Homeland Security Watch

I am fortunate to work with creative and committed public servants.  Today’s post was written by one such person, John L. Farrell, Deputy Managing Director, City of Philadelphia.

In this essay, John links prevention, de-radicalization and community development in a way I have not seen done before.

The usual caveat: The views are John’s and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization.

———————————————————————–

US counterterrorism, military, and police forces are focused on executing tactics to disrupt activities that pose a threat to public safety.  These strategies have become increasingly effective and efficient, but they have a common shortcoming – they are all reactive.  The US lacks a strategy aimed at prevention – one that seeks to stop individuals from choosing an extremist path before they are fully committed.  However, the need for such efforts is recognized in the National Strategy for Counterterrorism (2011).

The Cities of Philadelphia and Chicago have developed engagement strategies that aim to empower residents to make their communities safer.  I believe that these strategies can be applied to the larger homeland security (HS) enterprise, and that HS systems can operate more effectively by involving underrepresented communities in their processes.

The Rising System

To improve HS, the US should develop a domestic coordination and engagement system (“Rising System”) to link federal, state, and local governments (collectively, “government”).  The process would begin with the identification of communities that pose potential threats to public safety.  Local government officials would then begin dialogue to gain a deeper understanding of the targeted community, led by a single point of contact (“coordinator”).  The coordinator would lead the development of strategies through which the government and the group could work together to address issues identified by the community.

Though a simple idea, this runs counter to the traditional theory of government as a service provider.  Instead of “big brother” knowing what is best for a community, the community would prioritize its needs, and the coordinator would facilitate the delivery of resources.  The goal of this process would be to build trust with the targeted community.  By listening to community members and delivering on promises, government representatives may be able to develop relationships that help these communities identify themselves as partners rather than adversaries.

This strategy would not demand a large amount of new funding, an important aspect for two reasons.  First, significant financial investments are not practical or feasible for cash-strapped governments across the US.  Second, directing money to specific groups could reward negative behaviors (i.e. if a group wants money from the government, they should threaten public safety).  Instead, coordinators would be responsible for identifying existing organizations and programs (both inside and outside of government) that provide the services necessary to address the community’s needs.  Focusing existing resources and implementing policy changes could prove to be small investments with a large return on improved security.

Local governments are the logical choice to lead dialogue because in many cases they already have ties to either the targeted groups, or second level connections through credible sources that could provide introductions.  To support local efforts, the federal government would need to develop structures to organize the resources of various agencies involved.  In Robert Deardorff’s thesis Countering Violent Extremism: the Challenge and the Opportunity, he suggests the federal government develop Regional Outreach and Operational Coordination Centers (ROOCC) to help coordinate engagement activities.  Essentially, Deardorff envisions ROOCC as housing a wide variety of specialists to conduct outreach missions within the US.  The ROOCC could serve as the overarching mechanism to unite local outreach representatives with federal support in Rising Systems.

Defining the Problem

The Rising System would be geared toward developing a true prevention element for the HS enterprise.  Current US HS practices are primarily focused on disruption, not prevention – intelligence analysts and investigators seek connections to learn about terror plots and stop them before implementation.  True prevention, however, occurs long before this stage.  True prevention involves stopping individuals from becoming extremists in the first place.

Nolan, Conti, and McDevitt suggest there is a direct correlation between the level of crime in a community and the degree to which members of that community are organized.  They place neighborhoods in one of four types – Strong (low crime and high organization), Vulnerable (low crime and low organization), Anomic (high crime and low organization) or Responsive (high crime and high organization).  The primary goal of the Rising System, then, would be twofold:  to help Anomic neighborhoods become Responsive, if not Strong; and for government to gain access to Strong and Responsive communities that may not trust them.

Conducted properly, the Rising System can also help the US address the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation to counter the terrorist narrative.  By bringing communities such as American Muslims into a partnership with the government, the US will have subject matter experts to help refine how its message is conveyed.  As is the case with deradicalization strategies, the use of respected members of targeted groups to convey a message will be critical to this program’s success. These practices should ultimately lead to closer ties between US Muslims and the government, which will eventually work to debunk myths that the government is anti-Muslim.  Countering extremist ideology may help eliminate the flow of recruits to extremist organizations, which will contribute to their demise.

An engagement strategy that builds relationships can also help to reduce the impact of several of the antinomies that Philip Bobbitt describes in Terror and Consent, namely “the separation between the domestic and the international,” “the different rules we apply to law enforcement and intelligence operations,” and “the different reliance we place on secret as opposed to open sources.” Relationships with leaders in local communities can build trust, which may encourage them to volunteer sensitive information.  This may help to eliminate, or at least reduce, the need for more invasive monitoring methods.  In cases where more invasive monitoring is necessary, the volunteered information may provide the probable cause needed to justify such actions in a criminal or FISA court, alleviating a concern associated with intelligence collection  standards usually applied to foreign agents.

The Rising System will also help to inform government about how to best deploy resources in a difficult fiscal environment.  By conducting the proper analysis of where grievances exist, government can provide opportunities where citizens leverage existing resources to improve their standing, and contribute to American society.  Implementation of the Rising System may thus aid in the shift to what Bobbitt describes as a government in a “market state” rather than a “nation state.” As community members use these resources and contribute to their neighborhood, they may also take ownership of their neighborhood, hopefully making them less likely to shield threats to security.

Whom Would the Rising System Benefit?

Those who stand to gain the most from such a program are the members of the targeted communities.  They will see an improved level of service in areas that may be described as underserved, poor, or forgotten.  Local elected officials will benefit, as their knowledge of the community will play an important role in lending legitimacy to the program.  A Rising System’s success will in turn lend local elected officials political capital as they bring improved quality of life to their community.

The HS enterprise in general will benefit, but certain organizations may oppose the idea.  In theory, everyone in the public safety and HS realms benefits from anything that reduces the number of threats.  However, the proposal itself could be intimidating to some agencies, as it will force them to either evolve their missions, or reduce the need for their services.  There will always be a need for enforcement, intelligence sharing, and most other aspects of the HS enterprise.  However, the reduced demand for service may also result in reduced levels of funding, a proposition that few agencies appreciate.  This may also be true for those receiving funding from the federal government that is not community-based, as a change in strategy may interfere with their funding streams.

A strong opposition for this process could come from civil libertarians.  They may be able to argue that the Rising System could lead communities to conduct witch-hunts for suspects, especially those who they may want to ostracize for reasons other than public safety.  The judiciary would need to be properly briefed on the process, and help create safeguards to prevent relationships from being exploited in this manner.

The Next Steps to Implement the Rising System

Versions of the Rising System are already being implemented at a local level in Philadelphia and Chicago, but without the connection to the federal government.  Philadelphia’s PhillyRising Collaborative is a geographically-based system for coordinating the services of the City government and outside organizations. Similarly, the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) has conducted local coordination and outreach since 1993. PhillyRising and CAPS both rely on engagement and citizen participation to drive change in troubled neighborhoods, and have demonstrated success in their respective jurisdictions.

Assuming Philadelphia and/or Chicago were used as a pilot, the next immediate steps would be for the federal government to develop a formal support mechanism.  This could be done through the establishment of Deardorff’s ROOCC, but could also be less formal.  It could simply involve a high-level executive from the federal government conducting regular meetings with local representatives from PhillyRising and CAPS to gather information and coordinate resources.

There is a great need for this program to have support from the highest levels.  Though the operations are predicated on a bottom-up approach for determining strategies for each targeted community, support from the top is necessary to make implementation successful.

Outcomes of a Successful Implementation

In a successful implementation, governments at all levels would establish new relationships in communities where they previously had little access.  These relationships would inform civil servants and elected officials in a way that would make government more responsive to citizens’ needs.  While data analysis can provide a baseline for certain factors in a community, it cannot always determine which issues are the most significant to the everyday lives of residents.

If the Rising System were implemented correctly: government at all levels would be more responsive; communities would build capacity for assuring internal public safety; partnerships would develop sustainable solutions to local problems that produce opportunities for residents; governments would enhance intelligence capabilities; and governments would utilize resources more efficiently by gaining a better understanding of where funding is needed most.  The Rising System could lead governments to operate smarter, faster, and better:

Smarter Government – The Rising System would encourage agency representatives to meet regularly to identify overlapping problems and develop and deliver collaborative solutions to long-term, complex issues.  As officials adapt to serving residents in this manner, the Rising System would create a means for right-sizing resources as well as agency structures.

