1 / 12

Community Engagement in Public Health Emergency Planning

Community Engagement in Public Health Emergency Planning. Monica Schoch-Spana FEMA Higher Education Conf – June 2007. Working Group on Civic Engagement in Health Emergency Planning – Overview. Problem – Does volunteerism plus stockpiled basements equal citizen preparedness?

ccollinson
Download Presentation

Community Engagement in Public Health Emergency Planning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Community Engagement inPublic Health Emergency Planning Monica Schoch-Spana FEMA Higher Education Conf – June 2007

  2. Working Group on Civic Engagement in Health Emergency Planning – Overview • Problem – Does volunteerism plus stockpiled basements equal citizen preparedness? • Process – What do scholarly research and practical experience today suggest? • 5 Principal Findings: • Extreme events compel citizen action & judgment • Civic infrastructure yields remedies at all stages of disasters • Communication, consultation, & community engagement (CE) are tools for leaders to mobilize civic infrastructure • Decision makers gain wisdom & influence thru CE • Certain ingredients are necessary for genuine CE

  3. WG Process • Interdisciplinary body w/ breadth of knowledge & experience • Review of relevant literatures • Social rsch into hazards, disasters, epidemics • Public participation theory & practice • Medical/public health emergency management • Group deliberation of evidence & advice • May ’06 Summit: Disease, