Executive Summary
Communication in emergencies is critical for successfully resolving problems and minimizing damage. This is especially important for large-scale organizations, such as the Massachusetts administration, which must effectively resolve crises in the territory of a densely populated state. However, despite the availability of special documentation on this topic, its structural integrity and applicability raise questions. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) of Massachusetts, along with its supplements, to investigate the crisis communication situation in the region. As part of this study, a general review of the documentation and a detailed analysis of the essential components of the communication process: methods, messages, and stakeholders.
As this analysis has shown, the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency documentation is characterized by the commonality of frameworks. Since the communication rules should apply to all structures in the state, CEMP and its supplement are devoid of specificity. Although, given the organization’s size, this approach is logical, some issues require more clarification. Consequently, the crisis communication process in Massachusetts is described in general terms, making it difficult for a third party to analyze it and complicating its use by specialized agencies. To correct these shortcomings, it is recommended to add details to some controversial areas and introduce evidence-based approaches to increase the effectiveness of operations.
Introduction
Communication during extreme disasters is one of the critical factors for success. However, the organization of stable contact can become a considerable problem even at the local level. With the increase in the scale of the disaster, this issue becomes only more acute. Therefore, drawing up plans for interaction is especially important at the regional level. Massachusetts has a high population density and many potential security threats (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2019). To best prepare for possible disasters, the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) has developed a series of documents, the central of which is the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). However, despite the presence of many annexes, the question of the usefulness of the structure of this document and its applicability in the context of communication remains open. This paper explores this thesis, analyzes CEMP and its accompanying papers, assesses existing communication channels, and identifies possible vulnerabilities.
Plan Overview
The Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan is the primary document that contains basic information regarding preparedness for various crises and emergencies in Massachusetts. Within the framework of CEMP, all fundamental issues are considered, from the definition and classification of threats to methods of responding to them (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2019). Thus, communications in times of crisis is also in one of the sections of CEMP. However, it should be noted that in its structure, this document is exceptionally general and describes only the basic mechanisms. The reason for this is the scale of the organization and the need to extend the described techniques to all staff and all subordinate structures. Therefore, MEMA has formed universal guidelines that can be tailored to the needs of specific agencies and put forward unifying requirements that ensure stability and unification of interaction in emergencies.
Because the issue of communication is too significant to be left to private agencies, MEMA has complemented CEMP with a series of appendices and annexes addressing narrower. CEMP itself only describes the general provisions and regulates the means that can be used for communication purposes (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2019). Detailed principles are set out in Massachusetts Emergency Support Function 2 (ESF-2), which describes the principles for providing support and actions to be taken before, during, and after a disaster (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2018). This document is also generalized, although it separates the categories of actions, indicates communication channels, and outlines the responsibilities of each structure involved. For example, it outlines how ESF-2 responding agencies interact with the police, the Department of Transportation, and individual private communications companies such as Comcast and Verizon (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2018). Thanks to this, all structures associated with MEMA should be able to determine the quality of communications and implement them in crises.
Communication Channels
The available guidelines from MEMA are quite wide-ranging, which makes it rather challenging to identify and analyze specific communication channels and their accompanying details. This is an inevitable factor related to the size of organizations and the amount of nuance that CEMP has to cover. This plan is designed with all possible crises in mind, which does not allow these instructions to address the nuances of communication in different contexts (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2019). In addition, although ESF-2 describes a list of responsible agencies, it is almost impossible to identify specific stakeholders in each case. In this context, since CEMP and ESF-2 apply to the entire state, it can be considered that the most interested parties are the administrations of emergency agencies and the general population.
Areas of responsibility in case of a critical situation are distributed following ESF-2. First, there is the main agency to which all others report, MEMA, as it oversees the entire state (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2018). Its responsibility is allocating resources, coordinating all lower-level structures, and maintaining all relevant documentation. Organizations focused on solving specific problems are put forward as support agencies, providing telecommunications, fighting fires, and others (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2018). Their responsibilities are more sparsely defined and are limited to performing their tasks and reporting to MEMA. This applies to both state structures and specially designated private ones.
ESF-2 also does not designate specific messages that should be sent to subordinate structures. The document’s text contains only common language about the need for notification, communication of all relevant information, and timely exchange of information (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2018). The answer to them should be actions corresponding to the internal regulations of the agencies. The channels through which communication should be carried out are more evident since their list is reflected in CEMP (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2018). Because the plan describes procedures at a regional scale, the Massachusetts government has virtually every possible technical resource to ensure regular communication. Simultaneously, social networks are also actively used to alert the general population (“Communication resources,” n.d.). Recovery and preparedness actions are also relatively detailed, as they indicate specific channels for coordination and reporting (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2018). Thus, it can be noted that most of the communication process in critical situations is non-transparent.
Existing Shortcomings
The lack of transparency of structures and the order of their interaction is one of the main shortcomings of this plan. On the one hand, this can be explained by the scale of the organization and the need to form unified recommendations that can be changed following the needs of a particular agency. However, when analyzing CEMP, it can be noted that some areas of crisis preparedness are described in more detail than others. Consequently, the issue of communications could also be expanded and made more transparent. The current situation complicates the study of this issue by third parties and potentially problematizes the interaction between structures due to the lack of specifics.
Another important observation is the need to clarify the use of communication tools. Although CEMP specifies which technologies should be used at the internal, external, and community levels, there is no guidance on their gradation and methods (Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, 2019). A particular example illustrating this problem is the use of social networks and specific Internet portals to alert citizens. While this initiative may be helpful, its current organization leaves much to be desired as these resources are inconvenient to utilize. In this context, various scientific approaches from neighboring scientific fields are proposed (Eriksson, 2018). In particular, according to Sano and Sano (2019), establishing communication between individual citizens can contribute to the successful resolution of crises. Since the structure in question is a state structure, it has enough resources to organize civilian communication platforms. At the moment, no such initiatives, as well as the use of scientific research, are listed in CEMP. Simultaneously, using an evidence-based approach can greatly facilitate communication and improve its quality.
Conclusion
Thus, the Massachusetts Crisis Communication Plan is somewhat of a controversial document, the structure and applicability of which are indeed questionable. First, it is broad and lacks specifics and direct communication indications, such as explicit messages. On the one hand, this can be explained by the need to unify the instructions for the entire state. However, some points should be clarified in it, such as interested parties and the most appropriate channels for transmitting information in some instances, even considering the general scope of the paper. Therefore, this document can be viewed as a good introduction to communication activities during a crisis. However, it needs either to be further developed or to be made more transparent, both to simplify its analysis and to make it easier for subordinate agencies to work.
References
Communication resources for emergency preparedness partners. (n.d.). Mass.gov. Web.
Eriksson, M. (2018). Lessons for crisis communication on social media: A systematic review of what research tells the practice. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(5), 526-551. Web.
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency. (2018). Massachusetts emergency support function 2 communications. Web.
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency. (2019). Comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP). Web.
Sano, K., & Sano, H. (2019). The effect of different crisis communication channels. Annals of Tourism Research, 79, 102804. Web.