Alerts, Warnings, & Response to Emergencies | AWARE » Featured Posts

FCC Releases Special Handbook and Web Forms for National EAS Test

Gary Timm — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:29:32 +0000

With just two weeks to go, the FCC has now released a special Handbook with instructions for the November 9th National EAS Test, as well as making a web portal available for post-test reporting of test results. All broadcasters and cable operators, which the FCC calls “EAS Participants”, are required to participate in this test. One question that has been lingering is what Non-participating National (NN) stations, which would normally sign off the air during a national emergency, are to do during the test.

The FCC “Handbook for November 9, 2011 Nationwide EAS Test” says on Page 4 that NN stations must participate in the test. Step 8 of the procedure on Page 16 states that NN sources must “discontinue programming” during the nationwide test. It isn’t clear whether this means NN broadcasters must sign off the air. FCC rule Part 11.19 says NN sources are to “go off the air or discontinue programming on all channels during a national level EAS message.” One would think that rule means NN broadcasters go off the air and NN cable systems discontinue programming. So, NN broadcasters and cable systems might want to consult their communications attorney for an interpretation of this one. NN sources that wish to change their EAS Designation to Participating National (PN) should contact the FCC at email and phone below.

This special test day Handbook will supersede all other EAS Handbooks during the operation of the nationwide EAS test on November 9th. As the official Handbook for that day, the FCC requires that it be posted at all EAS equipment locations or normal duty positions, just as the normal EAS Operating Handbook is required to be posted. Page 12 of the special Handbook shows the actual TV crawl messages that will be generated for the test by various brands of EAS units. The text of the script that will be read by a federal official during the test is detailed on Page 14 of the test day Handbook. The Handbook encourages TV stations and cable systems to display a graphic behind the EAS text crawl stating “This is a Test”. The FCC offers a sample of the text to be used on Page 21 of the Handbook. It is the same graphic as found on the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) website shown below.

The other major announcement is the activation of a web portal for EAS Participants to file the FCC-required response on results of the nationwide EAS test at their facility. All EAS Participants are requested to fill out Form 1 on the site prior to November 9, complete Form 2 on November 9th test day, and before the December deadline fill out Form 3. There is some discrepancy in the FCC documentation regarding the deadline for filing Form 3. The previously announced 45 day period ends on December 24, so FCC stated in previous webinars that the date would be extended to December 27. Both dates are referred to in various parts of the FCC materials.

Form 1 requests EAS Participant legal name, FCC Registration Number (FRN), broadcaster Facility ID and call sign or cable operator Physical System ID, as well as stations monitored for EAS, make, model and software of EAS unit used, and the facility’s EAS Designation (consult your State EAS Plan for that information; see link below). EAS Participants will also need to provide their Lat/Long location in decimal degrees (xx.xxxxxx). See the FCC converter link below if you need to convert from minutes/seconds. Form 2 asks if the EAS Participant received and forwarded the test. Form 3 asks for an explanation of the success or failure of the test and the date and time test was received. Unfortunately, much of the information on Form 1 must be re-entered on Forms 2 and 3. There appears to be no system to just add to the previously submitted forms. To prepare for using the FCC Test Results Reporting System, see the instructions link below.

Here are links to useful National EAS Test sites:

FCC National EAS Test Homepage: Test Day Handbook, Test Results Reporting System and PSAs, both Audio and Video, in English and Spanish:
www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/emergency-alert-system-nationwide-test

Direct link to special FCC Test Day Handbook:
http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/eas/EAS Handbook – National Test.pdf

Direct link to FCC Test Results Portal:
http://apps.fcc.gov/easnt/home1.cfm

Direct link to FCC Test Results Form 1:
http://apps.fcc.gov/easnt/form1.cfm

Direct link to FCC Test Results Reporting System Instructions:
http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/EASNT_Reporting_System_Instructions.pdf

