Two “Modest” Proposals

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ONCE REMOVED
Two “Modest” Proposals  

By Jim Mullen

As the Trump administration searches for greater efficiencies in “discretionary” funding, local and state governments must, of necessity, “step up” and invest more substantially in programmatic disaster mitigation, preparedness, and recovery. Happily, there are cost-effective measures could help prepare individuals and families to navigate that uncertain and anxiety-prone period between a disruptive event and the restoration of whatever constitutes the jurisdiction’s new normal post disaster. Two initiatives might help:

Targeted Exercises with the Public

Consulting has its place. As someone who’s been there, done that, perhaps I should apologize to my many highly qualified colleagues currently earning a living as consultants for suggesting a consultant-free endeavor. In truth, outside consultants often are freer to correctly identify gaps requiring attention. But as expressed several times before in this space, most jurisdictions already know what type of event would bring their constituents and their government services to a standstill for an extended period. A Northwest example, of course, is earthquakes. In Washington State we currently have any number of ”canned” scenarios that describe the degree of danger and disruption lurking just below the earth’s surface.

Without question, a reasonably well-staffed emergency management office in a major city or county can design a disaster exercise based upon existing data. Why not engage with the population on-line, using realistic (for the jurisdiction) disaster conditions, and proceed to ask participants, assuming their loved ones are home with them, how they will eat, stay warm (if it’s cold and dark outside in your scenario) and obtain credible information with the power out? To up the stakes a bit, a follow-up exercise could have everyone at work, or school, and inquire what preparations can be expected to kick in in those locations? How will they reunite with their loved ones? Or a question could be added that prompts concern for their neighbors’ wellbeing, asking what measures participants might consider taking to assure their safety. Participants’ anonymity could be assured; in the same exchange the quality of the government’s messaging could be tested and the citizens‘ preparedness could be reinforced.

Advance Planning for Recovery

Government preplanning for a major recovery effort is essential, where public/private leaders review the same catastrophic scenario with an eye toward identifying what potential disruptions can be mitigated, what legal reallocation of funds can/should be prearranged, and who can activate those steps. Private businesses should have recovery plans “synced” with these government plans, but their plans should be clear-eyed in acknowledging the limitations that might impede both their own resources and those of government.

Among our citizens, there exists a growing ”trust deficit” with respect to their government. Advanced planning, with the public, might just shrink that deficit. A government-led public discussion of risks, hazards, and credible preparedness and mitigation measures could enhance recovery prospects. It’s a dark, “wealthy, privileged amateur night” in Washington, DC; that’s no excuse for local-state leadership to curse that darkness. Light a candle.