Through a Different Lens

A federal scorecard recently released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) graded the maturity of 75 metropolitan areas for their emergency agencies' ability to communicate and coordinate during a disaster.

According to the scorecard, only six out of 75 metropolitan areas received high scores.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, Americans are more aware of the high stakes involved in being prepared, as well as the importance of jurisdictions equipping themselves and preparing to assist others during a catastrophic event. Thorough preparation is important to ensure personal safety and the stability of regional economies.

For some time, the United States has been the technological world leader, and should have the capability to respond quickly to unforeseen events.

While a knee-jerk reaction might be to point shameful fingers at the state and local governments in failing jurisdictions, it is federal government officials who must do a better job with structure, format and guidance processes. Lagging evaluations reflect incomplete technical and operational standards, complex and inadequate policies and direction, and cumbersome methodologies for local officials who are already too overworked to reasonably absorb and deploy new systems and directives.

Since the majority of our states and jurisdictions function well, one might look at these scorecards through a different lens. Rather, from the lens through which the DHS has unintentionally graded itself poorly on communication and coordination abilities during disasters. We only need to refer to how heroically Houston acted during Katrina -- hosting hundreds of thousands of unexpected evacuees -- to see the courage and tenacity of local jurisdictions.

Since 1990, the rate of declared disasters has nearly doubled, and despite the disastrous results of Katrina, our jurisdictions are doing a decent job of keeping Americans safe. Citizens and governments should help to ease the jobs of leaders in states, cities and communities by understanding how to make their community and region safer and more seamlessly able to execute an interoperable communications and coordination plan.


Scorecard Breakdown
The DHS scorecards took into account the stage of implementation or operations in place, use and coordination of communication systems and their interoperability, and the effectiveness of local and regional government coordination between various agencies.

The ratings also challenged the efficacy of governance and procedures. Most metropolitan areas surveyed included their surrounding communities because of their importance during a disaster.

Interestingly, previous findings also reveal that our state and local government work forces responsible for disaster or emergency preparedness are overworked, underpaid, wear multiple hats, and may or may not be experts in their respective areas.

Though the DHS's intentions are on target, these scorecards expose the federal government's own difficulties in successfully executing a plan for national interoperable communications.

Billions of dollars have been spent on interoperable communication plans and executions. According to the DHS, the results of their recent scorecards indicate that metropolitan areas, while not perfect, are doing better.

In its report, the DHS calls the scorecard "an important milestone" culminating from several years of bettering interoperable communications capabilities. But after spending $3 billion in two years, such mediocre results are unacceptable.

While our local and state jurisdictions deserve hard-earned credit, we will also discuss some suggestions for improving preparedness ratings.


Planning for the Future
Jurisdictions must plan for today, but build infrastructure for tomorrow.

Keep the plans current -- don't walk away from them and still consider them complete. Provide jurisdictional leaders and first responders with best-of-breed solutions including the use of emerging technologies that are vital for the continuing success, safety and economic health of 21st-century communities.