FCC/FEMA/NAB suggested “This is a Test” graphic:
www.nab.org/documents/advocacy/EAS/EASTestSlide.pdf

FCC EAS Website List of State EAS Plans and EAS Chairs:
www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/state-eas-plans-and-chairs

FCC Lat/Long converter from minutes/seconds to decimal degrees:
http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/DDDMMSS-decimal.html

FCC contact shown in the test day Handbook: Gregory.Cooke@fcc.gov, 202-418-2351

NAB National EAS Test Pre-Checklist and English/Spanish Audio and Video produced PSAs and scripts:
www.nab.org/documents/advocacy/EAS/EAS.asp

SBE National EAS Test Webpage and PSAs:
www.sbe.org/sections/gov_eas.php

FCC Guide on National EAS Test:
www.fcc.gov/guides/emergency-alert-system-nationwide-test-eas

FCC Two-Page info sheet on National EAS Test:
http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/eas_test.pdf

FEMA National EAS Test website:
www.fema.gov/emergency/ipaws/eas_info.shtm

FEMA National EAS Test Informational Toolkit:
www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/ipaws/national_eas_test_info_toolkit_081511.pdf

FEMA EAS Best Practices Guide – Info on improving EAS station reception, specific instructions for programming each specific EAS unit (Sage, TFT, etc.) for the National EAS Test, and other best practices for EAS operations:
www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/ipaws/eas_best_practices_guide.pdf

NASBA National EAS Test Website:
www.easalert.org/

Broadcast Warning Working Group:
http://eas.radiolists.net/

Innovations in Alerting Series: Social Media in Emergency Management

Hal Grieb — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:17:34 +0000

During the month of September, AWARE will be hosting a series of posts from guest authors highlighting the five most significant innovations in the field of alerts and warnings in the past decade since 9/11. In this post, Hal Grieb, noted expert on social media and emergency management, discusses how social media has evolved to be such an important tool in the arsenal of public safety in the past ten years.

In the 10 years that have passed since the 9/11 tragedy, public safety agencies have witnessed many technological advancements that aid society. One such technology, which has pervaded many aspects of modern life, is social media—an advancement that has come to be so accepted in our society that it was formally added to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in August 2011. Though government has made strides in using these new tools to interact with the public, adoption has been slow for the most part. However, moving forward, the public sector must be more proactive in interacting with citizens where they already reside.

The Emergence of Social Media

Modern society has witnessed many events that have given rise to social media. Ten years ago it was live broadcasts of distraught loved ones stapling requests for help and information on telephone poles and ad hoc bulletin boards in the moments after the 9/11 tragedy. In 2005, reliable information was collaboratively built by strangers on free websites like Wikipedia, helping shed light on response issues related to Katrina. Then in 2007, students demonstrated how easy Facebook made quick collaborative communication to accurately create a list of names impacted by the Virginia Tech shooter before it was officially released.

Social media was developed to virtually connect friends and families spread across various cities, states, and countries. In the early 2000s, most social media sites were first embraced by high school and college students moving on to their next phases of life. Now, those former students have graduated and moved into today’s societal fabric and modern workforce. The younger generations brought unique perspectives on how established communications such as email, instant chat, and discussion forums were good for niche communications but lacked a holistic approach. These basic tools each had certain limitations in how dynamic information could be shared with outside audiences or users in an open environment. Social media has helped fill the gaps older technology was limited by and brought forth newer advancements with geo-location tools and mobile device integrations. Naturally, these tools have offered a great deal of value for emergency managers and other public safety officials.

As I consider myself part of this tech savvy generation, I am thankful to the many early adopters in and around government, such as Brian Humphrey (LA Fire), John Shea (creator of FEMA’s social media campaigns), and W David Stephenson (government focused blogger), that helped inspire and pave the way for others in public safety as early as 2004.