Faster Government – By improving front-line coordination among officials, service delivery would become more efficient.  As the system progresses, integration of technology systems would facilitate information-sharing, joint planning, and delivery of services.

Better Government – The Rising System would shift the determination for success from strictly agency-based measures to actual outcomes seen in targeted communities.  The Rising System would create a mechanism for regional accountability for public safety, and help define the public safety role of organizations outside of the traditional HS field.  On an external level, the Rising System would reform the governments’ relationship with targeted communities by fostering involvement by local groups to help continue progress.

While a successful implementation would bring many positive aspects, the relationship developed between the government and the community should also involve a degree of debate.  Discussion surrounding strategies, perceptions, and messaging is a healthy exercise that can lead to the improvement of government operations.  This is particularly true in the case of the “narrative” that the 9/11 Commission suggested is needed to counter recruitment efforts by terrorist organizations.

Measuring Success

There are many statistics that could be used to determine the success or failure of such an endeavor, and each stakeholder would likely have their own metrics to determine success.  Agencies such as the FBI, for instance, may evaluate success by the number of tips received from the targeted community, or the number of plots they are able to disrupt due to such information.  The local police department could measure success by the change in crime rate for the targeted community, as is the case for the Philadelphia Police Department’s evaluation of PhillyRising. Residents or members of the community may determine success by their perception of their quality of life, something that may need to be determined in a survey.

There are some factors that may be useful to evaluate for all stakeholders involved.  The first is the number of potential recruits who are dissuaded from taking an extremist path.  The number of people stopped shows that the program is credible and effective, and benefits every group involved.  It is a statistic that will also impact almost all of the others mentioned – if FBI does not have to disrupt a plot, no crime was committed, and the community can feel safer having that person as a productive member of society, rather than a fringe element determined to attack it.  A principal difficulty may come in measuring this number beyond those affected by direct intervention.

The Rising System would also track changes to the relationship between community members and agencies.  This may be measured by factors such as increases in the community’s faith that their requests will not only be heard, but completed to the greatest extent possible.  These responses, though difficult to quantify, will determine an initial acceptance of the Rising System by the local community.  Their acceptance is absolutely necessary for the positive changes in the targeted area to occur and continue.

Ultimately, a successful neighborhood will be one where the Rising System’s coordinated approach is no longer needed – the community members will have taken over the process themselves, and developed relationships with the government that no longer require a central coordinator.

We already know that existing US HS measures to disrupt terrorist/public safety activities are not always successful.  While our tactics for operations have become outstanding, they rely on the premise of detecting a threat before it is executed.  Because knowledge is inherently limited, this strategy cannot always be successful.  However, by developing a strategy that prevents at least some plots from reaching the point of execution, public safety officials may become more effective by focusing resources on a smaller number of threats.  Violent crime and terrorist activities in the US may never end, but by bringing more people into the government’s decision making process, and by providing more opportunities to those who may otherwise slip between the cracks, the US can develop more friends than enemies.

As deliberations over the debt limit become increasingly mired in the debate over strategies to reduce the federal debt, the previously unthinkable possibility of a U.S. government default looms larger by the day. Up until now, homeland security practitioners seem to have been more concerned with whether or not negotiators would touch their pet programs than whether the damage caused by a prolonged impasse could threaten the safety and security of our communities.

In homeland security and emergency management circles, talk of the unthinkable usually revolves around complex hazards that produce a cascade of failures resulting in ripples of consequences. This time around we are talking about a cascade of failures that will produce a complex hazard the likes of which we have no way of really knowing until they emerge. What is certain is that some effects will be immediate and others will take years to appreciate. Regardless what time scale their emergence or our awareness of them adheres to, one thing is certain: Most of the worst consequences will never go away.

Those who argue that the debt limit does not matter seem to believe in a myth of American exceptionalism that suggests we can do no wrong, that our decisions and actions will not produce the consequences for us that others have suffered, often at our hands. The opposite is more likely true. Our security could be threatened in previously unimagined ways by creditors who force us to swallow the bitter pills we have dispensed so earnestly and eagerly to others.

Nowhere is this more likely than in the developing world. China and India are rapidly approaching the points where their roles will shift from risk takers to risk makers. And those left vulnerable to the risks created by their rising dominance will surely be us.

China’s military and political might worries some. But its economic ambitions, borne as they are of a desire to keep pace with the burgeoning aspirations of the Chinese people, are greater cause for concern if only for the consequences of their pursuit on the climate and therefore our own ecology and environment.

Others who see little urgency in the current situation may fear the economic effects of others’ decisions and actions but gleefully imagine an America whose government can no longer afford to inhibit or interfere with the decisions and actions of her own citizens. These same people apparently see little difference between a natural person and a corporation when it comes to fundamental liberties. Sadly, the same cannot be said of these same individuals’ assessments of the responsibilities of each to the other.

It’s worth reiterating that U.S. government default is unprecedented. This is important for two reasons: First, the effects are not simply unknowable because we haven’t witnessed such an event before, but because we have no clear idea what ripple effects will result. Second, unlike other disasters that involve underlying processes that we do not fully understand and therefore cannot predict, we know with certainty that the effects of this disaster are entirely preventable.

We cannot and should not assume that the sovereign debt crises resulting from other countries’ fiscal and monetary failures presage the effects should Congress and the White House fail in their duties to resolve the current crisis. Our economy is not just the biggest, it is also intimately connected with every other economy on the planet. Several economists have warned that default would not only delay recovery from the recent recession, but could actually trigger a worldwide depression. We cannot assume an economic calamity of this sort would resemble previous economic depressions.

A devaluation of the U.S. dollar and higher interest rates resulting from default would hit pocketbooks and balance sheets immediately. Reluctance of foreign buyers to invest in U.S. treasury bills would require the government to suspend activities almost immediately to meet interest payments rather than risk further defaults. As government dollars began flowing out of the county to repay foreign creditors, job losses would rise almost as fast as the prices of basic goods and services.

Already stressed state and local governments would be hit hardest after a default. The effects of the recent recession emerged there last and have lingered far longer than elsewhere in the economy. The need for structural and systemic reforms rather than simple shifts in emphasis have already become apparent to many public safety executives as evidenced by the recent legislative initiatives to repeal collective bargaining rights and restructure public employee pension obligations.

As Chris Bellavita’s holiday post reminds us, our leaders have to work if they are to preserve our republic. Their deeds must match their words.

Phil Palin for his part reminded us that our forebears equated the ideals of the republic with the pursuit of eudaimonia. How one attains such an ideal was as troublesome to the ancients as it is for us today. Then as now, much of the disagreement centered on the importance of attaining wealth and exchanging external goods.

Agreeing on the virtue of reducing the debt is meaningless if we are not prepared to meet our obligations. Others can only ever truly judge our intentions by our actions. And even the mere suggestion that the unthinkable is now thinkable has had a negative effect on confidence in our government and its leaders.

Emerging from the current crisis, whether it deepens into downright default or not, will depend on how we respond not just to our situation but to one another. When cities and states can no longer afford to provide essential public safety services who will notice? And what will they do about it?

Friday evening on CNN, John King interviewed FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate on the ground in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.  The rather long interview included the following:

KING: All around the region we’re speaking to mayors and governors and the like and hear a lot of praise and compliments saying everybody seems to be working well together. As you know that’s not always the case in the past. Have there been any hiccups or unanticipated whether a supply shortage or chain of command issue?

FUGATE: No. Chain of command is easy. We’re in support of the governors. They’re in charge.Their state teams were up and running. Our job is to support them and in this case, particularly in Alabama, it’s really going to be supporting them in the recovery operation.

In the typical rhythm of news coverage, the stories emphasizing neglect, incompetence, and such generally do not begin for about 48 hours after the disaster.  Still, this early positive framing is worth noting.

An Associated Press story filed early Saturday may signal the usual pivot to the attack.  See: Southerners see their emergency safety net shredded.  The story certainly highlights how local capabilities have in several instances been overwhelmed by the impact.

