Emergency Alerts Through Wireless Score High with People with Disabilities

A group at Georgia Tech recently released a report saying people with disabilities strongly favor use of wireless devices for receiving emergency alerts. Results were compelling, with percentages in the high 80s and 90s.

The researchers sought to emulate Emergency Alert System (EAS) alerts. EAS tones and announcements were simulated using custom software to make them more accessible to people with various disabilities. Also, URL references for additional information were included, just as EAS announcements refer viewers and listeners to other sources for additional information. Those expressing an improvement over their current alerting methods were in the 80%+ and 90%+ ranges, depending on the nature of the disability.

Although still high, enthusiasm fell off a bit when the researchers used parameters planned for the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS), the program that will give federal, state, and local public safety officials ability to notify geographic areas via cellular broadcast. The Messages were text-only. Length was limited. No URL references were used. (See our post on CMAS here.)

The "Wireless Emergency Communications Project" was conducted by the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies (also known as "Wireless RERC"). The project was funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the U.S. Department of Education. They surveyed blind and/or low vision and deaf or hard-of-hearing communities. Some had high-levels of experience with wireless devices. Others had little. Some use special software for people with disabilities. Others use standard devices like Blackberries. (A presentation on the study can be found in the Resources section of the Galain Solutions web site.)

The project leaders know of what they speak. In addition to their association with Wireless RERC, Helena Mitchell and Frank Lucia were on the team at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that turned the old Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) into the Emergency Alert System (EAS) in the early nineties. Their research should get the attention of government and industry people working to modernize EAS again, put CMAS into place, and expand federally-supported notifications through IPAWS (Integrated Public Alert and Warning System).

In addition to enthusiasm for emergency alerts through wireless devices by people with disabilities, the survey also confirmed another compelling fact that will be of special interest to professionals and industry involved with emergency alerting. Sorry, but we're going to save that for another post soon.

By the way, thanks to Salimah LaForce, the Information Analyst who worked on the project. She's been following our blog, and brought this important study to our attention. We appreciate it, Salimah!

All the best,

Rick

Common Alerting Protocol Seal of Approval

As the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) gains momentum as a standard for emergency messages, a laboratory is being stood up to test vendor products for CAP compliance. Vendors now have a place where they can put their products through independent testing to gain bragging rights for "certified" CAP compliance. And, emergency management professionals and other buyers will have independent certification that products they buy are truly CAP compliant.

Financed by FEMA under the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) program, the IPAWS CAP Conformity Assessment (CA) program is operated under contract to Eastern Kentucky University. Chad Foster runs the lab. He tells us they are first focusing on testing hardware necessary to make the broadcast-centric Emergency Alert System (EAS) work digitally. So, these vendors will get priority for now. However, other types of emergency notification vendors can start the wheels rolling for the certification process.

Vendors may want to do so soon. Besides marketing benefits of being among the first to win CAP certification, FEMA has agreed to temporarily pay fees for vendors to go through the certification process. Vendors will have to pay their expenses, and the "free fee" offer will likely expire at some point. Also, we suspect a backlog could develop, as the program matures and more public safety officials insist on CAP certification from their vendors.

The Conformity Assessment Program is in the "development stage", says Foster. That will change in the coming months when the latest version of CAP, version 1.2, is approved by FEMA. Then, after EKU works out any kinks to the program in the first year, other laboratories could be approved by FEMA to conduct testing for certification. With Congress and FEMA envisioning that the IPAWS program will be expanded much beyond EAS, all types of technologies could go through the testing. (Think broadcast, telephone notification, cellular, texting, satellite radio and TV, social media, even gaming devices.)

As Congress and FEMA see it, there would be a federally-operated aggregation engine to manage IPAWS messaging. State and local public safety officials could use IPAWS to notify the public of threatening events in targeted areas. Without certification, systems would not be allowed to hook into the federal system. So, public safety officials will be motivated to make sure vendors they use for their local systems can be part of the national system.

The conformity program is publishing a "pilot" web site. It's a work-in-progress, but we've been given permission to publish the site address. You can find it at www.nimssc.org/ipawsconform.

So, the race is about to begin. We look forward to finding out who's the first to receive the CAP "Seal of Approval".

All the best,

Rick

Addressing Special Needs in Your Emergency Notification Program

Any notification/alerts/warnings program, particularly for delivering messages to the general public, must include provisions for special needs individuals. The special needs community has not been totally neglected as government has built warning programs, but execution has been weak at best. For example, many telephone notification solutions do not really have a clean means for providing alerts and warnings to TTY and TDD devices for the vision-impaired, deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, mobility challenged and individuals with a speech disability.

For the most part, the systems require special lists of telephone numbers be developed for the devices. These lists are not readily available. In some cases, the special needs community is expected to “sign up” to receive notifications. While signing up may help increase delivery to special needs individuals, such strategies fall short of developing complete lists.

A system-of-systems approach helps make special needs notifications/alerts/warnings more practical. Where one system may fall short, another system may fill the gap. The flexibility offered would make it less challenging to create initiatives and programs to truly satisfy special needs.

In 2004, President Bush signed an Executive Order seeking to fully integrate people with disabilities into the national emergency preparedness effort by creating an Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities (ICC). The Order directs the federal government to address the safety and security needs of people with disabilities arising from emergency situations including natural and man-made disasters. A combined team of the US Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), which chairs the ICC, and disability subject matter experts conducted an intensive review of the 2006 DHS Nationwide Emergency Plan.

Findings and conclusions regarding communication/public information include a statement saying “public information associated with emergencies must be in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. This assistance should address all aspects of communication, including emergency notification and instructions”.

In response to these findings DHS and FEMA announced the interim release of the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 301 (CPG-301): Emergency Management Planning Guide for Special Needs Populations in August 2008, developed jointly by FEMA and the CRCL. CPG-301 is designed to aid tribal, state, territorial and local governments in planning for individuals with special needs during an emergency. The interim guide reflects extensive input from key federal, state, and local government partners, along with nongovernmental organizations representing special needs communities.

Note: Excerpted from Galain Solutions, Inc. white paper, "Notifications, Alerts, Warnings: The Next Generation". For a copy, please send a request to info@galainsolutions.com.

Hosted VS On-Site Emergency Notification

What's better, a hosted notification solution subscription or an on-site solution purchase? We've heard this debate hundreds of times over the years…although, we're clearly hearing it less often. Public safety organizations are increasingly open to allowing a vendor to host their notification solution. Some vendors have done a good job offering hosted functionality, capacity, support, value and, last but not least, tight security.

The buy-in is not universal, though. Some organizations still insist on owning the equipment, and maintaining 100% control within their walls. We were in a public safety client meeting the other day where, despite our repeated suggestion that the organization at least consider hosted, the answer was no, no, no. (We finally got the message.) They weren't wrong, although their firm position makes our job of developing a short list of vendors who can meet their needs more difficult; there are far fewer on-site solutions available than hosted. The client simply has a firm policy against using any hosted solution that houses sensitive data, such as staff personal telephone numbers and email addresses.

They are not alone. Take federal and military users, for example. Hosted solutions are very rare in these situations. The security and accreditation certifications required make it very difficult, if not impossible, for hosted solutions to pass muster.

Security is not the only thing that keeps on-site solutions alive. There's funding (um, minor detail). Some of the grant programs that pay for notification solutions require purchases rather than, in effect, rentals. (There's change brewing for some of the grant programs.)

So, what's better, hosted or on-site? We could argue either way in good conscience (and have). The answer really depends on the individual organization's needs. In this recent meeting, we spent more time trying to understand the client's needs rather than talking about whether the solution would be hosted or on-site (although we couldn't resist whining about their unwillingness to consider hosted).

All the best,

Rick

Accolades from Town for Notification to Reduce Storm Damage

Poquoson is a quiet coastal town in Virginia. That is, until the storms come. In 2003, Poquoson received about $95,000,000 in property damage from Hurricane Isabel. It did not have to happen, as city officials learned last year. The lesson came from another big storm. The storm last year was very similar to Isabel. It was a strong one. But, the damage was significantly less --- about $90,000,000 less, in fact.

What changed from 2003 to 2009 was a concerted approach to avoid such damage, knowing Poquoson would be hit again. City officials and residents rallied, according to a recent article in the Daily Press, which serves Poquoson and the surrounding area.

The program was multi-pronged. Homes were elevated, using federal money. A multi-hazard mitigation plan was implemented. A volunteer Community Emergency Response Team was created. 911 operations were consolidated with the County. A call-in center was established for use during big storms.

Poquoson also subscribed to a high-speed notification service. City Manager Randy Wheeler said damage was down, in part, because of advance notice and instructions to prepare delivered by the telephone notification system, "The messages quickly gave residents in flood prone areas the information they needed to prepare, secure their property, move vehicles and avoid damage by safely parking on higher ground. The CodeRED emergency messages let residents know that we were actively managing the situation”, he said.

I'd never heard of Poquoson before. But, next time I'm in the area, I'll visit. This is a success story worth celebrating with a walk on their waterfront.

All the best,

Rick

FCC Seeks Public Comment on CAP's Effect on EAS Rules

The FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) has announced it is seeking public comment on what changes might be required to the Commission's Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules caused by the introduction of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). The bureau also wants to know what impact the deployment of FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) might have on EAS policies.

In July of 2007, the Commission mandated that all EAS participants must accept CAP-based alerts 180 days after FEMA publishes the adopted CAP technical standards. FEMA recently indicated this adoption will likely occur in the third quarter of 2010, triggering the 180-day requirement.

In addition to comments regarding immediate effects, the PSHSB is asking commenters to identify rule changes that could also "advance or facilitate introduction of a CAP-based Next Generation EAS architecture." The bureau hopes to minimize future rule changes, or at least provide enough flexibility within the rules to allow for yet-defined technological innovations.

Finally, PSHSB is seeking comment on the required rule changes to ensure people with disabilities and non-English speaking individuals have access to a CAP-based EAS.

Comments from the public are due on or before May 17, 2010 and reply comments are due on or before June 14, 2010.

All the best,

Lorin

Promoting Your Notifcation & Emergency Alert Program

A notification program by its nature requires action by diverse groups of people…and people don’t take action unless there’s a compelling reason. They have to be convinced to respond…in other words, sold on it.

Think of the notification/alerts/warning program as a product that needs promotion. First, brand it. Give the program a name people will remember, a name that will stick in their memory. Then, decide what message you would like to convey and craft the message. Again, think about a message that will "stick". Then, determine how to get the word out…in other words, the marketing campaign. (Suggested reading: Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die; Chip Heath & Dan Heath (Random House, 2007)

The need to promote the program is not only necessary for public notifications; it applies to internal notification programs, too (i.e. first responders). Cooperation required for updating data alone justifies an internal “sales” program. People will need to know what the notification program does, why it does it, and what part they play to make the program successful. They’ll need to be educated, even if their only role is to receive messages. If their role is to activate messages, they’ll need a different level of education.

So, to properly promote your program, remember these three things:

1. Brand it
2. Create a "sticky" message
3. Develop a "marketing plan"

Leave any of these elements out, and your program could easily fall on deaf ears.

Note: Excerpted from the Galain Solutions, Inc white paper, "Notifications, Alerts, Warnings: The Next Generation". For a copy, please send a request to info@galainsolutions.com. And, if you need more info beyond the paper on how to successfully sell your notification program, let us know. We'd like to help you.

IPAWS Reviewed by DHS CIO

The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) has received a mostly positive report from a "comprehensive review" by the Department of Homeland Security's Chief Information Officer. The CIO said IPAWS has made "substantial accomplishments" and "effectively addressed" findings of Congress's General Accounting Office (GAO) audit.

As we wrote in September of last year, the GAO audit was highly critical of IPAWS. It criticized IPAWS for: (a) a lack of redundancy, (b) gaps in coverage, (c) a lack of testing and training, (d) limitations in how alerts are disseminated to the public, (e) little capability to alert specific geographic areas (f) no movement in adoption of new technologies. The GAO also said that, despite a need to know, local emergency management and telecom officials know little of the program.

But, in the eyes of the DHS CIO, the IPAWS program has improved significantly since last year's audit. The new report issued by the CIO complimented IPAWS for, "implementing improved processes for systems development and deployment, improving communications with Congress on IPAWS progress and implementing a plan to verify dependability and effectiveness of systems used to disseminate alerts, and verify that IPAWS participants and partners have appropriate training and technical skills." The CIO report also said the IPAWS Program Management Office (PMO) "appears to be appropriately staffed, and IPAWS PMO appears to have done a good job of capturing and managing requirements, and identifying, assessing, and trying to mitigate programmatic risks."

Here's the rub, though: The CIO's office said funding reductions for the IPAWS office will have a "significant impact on the capability to deliver on the schedule currently planned". (The IPAWS budget has been cut by $7,000,000 per year.) The CIO further said IPAWS will be challenged in meeting schedules because a new system for managing projects implemented by DHS will make IPAWS projects appear further behind than they actually are. (A copy of the report is available on the Galain Solutions, Inc. web site here.)

IPAWS has taken on a tough order. But, if it works right, it will make it much more effective for emergency management officials...at all levels, federal, state, and local...to alert the public. It could be a boost for the notification and alerting industry, too. Funding is a concern, though. For the vision to be realized, it's going to take more money, not less. We'd like to see Congress approve a program that would, not only support the infrastructure IPAWS is to modernize, but to provide funds at the state and local level to help tap into IPAWS. Progress cited by the CIO's office is good. More is needed.