The Voice Missing from Social Media

Today, as more people log onto social media in disasters they have noticed a very important group missing from the conversation. That group is government. How can any government, mandated to serve its citizens, not operate in the same venues of its citizens whether physical or virtual? The general population has proven social media to be a valuable tool in local and national events and tragedies. The sharing of information has been moved from telephone poles to social media, viewable by millions and answered by strangers in real time. It has given solace to grieving survivors, united distant friends and families, and helped organize strangers offering help across nations. As each day passes it is becoming harder and harder for government to turn away from their citizens’ use of social media.

I am thankful to see that in the past 10 years social media has not only reached general population adoption but also beginning to reach further in government adoption. Society and public safety holds no place for rigid government communications and slow technological adaptation. Public safety agencies are finally realizing the benefits and need to understand social media as a new tool that helps them respond to the priorities of Life Safety, Incident Stabilization, and Property / Economic conservation. Since late 2009, more governments have begun creating official social media accounts. Government agencies and many public safety organizations such as FEMA, American Red Cross, the National Weather Service, as well as various state and local governments have successfully employed social media in responses to earthquakes, tornados, and other disasters, proving that social media has real value to public service. It isn’t just a website for kids anymore.

Reactive is Out… Proactive is in

Though governments have made progress in adopting social media, innovation in the public sector cannot stop here. Now more than ever, public safety responders and government leaders need to become persistent and vocal change agents, constantly dissatisfied with current technologies and demanding improvements in their agency’s technological toolbox. In times of emergency, public safety agencies cannot afford to wait around, hoping their stakeholders communicate with them on outdated technological platforms.

Public service is best delivered to the public where they communicate, interact, and reside. And the public does all these things on social media. Since 9/11, technology has adapted to society’s needs in disasters and highlighted the fact that proactive communication is in and reactive communication is out.

Innovations in Alerting Series: Emergency Notification Systems

Courtney Cunningham — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:50:17 +0000

During the month of September, AWARE will be hosting a series of posts from guest authors highlighting the five most significant innovations in the field of alerts and warnings in the past decade since 9/11. In this post, Courtney Cunningham, Senior Associate for the Lafayette Group and a former external affairs officer for Chatham County, Georgia, discusses the significance of local emergency notification systems.

In a post 9-11 world, emergency notification systems have become a popular technological advancement for emergency response personnel to communicate with the public. The last decade has seen an insurgence of developers offering low-cost solutions to reach every resident within a specific jurisdiction. But do these systems truly work and are they reaching the specific populations that need the emergency information most?

Benefits of a Community Notification System

While working as an Emergency Management Specialist for a coastal emergency management agency (EMA) in Georgia, I was responsible for developing an external affairs program for a county with a population of approximately 260,000. The community had access to a community notification system (CNS) which was purchased from a private vendor and the cost split between the county, city and police department. Here were some of the benefits of this solution:

The cost of the system was minimal. This particular vendor was new and contracted with the community in exchange for advertising for the first several months. The only major cost was the purchase of the digital phonebook from the local telephone company.
The software for the CNS was very user-friendly. It allowed emergency response personnel to draw a polygon around an area that needed alerts, push a button and the message was sent to every landline in the designated area.
The system wasn’t just a “robocall.” When residents received a message, they had the option to choose that they had heard the message, have it repeated or, if no one answered the phone, the CNS would leave a message on the answering machine and attempt to call later.
The system helped with the rapid activation of emergency support groups. County departments such as the local EMA were able to set up Emergency Support Function (ESF) partner groups that could be contacted if an emergency should arise and the Emergency Operations Center was activated. The CNS saved the EMA time and manpower hours with just a few clicks on a computer and ESF groups were activated.

…And the System’s Limitations

While it was an excellent resource for reaching the public and ESF partners, several issues needed to be overcome:

The system did not support languages other than English. Primarily, the County had to take into consideration that not everyone would be able to understand English, and this particular notification system did not allow residents to choose to hear the message in a different language, not to mention residents who may have had special medical needs such as hearing impairments.
Cell phones were not included in the call list. When the County purchased the phonebook from the telephone company and downloaded it to the system, it did not include residents’ cell phone numbers. Considering that an increasing number of Americans do not have a landline telephone, these residents could be left out of the notification service.
Residents could add their cell phone numbers to the CNS list—but very few did. Residents could receive CNS messages on their cellphones by registering their cell phone numbers through the County website. But as anyone who works in emergency response knows, the likelihood of residents voluntarily signing themselves up to receive notifications from the government is low. Even with the best public outreach campaign, very few residents chose to visit the County’s website to opt in.
New subscriptions meant higher costs. Each time numbers were added to the CNS database, an additional cost was tacked on to the annual fee.

The Biggest Barriers: Training and Processes

Another major hindrance to the CNS was the training offered to learn how to use and manage the software. Unfortunately, territorial issues arose and only a select few were initially trained to use the system. When it came time to send out a test message, it was discovered that many of the individuals trained in the software were no longer available to input alerts. The County had to pay for an additional training session with the developer, and the cycle began again.

Moreover, Southerners have an interesting way of pronouncing certain words such as streets names and island names. (I can say this, as I am a Southern myself.) The CNS did not recognize this difference and therefore whoever was entering the alert into the software would have to remember to misspell the word so that residents would understand the message. For instance, Houston Street is not pronounced like the city in Texas, but rather as “How-Stun.”

The Ideal Solution: Integrate Tools for Wider Impact

While the CNS may have had its issues, emergency response partners understand that this is just one tool in a rather growing arsenal of public outreach techniques. As the Public Affairs Officer for the County EMA, I realized that the CNS was great when used in conjunction with the EMA’s email distribution list, Twitter alerts, Facebook, EMA website, brochures, community presentations and media partnerships. I always wondered if there would ever be a way to link all of these technologies together and only realized recently that developments are underway through the IPAWS Aggregator—a technology that not only will save an enormous amount of time but also will alleviate stress levels in the local EMAs. Hopefully, when all of these technologies, including the Commercial Mobile Alert Service (CMAS), are linked together, local EMAs will be able to distribute lifesaving information to the people who need it most – our families, friends and neighbors.

Innovations in Alerting Series: The CMAS Users Trial – Other Observations

Stephen Rea — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:00:14 +0000

During the month of September, AWARE will be hosting a series of posts from guest authors highlighting the five most significant innovations in the field of alerts and warnings in the past decade since 9/11. This post is the final of three on the CMAS Users Trial conducted in San Diego, authored by Stephen Rea, Senior Emergency Services Coordinator of the County of San Diego (California) Office of Emergency Services.

As part of a coordinated effort with Sprint and the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), The County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services (OES) had a unique opportunity to become the first in the nation to test the Commercial Mobile Alert Service (CMAS, also known as the Personalized Local Alerting Network, or PLAN) on a large scale. During the October 2010 trial, over 50 imminent threat and AMBER alerts were generated. These alerts were received by 120 mobile phones preloaded with CMAS software. Our intent was to put PLAN through its paces by simulating large and small disasters ranging from earthquakes and tsunamis to hazardous materials spills.

While our technical partners, Sprint and Alcatel Lucent, were able to gain some knowledge about the mechanics and technical specifications of the implementation, the Office of Emergency Services concentrated on the message. We were able to experience, in part, what it was like to be a local alerting agency working with the PLAN network.

Designing Trial Scenarios

The first part of the process of creating a PLAN alert involves choosing from pre-designated lists for “response type” and “category”. Response type choices include Shelter, Evacuate, Prepare, Execute, Monitor, and Assess. Category choices were Geo, Met, Safety, Security, Rescue, Fire, Health, Env, Transport, Infra, and CBRNE.

To come up with our 50 trial scenarios, we held a brainstorming session to try to match up natural and human-made disasters with the predefined lists. For most choices we had no problem imagining disasters that fit into these categories, but we did run into one category type that gave us problems. We could not find a good use for the predefined FEMA category of “Rescue.” We thought about trapped miners or earthquake victims, but couldn’t come up with a good scenario. Under what circumstances would we notify residents of a rescue, what would we communicate to them, and would this qualify as an emergency?

One of our attempted scenarios during the trial was to create a geofence. This would be the process of setting up a geographic barrier using the map in the PLAN software. This would send an alert when a user entered a quarantined area, for example, if we were to identify an area around a damaged nuclear power plant, we could use a PLAN message to warn people to stay away before they entered a dangerous area.

Limitations in Geofencing

While this was technically possible using the software, there was no pre-designated PLAN response type for “Avoid the Area.” The nearest categories were “Evacuate” or “Assess”. Neither one was a perfect fit. Another discovery involved the message duration. The system limited the maximum duration of an alert to 24 hours. If an emergency manager needed a longer duration, another message was required.

I am sure many of these issues that we have identified will be solved with training or with the next generations of the PLAN system. We look forward to these advances and were honored to have a small part in the development of this important system.

Innovations in Alerting Series: The CMAS Users Trial – Alerting a Target Area

Stephen Rea — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:00:44 +0000

During the month of September, AWARE will be hosting a series of posts from guest authors highlighting the five most significant innovations in the field of alerts and warnings in the past decade since 9/11. This post is the second of three on the CMAS Users Trial conducted in San Diego, authored by Stephen Rea, Senior Emergency Services Coordinator of the County of San Diego (California) Office of Emergency Services.

Geotargeting in the CMAS Trial

The FCC rules for carriers specify that they must “transmit any Alert Message that is specified by a geocode, circle, or polygon to an area no larger than [a county].” As San Diego County is roughly the same size as Connecticut, our tests attempted to target a more granular level.

Not surprisingly, we found that the best area for targeting was in our less populated East County; cell towers were spread out and overlapping coverage was not as frequent. Notifying an isolated community worked fairly well. Broadcasting to the heavily populated coastal cities was a greater challenge. Due to the large concentration of overlapping cell towers and wide coverage areas, targeting a small coastal community wasn’t realistic.

The map provides a view of San Diego’s North County. This example shows the target area in light blue and cell tower activation in dark blue.

CAPTION: The map below provides a view of San Diego’s North County. This example shows the target area in light blue and cell tower activation in dark blue.

For example, one of our tests attempted to target Petco Park, San Diego’s premiere baseball stadium. The tiny four block polygon mapped out around the park touched a large number of cell tower coverage areas. This resulted in cell towers activating from the Mexican border, north to La Jolla and east to Chula Vista, over 200 square miles of notification area. With the challenge of describing the area affected in 90 characters, that this type of notification was not practical. (See the previous post on our challenge with the 90-character limit.)

We learned that CMAS targeting lies between an EAS broadcast (county wide) and AlertSanDiego, our reverse 911 system (neighborhood wide) for geographic accuracy.

Innovations in Alerting Series: The CMAS Users Trial – The 90-Character Challenge

Stephen Rea — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:48:54 +0000

During the month of September, AWARE will be hosting a series of posts from guest authors highlighting the five most significant innovations in the field of alerts and warnings in the past decade since 9/11. This post is the first of three on the CMAS Users Trial conducted in San Diego, authored by Stephen Rea, Senior Emergency Services Coordinator of the County of San Diego (California) Office of Emergency Services.

Testing the 90-character limit

One of the first standards we tested was the text message broadcast limit of 90 characters. There had been discussions on whether this was enough space to develop an informative message. Our objective was to develop messages that would quickly describe the type of disaster, area affected, recommended action, and advice to monitor media for more information; all the while avoiding the inclusion of a web link. While it was a challenge to script a 90 character alert, we were able to meet the minimum requirements. Some examples of our trail alerts included:

Wild Fire in the Julian and Santa Ysabel area.
Evacuate now.
Monitor media for more info.

and

Toxic air quality near Mission Bay.
Remain indoors. Turn off AC. Monitor local news.