Substantively, this week’s extraordinary long-line tornadoes had a much more than typical impact on housing stock.  This was especially the case because of the direct hit on Tuscaloosa, population 90,000.  I have not yet seen a credible projection, but several hundred replacement homes and apartments will certainly be needed, the sooner the better.

The Alabama Emergency Management Agency released a new situation report shortly after 7:00 local time on Saturday.   It is a pdf and, at least this morning, requires significant time to load, but is accessible at: http://ema.alabama.gov/filelibrary/SituationReport/SitRep8complete.pdf

SUNDAY UPDATE:

Housing issues nagging at tornado victims (Los Angeles Times)

Power back for roughly two-thirds (Birmingham News)

Five federal agency chiefs in disaster zone (Politico)

Government’s disaster response wins praise (New York Times)

Is FEMA bold enough to get it right? (Delaware Online Editorial on FEMA’s role and Wicked Problems)

The University of Alabama student newspaper, The Crimson White, is providing detailed reporting and sometimes different angles on the situation in hard-hit Tuscaloosa, including FEMA on the Ground.

FEMA is looking for ideas about how to increase public participation in emergency management and homeland security. As a part of that search they’ve made available a paper describing some of the policy challenges associated with creating resilient communities.

As described in an email from a colleague:

Over the last several months, we have engaged a diverse range of people, organizations, and professions from across the Nation. Our goal is to learn what works well in local communities before an incident occurs and to connect these successful activities, networks, assets, and processes to preparations to withstand, respond, mitigate, and recover from emergencies.

…We would like your comments on a working paper, Policy Challenges in Supporting Community Resilience. (The 29 page paper can be downloaded at this link.) This paper explores how governments can better engage with the public to increase locally-organized disaster resilience and empower citizens and local institutions to take an active role in protecting themselves and their communities.

In particular, we would appreciate your thoughts on the following questions:

• Do the themes and concepts outlined in this paper resonate with you? Please describe.
• Are there additional characteristics (i.e. themes) that are important to consider?
• Have you seen greater resilience in places where communities have been engaged in emergency management activities? Please share examples.

Please submit your reactions and comments on the themes, challenges, and overall approach presented in this paper by Monday, February 11, 2011 to “FEMA-Community-Engagement@dhs.gov”.

The paper also asks for comments on such policy issues as:

• What are the best and smart practices among government and private sector agencies and social sector organizations in listening to, learning from, and engaging with community groups (including the general public) in local neighborhoods?
• What experiences at the local level activate and sustain local residents? interest and involvement in resilience activities? What information do they need to motivate behavioral change and trigger preparedness activities? How are these activities organized? How do these resilience-oriented activities compare with insights from other research and policy literature on why and how communities engage in non-emergency, non-security related activities?
• What specific barriers do diverse communities face in participating in resilience activities? What types of support do communities need once they have decided to ‘do something,’ including access to sources of expertise (people and guidance documents) or equipment and other assets? Who do they think this should come from?
• What “entry points? exist for building an effective exchange between communities and national governments on resilience policies?
• In what ways is each country [the paper describes UK and US experiences] working to build support for action on community resilience among various levels of society and policy makers, ranging from officials and political leaders to citizens and local responder organizations?
• How might a whole community approach to emergency management work in your community?

Again, if you have any reactions to the ideas in the paper, please email them to “FEMA-Community-Engagement@dhs.gov”.

Last week President Obama signed into law a bill extending benefits to certain 9/11 attack responders presumed to have incurred illnesses as a result of their service. Much of the media coverage accompanying this legislation focused on efforts to delay or prevent its passage by Congress, not the legitimacy of the claims themselves.

After 9/11, politicians were all too happy to be seen standing alongside public safety officers extending gratitude for their service. It would be easy but incorrect to assume that the benevolence they displayed then by increasing the lump sum benefit for public safety officers’ survivors was the result of enlightenment much less an accumulation of factual evidence that such awards were scientifically or fiscally justified.

Benefits for public safety officers who become disabled due to injuries or illnesses incurred in the line of duty have usually been accompanied by controversy and disagreement. The original Public Safety Officer Benefit Act became law in 1976. The inclusion of firefighters alongside police officers was seen by many as an afterthought in the interests of comity if not some semblance of parity among the professions. The Act’s passage, according to some, marked an effort to make these risky professions more attractive at a time when public service was held in particularly low esteem. You may be saying to yourself right now that at least some things have changed since then.

Most career firefighters and police officers, if not other public safety officers and their non-uniformed and volunteer colleagues, are paid comparatively attractive salaries and enjoy much better benefits and job security than many private sector workers with similar levels of skill and experience. Despite that advantage, many are now experiencing many of the same uncertainties confronting the rest of the workforce.

It should come as no surprise that in the midst of the current economic and fiscal crises that some citizens and interest groups see survivor benefits as simply another perk lavished upon public employees that remains well beyond their reach. This is particularly true of those who lack employment or any prospect of employment in the near term.

This skepticism is understandable enough but still overlooks another important consideration. The justifications for these benefits lacks much if any sound scientific or economic basis. This is particularly true in the case of my own profession as it relates to qualifying victims of cardiovascular ailments or cancer for benefits. The decisions to recognize these ailments as qualifying conditions for survivor benefits is more representative of the growing political influence of firefighters than recognition the dangers associated with their occupation.

That said, the value of extending such benefits has become very clear and personal for me this week as my own agency has prepared for a memorial service for a fallen comrade who succumbed to malignant melanoma on December 30 leaving behond a young wife and two sons.

Matt Durham (pictured above) was a firefighter for 15 years. During that time he had accumulated an exemplary service record. His personnel file was chock full of letters of appreciation and commendation from colleagues and citizens and glowing performance appraisals from supervisors. He routinely went the extra mile serving on several specialist teams, including the regional hazardous materials team and the Puget Sound Urban Search and Rescue Task Force. Besides being a skilled emergency services professional, Matt was a remarkable photojournalist whose work was widely published and heralded by colleagues in California and Washington.

When I worked on the initial efforts to develop a firefighter autopsy protocol as a federal contractor in the early 1990s, firefighters argued that they were at higher risk than others of contracting cardiovascular diseases and certain cancers and felt certain that higher incidence was related to on-the-job exposures and stress. Few studies over the years have borne out these concerns or provided consistent much less solid evidence to support them. Nevertheless a growing list of states recognize at least some cancers as job-related for firefighters and amendments to the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act after 9/11 expanded compensation and added coverage for deaths due to certain cardiovascular ailments.

The value of these provisions is not so much the recognition they provide fallen firefighters or the financial security they afford bereaved families, although these are both obviously significant. Rather the presumption that their service led to the deaths of firefighters in such cases advances the cause of managing these exposures in meaningful ways by promoting wellness and fitness while honoring the ideals of service and sacrifice for their own sake.

Before the recognition of these ailments, most qualifying firefighters’ deaths resulted from catastrophic injuries sustained during firefighting and rescue operations or training for such operations. Unfortunately, an unsettling proportion of these deaths resulted from serious lapses in judgment or failures of operational discipline and oversight, often on the part of the deceased members themselves.

Recognizing the deaths of colleagues afflicted by cancer and cardiovascular diseases has had two significant positive effects on the profession: 1) it has encouraged firefighters to take more responsibility for their own wellness and fitness rather than chalking up their fate to the dangers and rigors of their jobs, and 2) it has recognized that some catastrophic risks, whether job-related or not, are simply beyond the control of individuals or organizations, especially when we know so little about how they develop in the first place.

For me, these benefits would be enough if that’s all they accomplished. But I have seen something else significant this week that further inclines me to think these benefits are not only justified but should be extended to most if not all workers as a matter of public policy.

A growing body of evidence suggests that people need three things in order to thrive: 1) the ability to feel they make a difference bigger than themselves, 2) the ability to share their successes with others who mean something to them, and 3) the ability to receive meaningful recognition (not necessarily reward) for their efforts, which often involves a combination of the first two elements by allowing them to form meaningful relationships with others through the shared experience of hard work and sometimes personal sacrifice.

