impact around the world. The United Kingdom has a partnership on public warning similar to the PPW called the National Steering Committee on Warning and Informing the Public, which has followed the PPW’s activities closely. Additionally, recent proposals coming out of Southeast Asia to develop a public warning system to protect citizens from future tsunamis have drawn heavily upon the PPW’s work.

So why did the partnership not succeed? The most important reason is the lack of public outcry regarding the need to develop a more effective public warning capability. Most citizens and government leaders, having grown up listening to the “this is a test of the emergency alert system” messages on radio and television, believe that an effective public warning system already exists. A second reason is that public warning encompasses all levels of government and requires close cooperation between government and industry. There must be leadership to bring these stakeholders together. The most likely candidate is the federal government. Unfortunately, no single federal agency has the statutory authority or resources to provide this leadership role. A number of federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Commerce and the FCC, participated in the PPW. However, they lacked the authority to assume a leadership role in this area. The creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security offers some hope that a federal leader in public warning may emerge. But, the process of establishing the department has diverted management attention from issues such as public warning.

The Partnership for Public Warning is no more. However, there is still much that can be done to improve America’s public warning capability. The next steps are up to you.

Kenneth Allen
Partnership for Public Warning (formerly)

The Partnership for Public Warning’s Web site, which contains many of the projects mentioned herein and links to other valuable resources, is being maintained as a public service by The MITRE Corporation at http://www.partnershipforpublicwarning.org/. PPW documents include The Emergency Alert System (EAS): An Assessment (February 2004), A National Strategy for Integrated Public Warning Policy and Capability (May 2003), Public Alert and Warning—-A National Duty, A National Challenge: Implementing the Vision (September 2003), and Developing A Unified All Hazards Public Warning System (November 2002).

Next Page | Table of Contents