ࡱ> npm`  8bjbj 8T/:80<l,6h(Z6\6\6\6\6\6\6$C8h:666pZ6Z623 0)ZbJp2Z66062;;;;(33v;;24(>| 66B^6 D   Disaster Scenario USA Services Focus Group Results In the summer of 2005, USA Services worked with The MITRE Corporation to conduct citizen research regarding expectations when communicating with the Federal Government. USA Services interviewed 225 citizens in 9 different cities. A disaster situation was one of the six scenarios we used to extract information from citizens as to how they want to communicate with the government and their expectations in a natural disaster or national emergency situation. The following are some of the summary trends from the focus groups. Methodology - The Disaster scenario varied from city to city. Houston and Miami were given a hurricane situation, and Kansas City was given a tornado situation. Given the various disasters that have occurred in San Francisco, the participants there were not provided with a specific disaster to discuss. This scenario was run with two age groups in Miami, Kansas and San Francisco (a total of six runs). One age group consisted of people 30-45 years old, and the other consisted of people 46-65 years old. Participants in both age groups were required to have contacted government at least once in the past two years, live in a home with at least $30,000 in household income, have graduated from high school or have an equivalent education, and use the Internet at least once per week. This scenario was also run with two different groups of people 46-65 years old. One group consisted of people who had graduated from high school (or the equivalent) or had some college (less than a four year degree), and lived in a household with $30,000 to $49,000 in income. The other group consisted of people who had at least graduated with a 4-year college degree and lived in a household with at least $50,000 in income. Both groups in this city were required to have contacted the government at least once in the past two years and use the Internet at least once per week. All of the sessions with Disaster scenario were conducted in July and August of 2005 prior to Hurricane Katrina. Each group was asked: How would you contact the government in a disaster situation? Why would you use this method of communications? What would it take for you to be satisfied? What is it about this experience that is important? In the future can you imagine a better way to make contact with the government? Observations - Preferably, people seemed to want to use a phone either landline or mobile (including cellular one group even mentioned using OnStar for voice communication) to get assistance in this scenario, but they often assumed that the disaster wiped out land lines and cell towers. Most also assumed that the entire area around them was wiped out, not just their homes, and that they might need food and shelter. As a result, participants both within and across almost all groups seemed to expect to have an In Person contact at some point after receiving substantial damage to their homes. In other scenarios where In Person was a preferred method of contact, participants expected they would be able to go to a government office to make an In Person contact. In the Disaster scenario, they wanted to have pre-designated centers within walking distance. However, the participants anticipated the possibility that they might not be able to get out of their immediate areas to get government office and that some pre-designated areas may also be destroyed by the disaster. If conditions did not allow normal movement in an area, participants expected government to have mobile centers and means for getting citizens to those centers. The Houston group consisting of people with at least a four-year college degree and a household with at least $50,000 did not assume the disaster was as extreme as the other groups. As a result, they did not talk about In Person contacts, and talked about using telephones, cellular phones and laptop computers wireless Internet. The latter two were discussed assuming that the power in their homes was out. Participants did not necessarily expect that theyd reach federal assistance (e.g., FEMA or the National Guard) first. They expected that they would be in contact with local government first and that local government would act as an intermediary to Federal government. Participants also expected that they would have contact with non-government entities (e.g., Red Cross, Salvation Army, insurance companies), and that those entities would help them get to any necessary government assistance. They also recognized that they may need to rely on each other or neighborhood association groups to get information and provide assistance. They also suggested having citizen advisory panels to develop emergency plans. Service level Expectations -The top service-level expectation was Competent Service. Participants discussed several aspects pertaining to competent service. The following are examples of what some participants expected: Government to be prepared to execute plans for disaster scenarios that are recurring (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.). Elected officials to know their role in an emergency. They expect them to acknowledge the emergency situation and communicate the plan, including when activities are planned to begin and what has been done to date. Here is an example of this expectation from participants in Miami: When [our mayor] was asked why he didnt leave his house after [Hurricane] Andrew, the said Well, theres nothing I can do, and he sat in his house for five days. [He] didnt go out and try to do anything to try to get government services to people. Coordination plans that involve all levels of government, recognized non-government relief organizations like the Red Cross and Salvation Army, and insurance companies. Participants do not want to make multiple contacts for assistance from different levels of government. One suggestion was to co-locate mobile government emergency sites with other emergency responders like the Red Cross. Emergency responders who know how to deal with massive numbers of people in federal disasters. In this scenario, transporting people to disaster relief areas, providing them with comfort, food and shelter, and helping them fill out forms to receive additional assistance. Participants expressed a desire for a clearinghouse to collect and disseminate local information that could be used to get information about local areas and obtain assistance services. Satellite systems for radio information and voice communication, were also mentioned. Participants seemed to think that satellite systems would be more reliable in emergency situations than landlines and cell phones, because disasters can destroy the lines and towers. Regular updates and information on emergency services via TV, radio and Internet. Participants were not sure whether theyd have the ability to use these things in a disaster situation, but they felt that of these three, theyd most likely