Overall, this was a success.

Character limits and AMBER Alerts

However when experimenting with AMBER Alerts, we quickly realized that we didn’t have enough space to provide sufficient descriptive information as recommended by the Department of Justice’s AMBER Alert Guidelines. A description of the physical characteristics of the child and suspect, along with the make and model of the vehicle being used followed by a contact number for the investigating jurisdiction’s law enforcement department was not realistic using 90 characters.

The good news is that through our conversation with FEMA, we have learned that PLAN messages for AMBER alerts will be created by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Because of their experience with AMBER alerts, they report that they will not have much of an issue with the 90 character limitation.

Public needs for more alert information

If the goal of PLAN is to alert and motivate people to seek further information, the trial proved that the 90 character limitation works fine, but it is not well suited as the sole information source for disaster notification messages. These messages would require more thorough descriptions of a disaster.

Australia’s emergency alerting system

Greg Trott — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:15:22 +0000

This article is the first of five articles that I plan to contribute during the next 12 months, which will highlight what is happening in Australia with the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). This article introduces the emergency management system that currently operates in Australia and future topics will cover:

What the Australian CAP Profile is seeking to achieve.
What process is Australia using to develop the Australian CAP Profile.
Lessons Learned during development of the Australian CAP Profile.
Australia’s future intentions with CAP.

The Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) is working closely with the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) in the USA to develop a CAP Profile for Australia (CAP-AU), which is scheduled for public release by June 2012. The AGD, among other things, has responsibility for the Australian Government’s role in emergency management. One of the outcomes that AGD seeks to achieve is coordinated federal emergency management activity to ensure a safer Australia.

Emergency Alerting Systems in Australia

Australia’s emergency alerting systems focus on enhancing the protection of human lives. These systems are mostly run by emergency service organisations in our states and territories, including: Fire, Rescue, Police, Health, Transport, and Infrastructure. A national approach to emergency warnings and alerts is achieved through collective efforts based on partnerships of the Commonwealth, States (6), Territories (2), local and regional governments, non-government organisations, industry and the community. Alert messages in Australia are typically generated by an emergency service using approved message templates. Distribution of alert messages is usually achieved to networked sites, RSS feeds, media broadcasters, fixed and mobile telephones, and other mobile devices. The following systems are used throughout Australia to facilitate notification of alerting and warning messages:

Emergency Alert is the national telephone-based emergency warning system that has been operational since 1 December 2009. Emergency Alert is operational in all States and Territories with the exception of the Australian State of Western Australia who operate their own telephone warning system. Emergency Alert sends alerts within a defined area to landline telephones based on the location of the phone and to mobile phones based on the registered service address.
StateAlert has been implemented in the Australian State of Western Australia as a multi-agency, all hazards public emergency warning system that sends critical messages to people whose lives may be in danger. The warnings can be sent via voice messages to mobile and/or fixed phones and text messages to mobile phones (based on the customers billing address), email and RSS feeds. StateAlert also has an opt-in function that enables members of the community to register mobile and/or fixed phone details for up to three separate addresses.
Emergency telephone Hotlines are available across Australia to enable the community to report emergencies, crime, and national security matters. The main all-hazards emergency telephone number across Australia is 000 (known as “Triple Zero”) or 112 on mobile telephone devices, which is analogous to the 911 service provided in North America.
Earthquake and Tsunami alert system. The Joint Australian Tsunami Warning Centre (JATWC) is operated by Geoscience Australia, and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The Centre monitors earthquake activity to detect any potential to generate tsunamis around Australia and its external territories. A network of sea level monitoring equipment is used to warn the Australian community of potential tsunami impacts. Geoscience is responsible for releasing earthquake related messages and the Bureau is responsible for issuing the relevant tsunami warnings and bulletins, usually through media outlets, primarily television and radio station networks.
One Source One Message (OSOM) is a system used in the State of Victoria to provide emergency service organisations with a single source of information for emergency warnings and advice. OSOM provides the ability to publish warnings from Incident Control Centres direct to Emergency Service agency websites and simultaneously inform support organisations, the Victorian Bushfire Information Line and emergency broadcasters. This capability also includes automatic posting of warnings and advice to a twitter feed. Alerting of the public remains the responsibility of the Emergency Alert and State Alert systems in all States.
Standard Emergency Warning Signal (SEWS) is an attention grabbing signal that is transmitted over radio stations, television broadcasts or telephone messages ahead of an emergency alert, warning or public advice message relating to a major emergency or disaster. SEWS is used very selectively in order to draw attention to a follow-on warning or advice about a rapid-onset emergency or disaster.

