Press / Articles / White Papers
Through a Different Lens
This article was originally published on the Digital Communities website. View Original Article 
A federal scorecard recently released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) graded the maturity of 75 metropolitan areas for their emergency agencies' ability to communicate and coordinate during a disaster.
According to the scorecard, only six out of 75 metropolitan areas received high scores.
In the aftermath of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, Americans are more aware of the high stakes involved in being prepared, as well as the importance of jurisdictions equipping themselves and preparing to assist others during a catastrophic event. Thorough preparation is important to ensure personal safety and the stability of regional economies.
For some time, the United States has been the technological world leader, and should have the capability to respond quickly to unforeseen events.
While a knee-jerk reaction might be to point shameful fingers at the state and local governments in failing jurisdictions, it is federal government officials who must do a better job with structure, format and guidance processes. Lagging evaluations reflect incomplete technical and operational standards, complex and inadequate policies and direction, and cumbersome methodologies for local officials who are already too overworked to reasonably absorb and deploy new systems and directives.
Since the majority of our states and jurisdictions function well, one might look at these scorecards through a different lens. Rather, from the lens through which the DHS has unintentionally graded itself poorly on communication and coordination abilities during disasters. We only need to refer to how heroically Houston acted during Katrina -- hosting hundreds of thousands of unexpected evacuees -- to see the courage and tenacity of local jurisdictions.
Since 1990, the rate of declared disasters has nearly doubled, and despite the disastrous results of Katrina, our jurisdictions are doing a decent job of keeping Americans safe. Citizens and governments should help to ease the jobs of leaders in states, cities and communities by understanding how to make their community and region safer and more seamlessly able to execute an interoperable communications and coordination plan.
Scorecard Breakdown
The DHS scorecards took into account the stage of implementation or operations in place, use and coordination of communication systems and their interoperability, and the effectiveness of local and regional government coordination between various agencies.
The ratings also challenged the efficacy of governance and procedures. Most metropolitan areas surveyed included their surrounding communities because of their importance during a disaster.
Interestingly, previous findings also reveal that our state and local government work forces responsible for disaster or emergency preparedness are overworked, underpaid, wear multiple hats, and may or may not be experts in their respective areas.
Though the DHS's intentions are on target, these scorecards expose the federal government's own difficulties in successfully executing a plan for national interoperable communications.
Billions of dollars have been spent on interoperable communication plans and executions. According to the DHS, the results of their recent scorecards indicate that metropolitan areas, while not perfect, are doing better.
In its report, the DHS calls the scorecard "an important milestone" culminating from several years of bettering interoperable communications capabilities. But after spending $3 billion in two years, such mediocre results are unacceptable.
While our local and state jurisdictions deserve hard-earned credit, we will also discuss some suggestions for improving preparedness ratings.
Planning for the Future
Jurisdictions must plan for today, but build infrastructure for tomorrow.
Keep the plans current -- don't walk away from them and still consider them complete. Provide jurisdictional leaders and first responders with best-of-breed solutions including the use of emerging technologies that are vital for the continuing success, safety and economic health of 21st-century communities.
Municipalities are starting to embrace emerging technologies, new business models and a wide variety of wireless broadband technologies. These technologies enable municipalities to address their needs more effectively and efficiently. Communities are juggling issues such as public safety; emergency preparedness and response; government, citizen and business services; and standards-based computing and communications platforms.
The demands on state and local leaders as well as responders are greater today than ever before as they balance citizen satisfaction and economic vitality with other issues, such as efficiency through automation, safety and security and constituents' social needs. No other group of government officials is faced with such a diverse and demanding set of needs and criteria.
The reality for municipalities is complex and budgets are challenged. Central to all of this is building flexibility in community computing and networking architecture. Prudent officials should not only deploy solutions that are priority today, but also incorporate the needs for future applications and services that may be required. This demands a structured planning approach that evaluates the readiness of the community today and develops a framework for further evolution.
Communications Investment
Agencies and jurisdictions must invest in standards-based technology architecture that allows them to deliver solutions and services now, but also has the flexibility to expand in the future.