This week, my colleagues and I have seen this dynamic at work as we come together to recognize Matt Durham, support his family and share our recollections of a valued friend and colleague. In the absence of financial hardships to the family, we have seen people step up in ways that impress and inspire others, more often than not without any expectation of compensation or recognition for themselves. If we can in some small way make this experience real for others, we will all feel we have done something truly special not just for Matt but as a legacy to his and others’ service to our communities.

Today I am starting a new job as a deputy fire chief in a fire district near Seattle. As such, I have been pretty consumed with the details of moving and starting a new job rather than keeping up with my homeland security reading and preparing this week’s post. Nevertheless, it strikes me that the odyssey upon which I am embarking offers a new prism through which to observe what’s happening in our field at the state and local levels.

Over the past several months, I have commented often about the importance of leadership in dealing with the challenges we face. As such, it should come as no surprise that I was attracted to my new position by a charismatic fire chief with a reputation for innovation and integrity. During the interview process, his commitment to these ideals became more than evident.

The commitment of the community and the firefighters to his success was also evident. This is not to say he has enjoyed a smooth tenure since taking up the position a bit less than a year ago. Indeed, the burgeoning fiscal crisis, the annexation of a portion of his district by a neighboring city and a campaign by the union local representing firefighters from his last department to pass a vote of no-confidence in his leadership have presented personal and professional challenges. Fully aware of these issues when I applied, it was was his pleasant (cheerful really) demeanor and ability to see the opportunities in these challenges that convinced me to join his team.

From what I can see so far, the community, the elected fire commission and the firefighters themselves see in their chief the hope of a better future despite the challenges they face as well. His ability to articulate a clear and shared vision, involve others in charting a way forward, give the work back and manage the pace of change so the challenges remain manageable have given people tangible evidence of his commitment to their welfare as well as that of the organization and the community.

One of the things that seems to distinguish the agency I am joining from some of its peers is its commitment to learning. My role comes with an unusual and unexpected title for a fire department: chief learning officer. Besides overseeing training, I am responsible for the fire district’s emergency management, risk management, research and development, and safety and wellness programs. The combination of these portfolios reflects an appreciation of the changing nature of fire and rescue services and a desire to shape the service in ways that reflect the relative shift in emphasis away from fire-related services to other activities that address risks arising from natural and technological hazards.

I have a lot to learn about my new community, the fire district, my new colleagues and my new role. In the process of getting settled, I will undoubtedly learn a great deal about myself and my capacity to endure change. One of the most important things I have learned from past moves is the importance of accepting both my limitations and the assistance of others. In the process I have become much more aware that when I recognize and maximize others’ strengths by asking for their help we both get something valuable in return.

What are the most important lessons you have learned from the experience of taking a new job or assuming a new role in homeland security? How have you shared these lessons with others and how did you benefit from that experience? How can we maximize the strengths of others to benefit the whole of the homeland security enterprise?

A couple of weeks ago, in a comment prompted by Arnold Bogis’ inaugural weekly post to this website, Phil Palin recounted a conversation with an unnamed colleague whom he quoted as having said, “With the best of intentions — but worst of results — our current emergency management mentality systematically breeds dependence. We are our own worst enemy.” All I can say is Pogo would be proud.

Princeton professor Robert Wuthnow probably would be as well. In his recent book, Be Very Afraid,Wuthnow critically examines the cultural roots of the American obsession with Armageddon and the always just impending threat of self-annihilation. It does not diminish his argument or its thoroughly scholarly presentation to say his summation is not so far from that of Phil’s friend. In short, Wuthnow concludes that our efforts to put people at ease are largely responsible for their inexorable anxiety about the future.

The threats we face are real enough. But the ways we try to reassure people, Wuthnow tells us, leave them wondering whether we really have matters in hand. After all, many of the threats we warn them about are of our own making.

It is fair enough to say that we are not personally responsible for creating the threats, but the governmental, technocratic tribe to which we belong does bear  responsibility both for the decisions and actions that render us vulnerable while simultaneously directing other members to find remedies for these unsavory yet entirely foreseeable situations. Schizophrenic does not even begin to describe the situation.

As F. Scott Fitzgerald so aptly noted, intelligent people may be able to hold two contradictory notions in mind at once, but surely both arguments must have some particular appeal to them for this to be the case without the anxiety becoming apparent to them if not downright unbearable. When we confront people with evidence of their mortality, make it clear that they cannot depend upon government alone to rescue them and then implore them to trust that we know what we are doing when it comes to managing the threats we face they rightly wonder whether we are the crazy ones.

Maybe we are. Focusing on pathological thinking leaves unanswered an important question: “What would it look like if we we were healthy, happy and safe? How would we know if we were in such a state?”

Phil’s post over the weekend cites a Wall Street Journal essay by University of Virginia professor Jonathan Haidt. His research focuses on the nexus between moral beliefs and political behavior. In Haidt’s most recent published book, The Happiness Hypothesis, he suggests that the virtues we practice not only reveal the values we hold but inform them as well. In other words, we are — at least in part — what we do, and these actions are usually motivated by our comfort if not our interests.

To the extent the things we are doing strike many citizens as inconsistent if not necessarily insane should come as no big surprise. The public’s behavior may be little more than an outward sign of the internal anxiety caused by watching what we are doing. If either their behavior or our reaction to them makes us uneasy too, then perhaps we should take Haidt’s WSJ diagnosis as a challenge. Are we willing to something about it?

I’ve watched for years as local public safety executives and unions have expressed their anger and frustration with the level of support they get locally (which is formidable by anyone else’s reckoning, dwarfing all but education, health and welfare spending it its magnitude) to demand federal interventions and funding support. The chiefs’ and unions’ obsessions with what they are not getting has all but overwhelmed their ability to appreciate what can be done with what they already have. As such, I wonder whether their apparent anger masks something deeper and darker: An insidious fear that people might not notice if the money was spent elsewhere or not at all.

Police chiefs, fire chiefs and other public safety executives wield considerable influence over their organizations and in the community at-large. They occupy positions typically associated with power. Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer reminds us that those who hold positions of power are not always the most able, best loved or for that matter all that empathetic. Rather they are the ones most adept at playing the game. In his book, Power, Pfeffer notes without the least hint of cynicism that those in power accept three things others find it hard to swallow: 1) they accept that life is not just, 2) they relate to the world as it is (or as they perceive it to be) rather than as others wish it to be, and 3) they don’t base their definition of themselves or the best course of action in a given situation on how others see them.

We like to believe that others think the way we do. We want to believe that they want the same things we want. But that’s clearly not the case most if not all of the time. If it were, we would not find ourselves faced with the soaring levels of distrust in government and disagreement about priorities so obviously evident across our society.

If insanity can be defined as doing the same things over and over and expecting different results, what should we be doing differently? If local public safety officials are really committed to building stronger, safer communities what actions should they be taking instead of the ones we are seeing? What role, if any, should federal officials play in promoting ideals consistent with these actions? Do standards or mandates have a place in bringing this about?

Did you know that September was “National Preparedness Month?”  Well, considering the readership of this blog I am sure you did.  But more importantly, did the general public?  I’ll go out on a limb and guess that the answer is no.

Building off of Mark’s earlier post, I would like to take the discussion of preparedness in a slightly different direction.  As someone speaking from the perspective of a citizen rather than an emergency management official, I have to say that current efforts to engage the public are failing.  I do not know personally anyone that realized it was “National Preparedness Month,” or took it upon themselves in the last month to get a kit, make a plan, or become informed about any threat.

This despite the fact that I live in Boston, Massachusetts and our summer was bookended by events that presented teachable moments that seemed perfect for promoting preparedness.  Yet unfortunately these opportunities were wasted by officials.

The first was what became known as the “Aquapocalypse:” on an unseasonably warm May afternoon there was a sudden break in a water pipe supplying water to Boston and much of eastern Massachusetts.  As Governor Deval Patrick described it, “a catastrophic disaster” leading to a “boil water” order that meant that two million affected residents would have to either boil their tap water for drinking and cooking, or use bottled water.  The reaction was predictable, a mad dash across the region to buy water.  Police were needed to restore order at several stores.  What might have been different if more people had several days of water already stockpiled in their homes?