hear the radio, if they had batteries. They also suggested broadcasting information from helicopters, and emergency towers with sirens and voice capabilities. The 30-45 year old group talked about getting information via a handheld device like a cellular phone or Blackberry. They also suggested that the system be similar to the Amber alert system, using road signs and other devices to spread the word about emergencies to people. Government to educate citizens on emergency plans and procedures. Some participants did not understand why the federal government waits for a request from state government before sending in FEMA or the National Guard. They also wanted information on a yearly or seasonal basis regarding what they should do in the event of disasters in their area and how to contact government in those situations, so they are prepared before a disaster occurs. They suggested that this information be communicated through phone books, the Internet, public service announcements on TV and radio, and other government papers sent regularly through the mail (e.g., tax filing information is sent to everyone each year). Along with updates on the status of emergency activities, participants expected Easy to Locate Contact Information and suggested that this information be provided via TV, radio, Internet, communication towers, and helicopters for before and after a disaster occurs. Some people mentioned getting cards or letters from government through the mail with information on evacuation routes and phone numbers on it. Those who talked about cards also talked about making them waterproof. Participants suggested establishing a national contact number designated for disasters, like a 911, that they would know and then use from anywhere to get information about their hometown areas. Participants expected Convenience in terms of getting to the emergency contact centers. Preferably they want to be able to walk to them, but they understood circumstances may not allow that. Both age groups seemed concerned about locating people or services when street signs and other landmarks are destroyed. Along with convenient location of In Person contact centers, participants in all of the 30-45 year old groups (versus only the 46-65 groups in Houston) wanted to use mobile communication platforms, like laptops with wireless Internet, cell phones and Blackberries to send and receive information in an emergency, because these platforms are likely to be with them wherever they may be. For those who talked about wireless Internet devices (whether on laptop or cell), they discussed accessing up-to-date maps with information like places to stay away from and making alternative plans based on that kind of information. People talking about mobile communication systems also suggested having a dedicated phone numbers exempt from phone charges a 1-800 number and a cellular, making it more accessible for people. In Houston, someone suggested that the contact center be located remotely in the event that local fire and police stations were wiped out in a disaster. Participants also suggested the use of handheld GPS to locate mobile relief sites and to send out distress call beacons. Another expectation in this scenario was Timely Response, though this expectation was inferred from comments related to Competent Service. People seemed to realize that their specific situation in a disaster will have an impact how long they must wait to get in contact with government (either directly or through intermediary contacts like Red Cross). They expect that there will be sufficient personnel to handle telephone calls in a timely manner. It seems that if citizens can see signs of competent service, then they can accept a longer wait. Summary Observations - In order to meet citizens service-level expectations in a disaster, government must: Have an emergency services plan for different types of federal disasters (e.g., hurricane, earthquake, etc.) that coordinates efforts with all levels of government, other relief services (e.g., Red Cross, Salvation Army) and insurance companies. Educate everyone on that plan Have an infrastructure established to handle communications between citizens and government to get information about localized disaster situations via multiple communication platforms Have a plan for making sure people can get to disaster assistance and relief centers Provide services according to plan. The challenge for government is that every disaster situation has its own unique characteristics. The emergency services plan should lay out a simple framework that people can understand and be flexible enough to adjust to the situation. It must help people understand the process for getting assistance and how to adapt to changing circumstances (e.g., provide information on what to do if an established evacuation route is blocked). In the future, expectations for the use of mobile communication methods (e.g., laptops with wireless Internet, Blackberries and cell phones) in government emergency service plans may become more prevalent as the 30-45 year old group and younger people use more of these technologies.      DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy" 4/17/2006  PAGE 1 67O\h} # + 5   6 H I J U V X { ɾɣɣɶɾɶɛ|xxhFP6h^@9hh^@9CJaJhh^@95CJaJh }h }h }5h\B*phhXhXB*phhXB*phh }h }B*phh }B*phhD$b h }5hP:hD$b5CJaJ hP:5hP:h }5jhP:hP:5U-678I J ~  c d 67x ^ $ & Fa$gdtl9$a$gd^@9$a$gdP: $@&a$gdP:@&gd }gdH2 $@&a$gd } $@&a$gdP:7 8{    % 9 > H ` d b c 378\tGPS[_`abnopq3QThĸجhc&Nh]h(h^@9h^@95hh^@95CJaJh=]5CJaJ htl9htl9htl9h^@9hD$bhhKh[}h2h#[Fh]Mhn=hO@^_`abCD %$ & F 88^8a$gdP: $h^ha$gdP:$a$gd$ & F hh^ha$gdP:$a$gdP:$a$gd^@9$a$gdtl9!:Lzg,T@BCDEEW`gkBz1[ĽĽĽȶȮhih ha(hUC hXhUC hZhZhZhhtahhy h.h5& hw hy~hc&Nh]h(hh3hD$b<)7?HKstu  >@Udn$%&%7c ƿ뷻뷠 hhC5d hhu hhhuhpx hZ6 hZhZh hZhhZh-y. h ikh-y. h ikhnh ik h ikh ik h ikhUChnhiqhHhhhh5CJaJ2%&$% "".%/% & &''**++ $ & Fa$gdP: $8^8a$gdP:$a$gd ik$ & F 88^8a$gdP: $h^ha$gdP: $^a$gdP: $^a$gdP:c l !!"!y!z!!!!!!!"""#$$-%.%%% & &&&&u''''''''B(C(e(f(((()))***++]++,#,*,B,C,D,Q,T,Z,̽轥hh h}_hh>d:h)hXhFP6hy h7 hC5dhC5dhJShHhhc&Nh hhUha(hhC5dhuh ikhpxhSI>Z,l,n,t,,,Y-).v.|........///////00p00011E2F2G2O2[2_222[4a444444444445566ĸhTrhdkhKhzBh?hgh7 hh=]5CJaJhh5CJaJhZhh)hJShr5hHhc&Nh _hha(hFP6hy h>h h6+00F2G22233444466777777777$a$gdP: $^a$gdP: $ & Fa$gdP: $h^ha$gdP: $ & Fa$gdP:67!727=7u7~7777777777777777777778888 8 8 8 8ûîûh?;hfh?;CJaJh0JmHnHu h?;0Jjh?;0JUhCJaJmHnHuh?;CJaJjh?;CJUaJh8jh8U h\hFhFhhD$b hTrh]ChFP6 hTrhTr"7777 8 8 8 8$a$gdP:6&P1h:pt</ =!"#$% &Dd,R  C .AusasbannerRG&Zx4SZ$$#&DOF&Zx4SZ$$JFIFddDucky<Adobed       5  s!1AQa"q2B#R3b$r%C4Scs5D'6Tdt& EFVU(eufv7GWgw8HXhx)9IYiy*:JZjzm!1AQa"q2#BRbr3$4CS%cs5DT &6E'dtU7()󄔤euFVfvGWgw8HXhx9IYiy*:JZjz ?AV([V-8Uk>禧Sv5p5Wr[;TK9z2#ŗ{ߵb=KiK+tA)aP,ȯ64?l&=TnCd`:(Ku;1m͋TmAі@Q(D>|U{6FuCdB*+N* u\KF.Z, d!yʵzt*@<㒬`ً9kC)!Ȍt㙙?IZ8ICN=v~y Ae5kXQOxv^1?Ҕ&cI.u+DLxp$z/PS' na}eH{P>nĎ 8/u?jqW.HB>|˟>!)\eJHeaPGBuѐ q!i… qBӅ qAZpV/|]&-jER(Weۄn$ך*~準$b%h *CVAr4yqK3)v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbA9壊8P-­(S#9蠓O+PM0bz$9*UثWb7wvsy͎FYf,D)pߒgF^ ^~XR$IRсk:|'b?eFXJ\#=h~ӿ.'