07 Nov 99 - Special to EmergencyNet News:
Editorial/Opinion
Y2K Presents a New Challenge for Emergency Managers; How Do We Encourage Preparedness Without Being Alarmist?
By Steven C. Davis
Emergency managers are all too familiar with the frustrations involved in getting the population to prepare for disasters. Historically, even after serious natural disasters or intensive preparedness campaigns, many residents still refuse to take even the most basic preparedness advice. Y2K is more challenging as a preparedness issue because its risks are hard to quantify and we have no national consensus on what level of preparedness is appropriate. Now, Y2K preparedness activities are complicated by efforts to reassure the public that the New Year will not bring disaster. Some groups are even recommending individuals and organizations do nothing to prepare and call any preparedness advice alarmist.
Why is Preparedness Important?
Emergency managers understand that Y2K increases the daily level of risk of disruptions in basic services. No one knows exactly what will happen but the data available indicate that many small and medium size organizations are doing little or nothing to prepare. Those organizations that are preparing are still expected to suffer some failures. Added risks from solar storms, millennialists, terrorists, New Year’s celebrations and the possibility of cascading failures make the risk of disruptions significantly greater around the end of the year than it normally is due to other hazards. Y2K obviously presents an increased level of overall risk to society in general. Recommendations for basic emergency preparedness are now all the more appropriate and important.
Mixed Messages
The American Red Cross (ARC) understood Y2K-related risk early on; they were the first national organization to produce Y2K preparedness guidelines. Following their traditional disaster supply kit recommendations, the ARC suggested stocking disaster supplies to last several days to a week including nonperishable foods, stored water, and medical supplies. Conversely, FEMA hosted meetings in each region where federal officials asserted that Y2K problems were being fixed and, while there might be local disruptions, generally everything was going to be fine. This reassurance stopped many preparedness initiatives in their tracks as some emergency managers thought FEMA was saying that Y2K was “no big deal.” In fact, this situation has become even worse with the growing wave of assurances from government and industry organizations.
Public relations efforts are at odds with our preparedness recommendations. The President’s Council on Y2K just issued a Y2K Preparedness Checklist that advises us to prepare as we would for a long holiday weekend. This doesn’t sound like preparedness; it sounds like buying beer and chips! Why are our leaders downplaying Y2K preparedness? They seem to be assuming that there is more risk in recommending preparedness than in recommending complacency. Many national, state and local leaders are taking a huge gamble in betting that Y2K-related disruptions will be minimal and in assuming that there is more risk in recommending preparedness than in recommending complacency.
Emergency mangers are in a tough spot. While the political leadership may think it is more important to reassure the populace, emergency managers generally think it is more important to advocate preparedness. We know that an informed and prepared public is the least likely to panic and the least likely to be a drain on our resources. Unfortunately, misplaced fear of public panic has led to overly zealous reassurance efforts. The public is now confused by media reports describing personal preparedness as a “bunker mentality” and from stories making light of “Y2K survivalists.” This has made it very difficult to advocate prudent Y2K preparedness – even the ARC is now called "alarmist."
It’s a “Local Problem”
John Koskinen, Chair of the President’s Council on the Year 2000 Conversion, has often characterized Y2K as a local problem. And of course it is; local public safety assets will be used to respond to any problems. However, without clear guidance or leadership, Washington left local officials to their own devices in determining an appropriate level of preparedness. While national leadership on this issue is still needed, to their credit, FEMA and the President's Council have publicly encouraged mitigation and preparedness. However, they have not yet raised the level of the message to a point where it has become part of the national "conventional wisdom." For the most part, the media has ignored these messages.
No one knows what Y2K will bring. We do know that there will be some disruptions — we just don't know where, how many, how severe, or of what duration. We know from past experience that even the best local preparedness efforts rarely move more than 20-25% of the public into action. Risk communications experts tell us that people must get outraged about a risk before they take it seriously enough to act. Perhaps strong national leadership and a clear national preparedness message would help us get increased preparedness. Unfortunately, more effort has been put into reassurance than into preparedness messages.
We Need to Find Balance
Y2K will not bring about the end of the world. Some level of reassurance is certainly needed to offset apocalyptic fears. However, we need to find a balance between reassurance and the needs of the citizens to understand Y2K and the steps needed to reduce its risks. State and local emergency managers are working hard at this; let's not make their job harder because of misplaced concerns about panic. Let's tell the public what the situation is and what they should be doing about it.
In the end, we will get to see if Y2K really is such a big deal after all. If it is, everyone, including emergency managers will be blamed for not doing enough. If Y2K is not such a big deal, critics may be harsh on those of us who advocated increased preparedness. In our defense we can say we have always preached preparedness and we will continue to do so in 2000 and beyond.
Editor's note: Steve Davis is the coordinator for Coalition 2000 (www.coalition2000.org), co-author of “Y2K Risk Management,” and President of DavisLogic, LLC. More information may be found at www.davislogic.com. Mr. Davis' views are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of EmergencyNet News, or the Emergency Response & Research Institute. They are presented to provoke both thought and comment in the emergency management community. If you have an opinion concerning these or other emergency-related issues, please feel free to send it to firenet@emergency.com.