Australia’s CAP Profile

CAP is currently used in all the systems mentioned above except for the telephone hotlines and SEWS where it does not apply, but provides the flexibility and potential to be adapted to interface with these systems if a requirement emerges. The Australian CAP Profile will be aligned with the OASIS CAP version 1.2 standard, and will provide the Australian community with a common and standardised approach to deliver warning and alerting messages that have been tailored to the Australian emergency management environment.

Image courtesy of New South Wales Police Force, Australia.

New blog series: Top innovations in alerts and warnings in the past decade

Daniel Honker — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:52:48 +0000

In the ten years following September 11, 2001, there have been notable advancements in how the American public is alerted about emergency events. New technologies and modes of communication have been met with the development of innovative approaches to connect critical information with those in the public who need to know. Our friends at the Emergency Management blog recently highlighted a few areas of progress in public safety notification systems. Beginning this week, the AWARE team will be launching a series of blogs highlighting the past decade’s top five innovations in the field of alerts and warnings.

We are excited that each post will be penned by a guest author with on-the-ground experience to shed light on how these innovations have changed the way public safety officials notify the public.

This series kicks off this Tuesday, 9/13, with a multi-part discussion of San Diego (California) County’s tests of commercial mobile alerts. And as always, we welcome your comments on each post during this series. Which innovation has made the biggest impact on emergency alerting capabilities? Are there any innovations we missed? Stay tuned…

Photo courtesy of Flickr user sffoghorn.

What can go wrong in Social Media in Alerts and Warnings?

Lloyd Colston — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 22:03:02 +0000

Social media is a great tool for the emergency manager, responder, public information officer, and the Citizen who wishes to engage the government that wants to serve them. While social media can be a benefit to help increase awareness in emergency situations at a rapid rate, there are some things that can go wrong with it.

Recently, the Social Media for Emergency Management group recently discussed this issue in a Twitter chat. Below are some issues that can arise, and possible solutions to some of the items that may result, if proper planning does not follow its use.

Issue #1: Battery Life is Shorter than the Storm

The average battery life on mobile devices is less than a day, and even less after multiple uses. Therefore in a storm or emergency situation where power is lost, mobile phone batteries won’t last long. Hurricanes and ice storms have shown the citizen what can happen if they can’t make or get calls. Without the ability to recharge their mobile device, a citizen can lose connection with critical sources of information, and with friends and loved ones they may try to contact, during and after incidents.

SOLUTION: Encourage citizens to have at least three ways to power or charge their mobile devices , such as having a backup device or battery. Support the idea of having businesses create charging stations.

Issue #2: Too Much Rapid Information

A great benefit of social media outlets is the ability to provide information at a rapid rate during an emergency situation from those on-site. The problem is that information overload can overwhelm local responders who are doing their best to gather and disseminate information about the emergency.