$r]|1ac!Di%-#RƍU'G, ؆ݟ)cc OJӨz5C^K'I~+ǬXVdEh:Q :}HǙ[I-FRu޲~ZG{]RQ=Ae 9)!pG,O"&4+e/Uu<ЋOm?6CRQŐh_{?#?rEj]ըydTF,*X1n9a†|6^n?jPꪰUX9CvNCyB]ܺ{\+Nv*o-GUGoR`xNNn+KB)!Im(iE}Ej(0g6CnsgGojZ'@Uf"n(qZg3彋 9sUثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbA9壊8P-­(Sv 1"vO$xtͰ6ꈦWb]v*x~ (jq@ EHS'Ǽ5R [rq%s/u>2{/t˭WʺΗhͭӌBȍ_fl#f@xg\RAl!9g!{m-9c44^5c\>jt~9wzwulM.fl f :T?[҃6Qj4 G|S85P8FUn{3 K잣$Oeiz^_&G>D v`ƭAfF16\_NHU@ _ڄQX~=IG+ܜŐ E=߲KfГ,p$&)_ړu>{_wwjSɈ ~6Vzw;.'=KUژ#.Dɯ/aƫ#5ܧެI240񟨺jsyF!˾G{=~#+Kk(SՔѴ2<$N S?u=Ri/wx'dãHOobeY/%PƝ|=h +3]Lzp9t_]ǒ%uH-Ԓ qX;po;(vyռƆy 5Ѥ5G.,DVeЂ 0Dlm|D:ʚx6w*Z43RhG$UJU.5<:e[Dl_TS6_'z<1ksrWвp@ Cvʲc]9]ͯjzpZĂ2 J8jxHcqHLDy?0j ,?4a&}rH2B#W]_Ҁe/c2 ß[e"1n+A'q| &l[\/(td'0!0{LڸvfNy"L_xo*C~RkLiRFHSũ_௶K3ٚyG兀/!ySvfq G29"б=3;?4}:%zEO(tˍO[NeۚI )**>!EEG\\ʲr<q[i^y|l̾-VgHy $JzM@w2Y7B_:G~5~[ն}oܑ/Ndqqc:/fߗD~:u򭃒Du-^mޜ[̾ #'">#?Ϛ\(!E^q'2t?sM;grX55I-Of'L,q#/Wψ={)50H<J"sc'V#~KGN;T̶aQ"@4;#?i_ծLI&[@p(yK…:ns|7E~K$0 G='@nBӻxݳm|C2C*v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]z 0w-Ui…nhBӅPvqz.l'!Iqn@F ^NsKWb]Cȗb^ ո 贅B@J^=~*X*ʜH7]2 zys'0f4:Ntk9/x'IK* 1z6~&H> 1>tj~m/XZe.haފ#HPQj{p.2}_bHGFCDG^p&cM-3X^(f!(XH$yPE52Fy$ Nwcv 9CÔO>ͼ=Ŕe)OSsv@~j~YFZP'=QX)+\GE{En#BHάXQ|zI@ n5=4eX cN;kKyd[t_г[ƅ$ffz_yƤno|wjVv6))cH`S2;s5d5D>U7~m^i YX8tU'fEk$x~U{ m> p˺ :camI23[3jYE3CEs >H#Y o$ ¤pN ĬxWحkG7d|wYķRn-U 3䨱$J7\ҜqGH 'U蹆iƚ-\./XoR"?OOÙЖ./Qt}< NɅe$pêCַ-iSJdLN;ZQFBXsv^j,5 Y9jТKYY%J{߻Ƣi߂9.K{O'D(&.bx#nMӐhw-|*/aCQZp`ңJ"q 15RT]fco)歆h'a钱f(f-]Xe[3\<ڌnj 5j*q9l*~27*:WFyPG&A G)gobx\j<|qZo<-ǧ9H6YH=X1Wvo0< Q<oVewsyG̜,]̱/eFghs_Ptط? 6.ثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثNihN- pG *↰i…JoӾ*Sztnvi\)N/Pg~ә98gV@iOlsV4iOl,Z8'51ξ̩;Mc (ZqT#WTWO=?>|nȪS~gc?\GQϩV˖(WZ,S3S/[~?s'_-'^ լ(Zp… (hN-8U([ ӅRF@4}?; OdWn\ڙǷ'o<ҹZS?.˰<8{ֹſ4@Uzd4ܿlȤeYx7~Nòo>_ޥsWB2/#Y>(WӗC7M'~PSj+ ݇5S;v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No ListZY@Z  } Document Map-D M CJOJQJ^JaJ4@4 fHeader  !4 @4 fFooter  !.)@!. f Page Number 0T678IJ~cd67x ^ _ ` a b CD %&$%./  ""##((F*G***++,,,,..//////////// 0 0 00000000080808080808080808 08 08 08 08 08080808080808 0808 0808 0808 08080808 0808 08080808 0808 0808 0808 0808 08080808 0808 0808 0808 08080808 08 08 08 08 0 808080808080808y00y00y00y00y00y00y00y00@0h0 0y00678IJ~cd67x ^ _ ` a b CD %&$%./  ""##((F*G***++,,,,../ 0 0000000 00808080808080800 0 0 08 08 0000000 00 00 00 0000 00 0000 00 00 00 0000 00 00 00 0000 0 0 0 0 0000 009@0 009 999<{ c Z,6 8 "#%&(^%+7 8!$') 8 !+-46<!33Ԏ3 3ģ3|3$3t34t444L44t4HH ' ' 0     ,,OO##'' 0 9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace  ///////////////0 0 0///////////////0 0 05K++////////////// 0 0///////////// 0 0 cL#b'y],>53oFxoN^+'S>F@C"ld53xoN'SC"ly],d:t<n?v@zBUC#[FSIMMc&NQJS6IThUX=]v_taD$bWc4{cC5dQ\iNjdk ik.oqIqiqorsO*| }[}y~ nHp. G ]]C\ _M&5KXa(i>4S,7kGuZn=?~1?)Fr5L<[f-?;P:eYw4>s:{O'T[/g~8y `Sc ]M\#pxH2K18M@6J 00@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hk && #(V#(V!4// 2QHX ?t<2 Disaster General Services Administration caroledobbs(       Oh+'0 (4 T ` l x Disaster  General Services Administration Normal.dot caroledobbs10Microsoft Office Word@@TYb@H|+_@Zb#(՜.+,D՜.+,4 hp|  GSAV/  Disaster TitlehH$@\_NewReviewCycle_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_ReviewingToolsShownOnceJeDisaster Summarycthomason@mitre.orgThomason, Clarke  !"#$%&'()*,-./0123456789:;<=>@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\^_`abcdfghijkloRoot Entry F0bBZbqData +&1Table?c;WordDocument8TSummaryInformation(]DocumentSummaryInformation8eCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q