Nearly half of US states either have no state-level emergency plan or do not provide it readily to the public, according to a new study by George Mason University Professor of Communications Carl Botan.

The study, titled "Using Sense-Making and Co-orientation to Rank Strategic Public Communication in State Emergency Operations Plans," graded and ranked the state emergency operations plans of the 50 US states and the District of Columbia on their communication components. HSToday.us obtained a copy of the study, which will be officially presented at the National Communication Association annual conference in San Diego on Nov. 22.

The report found that despite federal laws that require a state emergency operations plan (EOP) as a prerequisite to some federal funding, 22 states were unable to provide Botan with an EOP, withheld the plan on security grounds or made it difficult for even trained researchers to gain access. We recommend that these 22 states consider developing, and making available to their citizens, a comprehensive state emergency response plan that makes provision for public communication at all levels.

“The motivation for the study,” Botan told HSToday.us, “ was that one of the things we concentrate on in teaching emergency strategic communications is that communication cannot just be a technical tool to be used late in the game after an emergency has already occurred. One of the primary functions of strategic emergency public communication is to help publics make well informed choices in chaotic situations by helping reducing their uncertainty.”

Mishandling of this critical function, Botan said, can have serious implications such as inappropriate actions taken by publics, confusion, anxiety and so on and this was illustrated during the 2001 anthrax attacks where lack of clear, consistent and timely information brought the federal authorities under criticism.

“We expected that many states would lack a proactive communications component concerning emergency planning,” Botan explained, “ but we were still quite surprised at just how prevalent the neglect was nationwide.”

Residents of these states, Botan said, may question their state's preparedness because they are unable to find out how the highest authorities in their state coordinate responses to major disasters or how to have a say in those plans. "While most Americans will have access to some important state-level information during emergencies, many may not. When minutes may make the difference between life and death in an emergency situation, the population should not have to waste precious time looking for answers or who to turn to," he added, “If folks are unsure about or even completely ignorant of what their state’s emergency plan is the evidence shows what they’ll do is make emergency decisions based on myths or rumors generated by similarly uninformed people.”

Botan analyzed the accessible state EOPs for three criteria: if the plans had a two-way communication component, if they addressed the communication needs of vulnerable populations and if they treated public communication as important enough to specifically address it in the plan.

Perhaps even more disturbing than the finding that 22 states lacked a public emergency plan, Botan said, was the report’s other finding that of the 29 jurisdictions that do have plans available make provisions for public communication, only 16 make explicit or implicit provisions for two-way public communication such as community forums and focus groups.

Botan said that two-way public communication is essential in the plans, for that alone will allow the state to understand what its residents feel they need in emergency situations.

“Without planned, consistent and substantive two way communication,” Botan said, “ there is little chance emergency planners and responders can ascertain if they have an understanding of the situation that is similar enough to that of their publics to allow for coordinated response actions, how publics are likely to respond to a particular communication effort or, most importantly, what information particular publics need to cooperate with each other and with rescuers.”

The dangers of this are twofold, he added. First a lack of communication with the public breeds not only ignorance of emergency plans but lack of trust in emergency managers. Secondly, and more subtly, in potentially breeds incomprehension on the part of emergency managers. “When you’re an emergency manager you have a degree of knowledge and expertise that you tend to assume the public shares,” Botan said, “when in fact they may not know what you assume they know in the event of an emergency. After a chemical attack or other catastrophe occurs is too late to be getting input.”

Ensuring more emphasis on two way communication, sense-making and coorientation in the pre-event (planning) stage, according to Botan, will require a major attitudinal shift on the part of planners and responders whose efforts thus far betray an assumption that if publics just knew what planners know we would all agree with those planners.

“What’s ironic,” he said, “ is that emergency responders over the past seven years have become so adept at internal communications in the planning process. They do tabletop exercises and drills and engage in regular forums, meetings and dialog. Unfortunately the blind spot is that the public has not yet been constructively involved yet.”