The second was Hurricane Earl, roaring up the waters off the East Coast threatening to be the first hurricane to make landfall in New England in almost two decades.  Fortunately for the residents of the Cape and Islands, this unwanted Labor Day weekend guest weakened and drifted eastward.  Unfortunately for the residents of Massachusetts, this is the second missed opportunity this year to promote a message of preparedness for future disasters.

Why wasn’t there a vigorous campaign by public officials to promote disaster preparedness in the wake of both the “Aquapocalypse” and Hurricane Earl?

Disaster preparedness can have a cascading effect.  Using the Aquapocalypse for example, as the number of people scrambling for bottled water decreases, it provides opportunity for less fortunate members of the community.  For every individual with a middle class and higher lifestyle that bought up water, there were those less privileged and unable to engage in consumer combat, such as the elderly and sick, that were at greater risk of going without clean water.  Those that can prepare should, not only for their loved ones but the farther reaching affects on those in their communities who have a much harder time dealing with catastrophe.

As it gets further from both events, it is understandable yet still troubling that officials missed the opportunities to use these events as teachable moments.  Obviously the first priority for officials during these types of events is immediate public safety. When the backup water supply’s safety was unknown, it was prudent to call for boiling tap water or using the bottled variety.  In the case of Earl, the potential for landfall required the vigorous preparations made by local, state, and federal agencies.  Officials at all levels reacted correctly to both events.  At least in regards to the short term issues.

I cannot be certain, but I would guess that such reactions are more common than not across this country.  If so, what kind of steps can be taken to move preparedness forward?

First, don’t let near-disasters pass without taking advantage of them.  For example, immediately following Aquapocalypse officials should have stressed that the water bought by the public should be saved as part of a disaster kit instead of being consumed, and those who strictly boiled tap water should have been encouraged to go out and buy a three day supply of water for themselves.

Second, preparedness activities should leverage community resources, contacts, and interactions.  Direct messages from the government at every level to citizens have met with mixed, at best, success.  Instead, neighborhood meetings concerning crime or business matters can also include reminders about preparedness.  Religious and secular groups should be engaged so that they reach out to their members with preparedness messages.

Third, government officials must include the private sector in this outreach.  For example, Harvard University provides information regarding criminal activities near campus.  Why not include regular preparedness messages?  Another option would be for large educational institutions and businesses to offer discounts on disaster kits as they currently do for computers and other items.

Increasing preparedness is a long term goal and one that will not be visible until the next catastrophe.  Yet teachable moments should not be wasted and preparedness messages not concentrated within one month a year.

Source: Andertoons http://andertoons.com/

When emergency managers get together to talk about the state of their profession, the discussion often turns to preparedness, or rather the lack of it. In any conversation about this topic, it usually becomes clear before long that whether or not emergency managers consider their own agencies and partners ready, they almost universally consider the public at-large uninformed about hazards and uninterested in preparing for disasters.

I am sad to say this recurrent theme came through loud and clear when staff from my office assembled at the end of last week for a strategic planning retreat. People in every section echoed concerns that the community takes the threats we face too lightly. They complained that many of those who do recognize the hazards in our environment still rely too heavily on government and NGOs to come to their aid. And, they added, of those few in our community  who do “get it” and give of their time and effort as volunteers in programs like Community Emergency Response Teams, a small number of outsized egos require constant reassurance that their commitment is valued and suck up too much time and energy to make the effort worthwhile.

If you took their assessment at face value, you would have a hard time being hopeful. That is why its so important to listen to more than one side of the story, question your assumptions and the conventional wisdom, and reflect on the things you see and hear without undue regard for the opinions of others.

When I look at the community, I see something very different. People clearly understand that the situation is changing, and have already begun to adapt in ways that would have been unthinkable not so long ago.

When I spoke at a recent community meeting organized by a couple of citizens and attended by about 125 of their neighbors (something interesting and remarkable on its own, I’d say), I asked the crowd a couple of questions. How many people recycled at home? How about composting their food waste? And installing energy efficient lighting? Or adding a little more insulation to their walls or attic? Or bicycling and walking more often for short trips? In each case, an overwhelming majority of those in the room admitted they were engaged in these activities.

Then I asked, “How many of you, to your knowledge, have been personally and directly affected by climate change?” Maybe a quarter of the crowd was brave enough to indicate in the affirmative.

I suggested to them that the reasons so many of them engage in activities to reduce their carbon footprints, like the reasons so many of them attended the meeting that night, was due in part to the expectations that these were the right thing to do. And it helped that others thought so do. In other words, they had reflected on their own situations, the expectations of others and the potential future harm resulting from inaction and decided that they could justify small steps if they might contribute to avoiding some very large, even catastrophic consequences at some point in the future. What’s more, they could justify doing this even if they did not benefit much from their efforts personally. This, they agreed, was probably the case.

It remains to be seen whether individual efforts to reduce carbon footprints can arrest or reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or they effects of escalating concentrations of carbon dioxide and other emissions on ecosystems, but it is clear that these efforts have effects on what others think and do. And these efforts can and do move markets and policymakers.

What’s this have to do with emergency preparedness you ask? Everything.

Emergency managers need to banish the word preparedness from their vocabularies. As an adjective, it conveys the wrong sense of things. As a verb, however, and especially as a transitive verb, preparing conveys specific and meaningful actions on someone’s part for some specific purpose. And it is this sense of purpose and the personalization of intention that make a difference.

Emergency managers, preoccupied as we with the scope and scale or hazards and vulnerabilities and the attendant consequences of not preparing, pay too much attention to the gap and miss altogether the small, simple steps being taken with considerable consistency toward making our communities more resilient. It’s just that many of these actions are informed by a purpose other than preparing ourselves for disasters rather than climate change.

When I look at my own community, I see people investing increasing effort in making their neighborhoods and the city better places to live. And their actions are shaping expectations and decisions in powerful and positive ways.

More people are planting gardens. More people are taking an interest in where and how the food they eat is produced. More people are making purchasing decisions based on the contents rather than the packaging. More people are saving than spending.

Okay, I’ll admit that last one might be a bit problematic at the moment, but the intention clearly reflects a realization that the excesses of the past are no longer sustainable and a new approach is required. The challenge then for emergency managers is not convincing people to do something, it is seeing that the things people are willing to do are small, simple, sensible and socially reinforced.

Preparing communities for disasters could become sexy if we could just settle for evolution rather than revolution. Community resilience should be a question of “ready for what?” rather than a question of “ready or not?”

This week we learned that the longest recession since the end of the Second World War ended last December. I for one am glad somebody shared this fact, because it’s not so obvious from where I sit at the moment. Judging from the fiscal effects on the homeland security and emergency management employment markets, the housing market is not the only part of the economy underwater.

My personal employment situation is far from secure, as I have held a limited-term appointment for the last two years while a colleague served a three-year active duty assignment with the National Guard. With his separation from active service, he will resume his former position at the beginning of October, which leaves me about a month to find new employment while we work together on the transition.

As I have surveyed the homeland security and emergency management employment landscape, a couple of things have become all too readily apparent to me. First, the vast majority of positions on offer at any given time are with federal agencies or contractors. Second, most of these are located in the Washington, DC metro area or at least in the eastern half of the United States. And third, the pay afforded federal employees and many of their contractors is vastly superior to anything on offer at the state or local level, unless of course you work in a unionized police or fire department with tenure-based compensation.

Put simply, emergency management and emergency preparedness pays squat all and you will be hard-pressed to find employment in a federal agency without veterans preference credits, highly specialized skills, a top secret security clearance, a willingness to relocate and good connections. Professional homeland security and emergency management practitioners, especially those at the state and local level, are generally over-educated and under-compensated. Those without educational credentials are often far better paid than those with them, even when work experience is taken into consideration.

This is not the first time these observations have occurred to me. I married a city planner. We met while working for the same city back in the mid-1980s. She quickly made me aware of just how lucky I was to be working for the fire department, where my position afforded me a salary superior to hers despite no educational prerequisites and only comparable experience.

My wife was laid off 15 months ago despite 25 years of experience and a graduate education. She has had one interview for a position since then. Prospects for her re-employment as a city planner are bleak to non-existant. And no one seems willing to look beyond her previous job titles or the duration of her unemployment to see the skills she offers in terms of strategic thinking, public engagement, business process development and project management.

In light of current economic conditions, I am, of course, concerned that I may soon join my wife among the ranks of the long-term unemployed. But I am also concerned that the situation, if indeed we are in some sort of a long, slow recovery, has not been accompanied by the sort of strategic realignment necessary to improve efficiencies and accountability for outcomes in the future that should have become evident to all as a result of the collapse that precipitated it. And this should be a very real concern to anyone committed to the homeland security enterprise for many reasons.

Chief among these is the evidence that our so-called recovery will exacerbate social and economic tensions that pit the haves against the have-nots. Income inequality remains at unprecedented levels and is increasing even as the ranks of those in poverty increase. This creates ideal conditions for radicalization, which is already far too apparent in our domestic political discourse as well as our international relations and security situation.

The second problem this poses is the tendency to centralize expertise and capability for generating and implementing solutions far away from the sources of the problems. Failing to engage and develop local capability remains a significant vulnerability, especially since so many of the investments made in recent years have gone to already “fat” agencies and the production of paper plans that largely sit on shelves collecting dust. Efforts to slim these agencies down as the fiscal crisis dragged on have led to cuts of brain and muscle leaving the fat largely intact.

The strong tendency to preserve the status quo ante leaves many pressing problems unaddressed. Not the least of these is the need to diversify the ranks of our public safety forces so they can more effectively engage the communities they serve. (Why is it such a large percentage of the adverse impact employment discrimination cases reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years originated in fire service agencies?)

I interviewed with a fire department just last week that serves a community where the Hispanic/Latino population is approaching 20 percent. Of their 400 or so uniformed staff, four are women and only one is Hispanic. In the city where I live and work, the vast majority of rank and file public safety staff in the police and fire departments live far outside the city they protect despite making a median salary more than twice the median wage. In other words, we are exporting our wealth and importing skills required to supply essential services.

These signs suggest that homeland security and emergency management are in retreat rather than advancing. Police and fire service agencies and their unions are setting the agenda at state and local levels while the federal agenda remains focused inside the Beltway and on staying off of the front pages of the few remaining national newspapers.

If making our country safe is about the decisions we make today to produce a better future for ourselves and others, we should think very seriously about the strategies informing this situation. Judging by the investments we are making (or not) in local expertise, capabilities and evaluation we may well have things back-to-front.

Three announcements came out of the White House on Monday, the combination of which got me thinking, “What exactly are we protecting?” As depressing as this thought seemed, I managed to find one item of news heartening enough to give me hope that things might improve even if they keep getting worse.

First, President Obama, speaking in Austin, Texas, responded to growing concern about the decline in American competitiveness marked by the number of people graduating (or not) from its institutions of higher education. His speech announced no new policy initiatives. He did, however, highlight several programs launched earlier as evidence of his efforts to prepare students for success in the workplace. These include the Race-to-the-Top K-12 funding competition launched by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, which asks states to throw under-performing schools and their faculties under the bus to qualify for federal financial assistance. Reforms to student loans, Pell Grant rules and college tax credits for working families were also cited as efforts to improve academic performance and economic competitiveness.

Later in the day, I received a request from President himself on my Facebook wall asking me to contact my representatives in Congress to let them know I wanted the Republicans to stop blocking progress on the jobs bill passed by the Senate on August 5, which helps states cover the costs of Medicaid and funds the salaries of police, firefighters and teachers. As Nobel-laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out in his Monday column, state and local governments have slashed spending since the beginning of the recession. Few areas of local service have been held harmless from furloughs, layoffs and service cuts. Public safety services were among the last to suffer serious budget cutbacks, but few communities can afford to maintain that position these days since local tax revenues always lag any recovery and the signs of such a rebound are weak at best.

Then, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he is taking drastic steps to reduce military spending by as much as $100 billion over the next five years by eliminating one major command, freezing senior uniformed and civilian executive appointments and curtailing spending on contractors. It should come as no surprise that Gates is interested in a strategic reassessment of our defense investment profile with the U.S. struggling to “win” wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously countering threats posed by unstable regimes in Iran and North Korea despite spending what some estimates say is almost as much of its wealth on defense as all other nations combined.

Few areas of state and local government performance are harder to measure than public safety. At the same time, like defense these services have become all but sacrosanct, especially since 9/11 and the fear it provoked took hold of our society. Even those who were not moved by the threat of terrorism seemed moved enough by the sacrifices made by the men and women of New York’s emergency services to support their brothers and sister in blue elsewhere. Measuring educational outcomes using test scores, graduation rates and other objective measures has proven controversial even among those who do not consider the task all that difficult. After all, how can we truly assess the value of knowledge? Similar problems plague our assessment of efficiencies in national defense. What price can we put on our national security?

Sadly, the answer to this last question is all too clear. Our investments in government expenditures aimed at protecting us have only helped make us more vulnerable. Unlike investments in education and basic infrastructure, money invested in defense and protective services produces a very small multiplier. Even if you do not consider those who receive government salaries for delivering these services “special interests,” you would find it hard to come up with a convincing argument that these expenditures stimulate creativity, innovation or productivity in the broader economy that enhances national competitiveness. On the contrary, efforts to leverage defense spending to reduce our balance of payments deficit by exporting military technology put weapons and tactical capabilities in the hands of others who wreaked havoc in regions we consider key to our national security interests while arming those who now have become our adversaries.

Imagine how differently things might have turned out if we had invested only fraction of the money squandered on arming other nations and ourselves educating our own people and those in the countries we sought to liberate. Greg Mortensen has wondered just this. His book Three Cups of Tea has become required reading in some commands as our troops on the ground wonder how to defeat insurgents. If they follow Mortensen’s advice, this will involve building schools and educating women to develop their capacity to participate fully in shaping the future of their societies.

I know these are not either/or choices. We must spend on both defense and development. Judging by the quantum spent on security and defense compared to other programs though one might reasonably wonder what we aspire to in America. Are we a people who live in hope of a brighter, better tomorrow. Or have we been overtaken by a sense of impending doom, convinced that we are slowly sliding toward moral, cultural or environmental oblivion?

Amidst all this bad (or least not so good) news, I was heartened by one new item over the past couple of days. It seems researchers have confirmed what some might consider counter-intuitive: It seems those who identify themselves as being of lower socio-economic status are considerably more generous than those who think of themselves as better off. Researchers suggested this might be due in some small part to the fact that those who consider themselves poor are more likely to identify with those in need.

I suppose that finding should give us at least some small hope in the event the economy does not improve soon. Maybe with less to share we’ll be more willing to spread it around a bit if only so we won’t have to watch each other suffer.

I would like to believe though that we can become more compassionate and caring without suffering greater economic hardship in the short-term. But doing so will require us to rethink what we are doing and how we are going about it. For most of the post-war period, we have employed strategies consistent with a male-dominated worldview that takes an aggressive posture toward protection. Maybe it’s time we tried a more female-friendly, nurturing approach to protecting our interests? We can start simply enough by investing in the future of the world’s children and their mothers.

P.S.: It seems the former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary and University of California professor Robert Reich seems to have been thinking similar thoughts today; read his blog post at RobertReich.org.

In the opening days of his administration, President Obama wrote, “I believe that Homeland Security is indistinguishable from National Security — conceptually and functionally, they should be thought of together rather than separately.  Instead of separating these issues, we must create an integrated, effective, and efficient approach to enhance the national security of the United States.” (See: Presidential Study Directive 1)

I testified against this proposition before the House Homeland Security Committee.  I continue to have conceptual and functional reservations.  But today I will embrace the President’s belief and offer a prescription for improving integration, effectiveness, and efficiency.