All the best,

Rick

Next-Generation Emergency Alert System a Topic for National Association of Broadcasters Show

The 2010 National Association of Broadcasters show will be held next week in Las Vegas. On Wednesday, April 14, a session will be held entitled “Putting the Final Touches on Next-Generation EAS.”

Following a panel-discussion format, the session is designed to clarify the current role that broadcasters play in Emergency Alert Systems (EAS) and explore if/how station responsibilities will change as the next generation of EAS is implemented.

The session will begin with remarks by Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator of the National Continuity Programs (NCP) for FEMA, and Rear Admiral James Barnett (Ret.), Chief of the FCC Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

Panelists for the session include Antwane Johnson, FEMA Division Director--IPAWS; Suzanne Goucher, president and CEO, Maine Association of Broadcasters; Thomas Beers, Chief, FCC Policy Division, and Wade Witmer, FEMA Deputy Director--IPAWS.

Even though emergency managers and broadcasters don't cross paths often, we believe it is important for these groups to be aware of each others' respective efforts surrounding public notification. As new trends and technologies emerge, we'll clearly see more overlap here, along with a greater need for coordination and communication.

All the best,

Lorin

To receive a comprehensive Galain Solutions white paper: "Notifications Alerts & Warnings, The Next Generation," email us your request at resources@galainsolutions.com.

Galain Solutions, Inc.
www.galainsolutions.com

Designing the system-of-system notifications program.

The following is another installment of our series on how to make a system of systems notification program really work. It's excerpted from the Galain Solutions, Inc. white paper "Notifications, Alerts, and Warnings: The Next Generation. (A copy is available upon request by emailing info@galainsolutions.com)

Once you have a good assessment of where you want to go with your "system of systems" notification program, design can begin. Without the Assessment, Design is really not possible. (See Assessing Your Notification Program.)

Design complexity can range from very simple to very complicated, depending on results of the Assessment. Regardless of degree of complexity, technology design should include a center point – the framework that controls the systems.

Elements of good technology design for notifications/alerts/warnings include:

• Architecture: Does it support the system-of-system approach? Does it provide bi-directional Application Program Interfaces (APIs) to interface to external systems? Does it cooperate with other systems such as incident management and dispatch?

• Functionality: Does the system-of-system” controller” do what it is supposed to do? What about the sub-systems? Are the sub-systems open-ended to allow customization and expansion? Would both public notification and first responder notifications be accommodated?

• Speed: Will the design support quick notifications and the capacity needed? (This could be a big challenge in serious events with widespread impact.)

• Usability: Is it easy to use for both entry-level as well as expert users? This is particularly important considering the challenging operational environment.

• Practicality: Does the design support concepts that can be implemented within a reasonable amount of time, and with available funds? Can existing infrastructure be used?

• Data Management: Does the design accommodate diverse and dynamic data sources? Can it support integration tools needed for extract/transform/load (ETL) operations? Can it feed-back information to external systems for synchronization? Will it accommodate citizen registrations?

• Evolving Technology: Does it support the fact the environment will change, particularly considering the evolution of communication preferences?

Depending on the complexity, outside resources may be required – perhaps a systems integrator who has expertise with notifications/alerts/warnings technologies. (We know some good ones with specific expertise in this area.) Also, note that this post only pertains to technical design. In effect, you'll need to develop "design" around operations, governance, and outreach.

Notifications and the Census

As I was filling out my census form the other day, I recalled a story I heard several years ago about an emergency notification system being used to boost a community's census response. The story came from Polk County, Florida (yes, the same county that made chad news). They got the idea to use the Sheriff's notification system to encourage county residents to complete their census forms. While the system was intended for public safety purposes, the county reasoned this non-emergency use was justified because the more people who filled out their census forms, the more money Polk County would get from the feds for public safety purposes.

Don't scoff. This worked. Over 200,000 people were called. Polk County reported an unusually high return rate and, as I recall, received some type of special acknowledgement from the Census Bureau. I don't recall hearing much about citizen complaints (although there are almost always complains with any large notification, regardless of its nature).

Here are the tricks: The county had their census notifications set on a low priority so that any emergency notifications would take over the system and pre-empt the census notifications. And, they took their time about issuing the notifications. They weren't done in a fast burst, so no real threat of overloading the telephone infrastructure.

It's always a touchy topic when a system intended for emergencies is used for non-emergency purposes. In this case, county officials discussed it and decided that the reward outweighed the risk...the primary risk being that citizens would complain, or begin to ignore phone calls from the county. Neither turned out to be a problem.

Now, if they had only used the system to coach people how to fill out their vote ballots.

All the best,

Rick