Develop a multitier broadband-based communications plan incorporating contingent redundancies. Broadband is needed for just about everything -- including virtual meetings.
"The biggest single failure in Katrina was communications and how we shared information," said David Paulison, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), who was appointed following the Hurricane Katrina debacle.
Choices are now available that allow cities and communities to build a redundant communication and connectivity infrastructure. The price variables and time needed for implementation vary greatly.
Though the technology is important, so are the relationships and partnerships.
Treat the complexities of working with multijurisdictional, regional and higher levels of government in the same manner private industry relies on channel and partner programs. Build channel and partner programs working with other agencies and communities that will get to the conclusion faster and with better results without overburdening a single community.
Public-private partnerships are becoming more prevalent in municipal wireless projects. When government and industry work together to offer constituent services, it's proving to translate into increased efficiencies for communities and their residents. In many of these public-private endeavors, a consortium of companies is involved to provide a more robust solution. A compelling example is seen from the success and rapid deployment occurring in wireless broadband infrastructure for communities.
The partnerships are emerging as strong solutions in cities and communities regardless of size. Large, mid-sized and smaller communities are all benefiting. From Philadelphia, San Francisco and Austin to smaller jurisdictions like Concord, Calif., these programs are succeeding. In some instances, service providers fund the project and offer a revenue-share arrangement with the partnering city. These relationships can be structured to be mutually beneficial.
A similar yet alternative partnership program is also emerging. Communities in close clusters now recognize that greater impact can be accomplished through partnerships and pooling resources. For instance, recently, California cities including San Ramon, Danville, Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore held a disaster preparedness event to plan and share resources.
Extra Resources
During an emergency or disaster, citizens and volunteer coordinators are important. Deploy solutions and processes to provide citizens with connectivity services, immediate access to information, and the ability for them to contact loved ones. Similarly, deploy solutions and processes that enable volunteers to be effective immediately, and incorporate sustainable electronic solutions for data collection and information dissemination.
In the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, reports from Harris County, Texas, indicated that more than 110,000 volunteers participated and contributed during those disasters. While these contributions were critical to the operational success in Houston, flaws were also exposed. Planning for large numbers of volunteers is an integral part of disaster relief planning, as is having electronic forms and documents already in a system that can be scaled quickly.
Volunteers can be used to assist evacuees with filing claims, and gathering and storing information to be quickly retrieved. It's estimated that in Houston, tens of thousands of paper forms were collected in the days following Katrina, which created an often-confusing process for evacuees, volunteers and government entities.
Jurisdictions must also utilize mobile devices, both rugged and nonrugged, to respond quickly at the point of impact. Work out a scalable arrangement today with suppliers should there be a disaster.
Mobility is a necessity for governments, small businesses and citizens. Whether inside buildings or in the field, mobility is required. Identifying and securing devices that allow mission-critical data to be accessed is crucial during disasters where offices are destroyed and data is less accessible, but work still has to be done.
Jurisdictions are now equipping their employees with ruggedized durable devices that can withstand harsh conditions, in addition to laptops that allow workers to telecommute, if required.
Some communities are going further and looking into insurance policies that allow vendors to ship additional computers when needed so they can defer capital outlays up front and utilize the capacity.
Funding is also of concern in the emergency management and response community. With limited funds, communities cannot succeed. Therefore, grant writers from private industry must be engaged, and made available to assist jurisdictions with their proposals.
State and local government officials are often risk averse, and can expend a lot of time making decisions. Simple solutions like licensing and permitting of buildings often go through processes and discussions lasting two or more years before the issuance of an RFP. This unreasonable length of time is frustrating for government employees, constituents and vendors. Prolonged cycles often amount to wasted time and money for all parties involved, and results in lost productivity and dated implementations. Private-sector best practice techniques should be deployed and will result in a more responsive government and increased satisfaction for all.
By paying adequate attention to the above points, and incorporating the experience and lessons of past disasters, any community regardless of its size can make significant strides in improving its disaster preparedness rating.
But even more important, we know our nation is not immune. A disaster can happen anywhere at any time, and while the challenge of interoperable communications is daunting, it must happen for the sake of citizens and communities.