For this purpose, greater energy and attention  should be given to a specific recommendation of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.  From page 71 of the QHSR:

Build a homeland security professional discipline: Develop the homeland security community of interest at all levels of government as part of a cadre of national security professionals. A well-documented need within the national security community is a professional development program that fosters a stable and diverse community of professionals with the proper balance of relevant skills, attributes, experiences, and comprehensive knowledge. Executive Order 13434, “National Security Professional Development,” initiated a program for developing interagency national security professionals through access to an integrated framework of training, education, and professional experience opportunities. We must work together with our national security partners in bringing that important idea to fruition. As part of that effort, we must take steps to create a homeland security community of interest across the enterprise. Three elements of professional development are education, training, and experience via developmental assignments. State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, DHS and other Federal agencies, and academic institutions have taken important steps to build programs to support these key areas and will continue to emphasize enterprise-wide approaches to enhancing homeland security professional development.

The National Security Professional Development (NSPD) program established under Executive Order 13434 (May 17, 2007) has, to date, been implemented with a bureaucratic minimalism that  has done nothing to enhance capability or capacity in either National Security or Homeland Security, much less for the Platonic form in which these security shadows become an indistinguishable whole.

Today (and for most of the last seventy years) there are various orders of a national security priesthood.  The combination of rigorous education, apprenticeship, mentoring, and field experience required for ordination is reminiscent of the Jesuits at high tide.   There is also competition — sometimes friendly, sometimes not — between the national security analogs of Jesuits, Benedictines, and Franciscans spanning the military, diplomacy, intelligence, and related.

Into this mix the so-called homeland security professions — law enforcement, fire, emergency management, public health, and more — arrive like so many fancy-dressed laity. We are Knights of Columbus who the priestly orders tolerate, encourage, or dismiss depending on personal taste or particular need.

EO 13434 and PSD-1 and the QHSR seem to say that priests and laity should learn together and collaborate toward the same purpose.   If the NSPD  program was undertaken earnestly and mindfully over the next thirty years then, perhaps, the President’s vision could be achieved.   Such is not the case today, to our detriment.

Since assuming his post, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate has made a point of reminding us that those who experience disasters are not victims.  If anything, the survivors are resources that we would be wise to tap into.

But tapping into a community only after the fact marginalizes the good we can accomplish and misses the larger point I think he is trying to make: Disasters belong to individuals and communities. Their expectations shape what happens before, during and after an event.

The homeland security discipline and emergency managers have been slow to see the community as a resource. Public safety officials, unlike planners and their peers responsible for parks, roads and rubbish, tend not to see citizens as customers but rather as a potential source of corruption. (That said, the relationship works very differently for police and firefighters at the local level, where respect is considered the coin of the realm, albeit in very different ways.)

As Phil Palin and I have noted in posts on many occasions, resilience as we see it depends in large measure on discourse and deliberation. When people share ideas, aspirations, expectations and goals, they develop a shared sense of meaning and purpose. These sensibilities help individuals, groups and whole societies make sense of adversity and overcome crises through learning and adaptation.

Over the past few months, I have been working with colleagues in local government to engage our community. This has not come easily. For starters, my colleagues saw their office as an internal service unit responsible to the mayor and in service of other administrative units of city government. They operated as the “Man (or Woman) Behind the Curtain,” neither seen nor heard by the masses.

A recent internal audit illustrated the danger of such a disconnected approach. In the absence of any recurring responsibility to engage the public, the office had little appreciation of public expectations, no discernable external constituency willing to come to its defense, and a very limited ability to influence the agendas of other stakeholders.

The office not only lacked a stick with which to compel partner agencies to join them at the table when working on contingency plans and compiling a common operating picture, they also had no carrots because they had not learned how to effectively engage others in the absence of appreciable self-interest.

A little over a week ago, my office held the first of several planned town hall-style public meetings. When staff were first asked to start planning for this event, they took what for them had been a pretty conventional approach: They put together an agenda built around a presentation on major earthquake hazards, which set about scaring people into preparing themselves. Before letting this get out of hand, the management team intervened. For starters, we explained, this event was about a dialog. We had to prepare ourselves and others to listen, not just talk.

It should come as little surprise, that this was greeted at first with some skepticism then some trepidation. In the aftermath of a critical audit report, the staff feared opening the floor would bring out people looking for scalps. And asking questions, they feared, might make us look like we did not know the right answers. How, they wondered, could we have a conversation that did not disintegrate into something unpleasant or unsettling?

The answer is simpler than it might seem. Most of the people who want to spend an early summer evening discussing disasters and emergency preparedness with their neighbors and city officials usually fall into one of two camps: zealous converts or self-anointed saviors. You might get a few Anxious Andys and Annies, but they usually find the demeanor of the others intimidating and need your encouragement to engage anyway.

After much internal discussion, the staff agreed to an approach that assumed those in attendance closely approximated this profile. Armed with this assumption, we set out to ask the crowd to tell us something only they knew: What does it take to get someone interested enough in emergency preparedness to actually do something about it like you have? As such, we asked participants a few simple questions about preparedness designed to elicit their personal experience and expectations of city officials.

On the night, a couple of things became clear very quickly, even before discussions got underway really. First, those in attendance were considerably older than the average city resident. Indeed, only two of the almost 60 people who attended appeared under 40 years of age. Men and women were pretty close to equally represented; if anything, women were slightly more numerous. Second, most of those present were already engaged in emergency preparedness programs through voluntary organizations or otherwise active in community affairs. These two observations suggest that it may be difficult to extrapolate from this feedback a more generalized sense of the community’s sentiments.

But that was not, as it turned out, the real issue. Although the group was not particularly representative of the community at-large, its feedback said some important things about the community and how preparedness is perceived.

When we asked small groups to characterize preparedness, to tell us what it means, what it feels like, how to achieve a sense of it, they made very detailed lists of the stuff they thought every household or business should have in reserve before disaster strikes. In other words, they told us how to build a disaster kit. But when we asked them whether having these supplies made them feel safer, they all qualified their answers and exhibited clear signs of unease.

Why, we asked them, would people still not feel safer and more capable if they had such resources in reserve for a disaster? It took awhile, but people gradually revealed the real source of their concerns: They recognized that their experience and commitment to such preparedness was the exception rather than the rule.

How then could we get others to take preparedness more seriously? Their initial response, like that of our own staff, was to suggest we scare people. When we asked whether this had in fact been what motivated them, however, it became clear that while personal experience of loss was a key element, almost all of them had responded initially not out of a sense of fear but as a way of adapting to their circumstances. Preparing was a way of saying, “I will not take this lying down. I will not let this happen to me again.”

If fear does not work, then what does? Once they had a chance to reflect on the sources of their own enlightenment, people had little difficulty seeing what might make preparedness more salient to others: Make it personal.

Personalizing the message involves something more than self-interest though. People recognized that what kept them interested in emergency preparedness was the sense of purpose and self-worth they got from associating with others and being part of something bigger than themselves. Sure, they got something out of it, but what they gave was often on balance much greater than what they would ever get back from others.

These insights may seem simple or small, but they are far from insignificant. Before engaging the public, many in our office had difficulty seeing how the public could be expected to inform theiur understanding of a subject about which they were the acknowledged experts. Now that we have started the process, people are starting to see that progress can be measured by getting the public to look at preparedness as something besides stuff and getting staff staff see the public as resources we can count on not only to expand our understanding of the community and its needs, but also as a means of creating a sense of shared purpose capable of seeing us through any disaster we might face.

Last week the sporting world and more than a few people who pay no mind to sports whatsoever witnessed something extraordinary. Pitching with two outs in the ninth inning, Armando Galarraga of the Detriot Tigers was facing Cleveland Indians’ shortstop Jason Donald when the hitter stroked a ground ball into the gap between first and second base.  First baseman Miguel Cabrera played it cleanly and tossed it back to Galarraga who covering first toed the bag for what seemed a clear put out.

As Galarraga squeezed the ball tightly in his glove and looked over smiling to umpire Jim Joyce he saw his dreams of a perfect game — only the 21st in major league history and the first for his storied franchise — evaporate as Donald was called safe. Shock and sadness turned to anger and dismay as nearly everyone watching in the stands and on television saw the sequence replayed over and over again. Each time with the same result: Donald was out by at least half a step. Nevertheless, the call stood. A token protest from Detriot Manager Jim Leyland and repeated pleas from Cabrera notwithstanding it was the perfect game that was but never would be.

After the game, Jim Joyce himself reviewed the videotape and concluded as everyone else had that he had erred in calling Donald safe. Rather than letting it end there, though, he did something extraordinary, for baseball at least, and all too sadly rare in life as well, he admitted his mistake. He not only apologized to Galarraga personally but also released a statement through Major League Baseball  indicating his regret and calling it the worst call of his career.

In the end, Galarraga was robbed of the statistical claim to completing a perfect game. Instead he got something even rarer: A chance to restore faith in baseball’s overpriced players and confidence in the human capacity for forgiveness. Still smiling, he accepted Joyce’s apology, and was said to have responded, “Nobody’s perfect.” Combined with his stellar performance, he assured himself a place in the Hall Baseball of Fame at Cooperstown, if not in the record books.

Something about Joyce’s admission, if not Galarraga’s grace in forgiving him, must have been contagious because only this week we saw another amazing mea culpa. Helen Thomas, the dean of the White House press corps, resigned with immediate effect Monday after hurtful remarks she made in a private conversation with a rabbi visiting the White House surfaced over the weekend and quickly reached a crescendo.

Thomas, a veritable Washington, DC institution in her own right, served as a White House correspondent since the Kennedy Administration. Her caustic demeanor is well known inside the Beltway if not so much beyond it.  But she was largely seen to have earned the right to her opinions because of her tenure and the tenacity it took to reach that point in what was long a male-dominated domain.

In the few minutes between the blown call and his apology, baseball commentators remarked on Jim Joyce’s standing as a veteran of 29 years umpiring the big leagues, including several coveted playoff and World Series assignments. They made it clear that his tenure and experience were all the more reason why he should have got his call right in the first place.

Less than a week later, the controversy surrounding Jim Joyce’s bad call has largely dissipated though. Sure, people are still trying to use it to promote their arguments for video replay reviews of umpiring decisions, but no one seems inclined to make Joyce a scapegoat anymore largely because of the way he and Galarraga handled themselves and the incident. But this outcome also seems to hinge on the fact that the result of their actions left us with something better than a perfect game.

Thomas accepted responsibility for her remarks, but nothing she said or did will change the fact that no good will come of this incident, least of all a resolution to end the enduring Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which was the subject of her remarks. Unlike the baseball game, which was nationally televised, recorded and replayed by mainstream media, the video used to out Ms. Thomas was recorded privately and circulated virally on the Internet leaving people of the opinion that had she not been forced to account for her remarks, they might have remained unchallenged as well as unchanged.

Thomas’s defenders cite her age as well as her heritage as explanations for her behavior. But in contrast to Jim Joyce, who many observers admitted must have seen something that tipped his call the other way, nobody seemed all that inclined to defend her remarks beyond saying they understood where she was coming from and felt she might deserve some slack because of her age, which is just shy of 90.

All of this may or may not strike you as interesting, particularly in respect of homeland security. But I think otherwise. For starters, trust and accountability are as much a part of the Deepwater Horizon narrative as they are a part of these stories. What’s missing though is the sense that anybody has learned anything from the mistakes underlying that disaster. Likewise, they are starting to wonder whether the willingness of BP and the White House to accept responsibility is producing tangible much less beneficial results.

Like these affairs, the images of failure keep coming at us non-stop. The replay of the sickening results of the oil spill and repeated failures to stop it or to make much progress cleaning it up leave us wondering whether those responsible are incompetent or simply out-gunned.

This makes the failure to acknowledge the real mistakes underlying the catastrophe all the more obvious and unsettling. No one from BP or the federal government has stepped up to the plate to say that the decision to drill at such depths was a bad call. (And that may be true even if off-shore drilling itself remains the only viable way of meeting our short-term energy needs while weaning ourselves off foreign sources of supply.) Sacking the Minerals Management Service administrator and imposing a moratorium on off-shore drilling communicates immediacy but instills no sense or urgency to develop demand for better options. And no one who has been willing to step up has earned the right to claim any benefit of the doubt much less respect for their past performances.

This leaves us watching as those who want to help are left wondering why no one will let them. Which begs the question often asked by FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate (which I paraphrase here for the sake of clarity): ‘When we will stop treating those affected by disasters as victims instead of resources?’

Like the fans and policy wonks watching the other stories competing for air-time this past week, we all know what we saw (and that remains true even if we can’t see what’s really happening). When will someone acknowledge and act upon those reactions? Expressing anger may give voice to our frustrations, but it does not do much to make things better.

Since 2003, a group of my professional colleagues has been conducting half-day seminars on homeland security issues across the country.

To date, over 170 of these seminars have been held in state capitals, and in urban and rural areas.  The attendees generally include the jurisdictions’ chief executives and other leaders with homeland security responsibilities.

A typical seminar is three to four hours, and is built around one or more incidents. It is similar to a tabletop exercise in many respects. But calling it a seminar is intended to emphasize the educational — as opposed to the training — nature of the conversation.

The objectives of individual seminars differ.  But the basic purpose is to take a snapshot of where a particular jurisdiction is with respect to homeland security, and to discuss how to improve its preparedness.

Here is a summary of the most recent – early 2010 — aggregate observations from the seminars (provided to me by a colleague who participates in most of the sessions).

What contributes to success.

• Since 2003, the level of homeland security sophistication at all levels of government has substantially increased. The result is an overall increase in the level of preparedness across the country.
• Despite political and bureaucratic rivalries, state and local leaders generally accepted the preparedness challenge following September 11, 2001.
• While initially cumbersome and sometimes controversial, homeland security grant funds have contributed to enhancing capabilities — equipment, training, and policy. It is unlikely those capabilities would have increased without the grant funds.
• State and urban law enforcement executives have made a strong commitment to establish intelligence fusion centers and tactical response teams. This also has enhanced national preparedness.

Continuing challenges

• Coordination between federal, state and local governments, and private sector partners to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism and other disasters has improved. But in many locales coordination is still problematic.
• Balancing preparedness for natural disasters versus terrorism related emergencies remains a difficult task.
• Protection and resiliency of cyber and other critical infrastructure against acts of terrorism and natural disasters remains insufficient.
• There is a continuing need to address emerging threats through the development and deployment of nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological detection capabilities.
• Sharing information and intelligence between federal, state, local agencies, and the private sector remains a work in progress. While there has been significant success over the past seven years, information sharing requires additional attention.

Problem areas related to risk

• Eight and a half years after the 2001 attacks, the country still does not have a national prevention strategy or a framework for prevention.
• Many states lack the baseline knowledge needed to allow them to assess their vulnerabilities.
• The nation continues to lack a culture of preventative risk management, where public, private, and nonprofit organizations collaborate in a shared effort to reduce risk.
• With some exceptions, private and nonprofit organizations are not included in public planning for risk management.
• There is a continuing need to identify cost-effective ways for organizations to calibrate their response to risk more appropriately and more efficiently than is currently the case.
• Attention to food security and safety issues needs to become a higher priority.

Where critical problem areas remain

• There has been limited success translating emerging threats into state and local actions, primarily because of the many real and perceived limits on states and cities.
• State and local budget deficits are likely to affect implementing plans for increased readiness. This is particularly true since many jurisdictions do not perceive the current threat of major terrorist attacks to be high.
• There remains a lack of substantial progress building adequate medical surge capacity across the nation.
• There has been limited success collaboratively addressing the threat of cyber attacks.
• The response capabilities for improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and improvised nuclear devices (INDs) remains inadequate to meet the demands of the changing threat environment.
• It is becoming increasingly difficult in cities and states to sustain a commitment to homeland security and to avoid complacency.

The future of state and local sustainment

• State and local contributions to homeland security spending is at risk.
• At least 48 states have to address shortfalls in their fiscal year 2010 budgets.  As of February 2010, shortfalls exceeded $150 billion.
• At least 36 states already anticipate deficits in 2011. By some authoritative estimates, the next fiscal year’s deficits could exceed $180 billion.
• There will be 37 races for governor in 2010.
• Because of term limitations and voluntary decisions not to seek reelection, there will be at least 21 new governors after the November 2010 elections.

New governors and mayors face economic, education, and many other policy demands.

How will homeland security stack up against those competing priorities?

Any bets?

Now visualize the same bet if there is an attack or a nationally devastating catastrophe.

—————————————

In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

He could have been talking about homeland security.