SOLUTION: Remind citizens not rely solely on social media for emergency services. While firefighters, police officers, emergency medical workers, emergency managers, Red Cross workers, Salvation Army officers, or church volunteers may have social media accounts, during extreme emergency situations using conventional mediums, such as dialing 911, guarantees a dedicated operator who is better equipped to respond. As reiterated by many emergency management offices, health professionals, and non-governmental groups, if a citizen is having a life-threatening emergency, they should call 911. And If 911 fails, the citizen needs to know the direct line to the Public Safety Answer Point that serves them. In addition, most 211 services provide valuable information for non-emergency government and social service needs.

Issue #3: Even Twitter Has a Delay

Connected to the previous thought is that technology, i.e. the pipe, between two folks may break or be delayed. For example, an author has experienced delays in Twitter of six minutes between a post received on a cell phone versus the Tweet coming to an application such as Hootsuite, Plume, EchoFon, SocialOomph, etc.

SOLUTION: Consider having volunteers monitor the stream for you using a variety of tools. The Virtual Operations Support Team concept was pioneered by Social Media for Emergency Managers and practiced by Oklahoma Crisis Mappers. Hootsuite, Timely.is, and TwitterFall are just three tools that allow for stream monitoring among teams.

There’s plenty right about Social Media. Time and again, Social Media has been shown to be a help. However, the prudent user would realize the limitations and plan accordingly (including the use of Ham Radio if a citizen has access to one.

What are some of the limitation you have experienced in using social media in emergency situations, and what are some possible solutions?

FCC announces 5-step plan for Next Gen 911

Daniel Honker — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:44:18 +0000

Last week the FCC announced a five-step plan to boost the implementation of Next Generation 9-1-1. The plan lays out the following steps:

Develop location accuracy mechanisms for NG-911 that will enable 911 centers to verify the location of media received.
Enable consumers to send text, photos, and videos to public safety answering points (PSAPs).
Facilitate the completion and implementation of NG-911 technical standards for hardware and software that will carry NG911 communications.
Develop a NG-911 governance framework to coordinate local public safety officials, Federal agencies, and other partners.
Develop an NG-911 Funding Model focused on the cost-effectiveness of NG911 infrastructure connecting PSAPs and carriers.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski outlined the case for a ramped-up development of NG-911:

“It’s hard to imagine that airlines can send text messages if your flight is delayed, but you can’t send a text message to 911 in an emergency … The unfortunate truth is that the capability of our emergency response communications has not kept pace with commercial innovation — has not kept pace with what ordinary people now do every day with communications devices.”

The importance of NG-911 was on display this week in during and after the DC/East Coast earthquake. As we see in these types of large-scale incidents, cellular networks get jammed quickly in the immediate aftermath of the event, making phone calls to 911 difficult and sometimes impossible. A 911 system that can accept and interpret text messages—which can often still be transmitted even when calls cannot be made—would enable public safety officials to get critical information from the field even if cell networks are jammed.

On a related note, the FCC highlighted the Personal Localized Alerting Network (PLAN, also known as the Commercial Mobile Alert Service, or CMAS) as another recent action to improve public safety: On this point, Chairman Genachowski touted the benefits of PLAN/CMAS:

“With PLAN, government officials will be able to send text-like alerts to everyone in a targeted geographic area with an enabled mobile device … Since the alerts are geographically targeted, they will reach the right people, at the right time, with the right messages. And PLAN creates a fast lane for emergency alerts, so this vital information is guaranteed to get through even if there’s congestion in the network.”

On a broader note, the FCC’s plan (particularly step 4) recognizes that governance will be critical to the successful deployment of NG-911. The technological challenges that hinder emergency dispatchers and public safety officials from receiving text messages and multimedia are significant. But beyond these challenges, updating the country’s 911 services—and doing so in a way that is informed by the needs of citizens and local officials—will require communication and collaboration among a host of governments, infrastructure providers, and other stakeholders.

The FCC will be holding an open meeting in September (potentially the meeting scheduled for the 22^nd) to discuss and expand upon the plan.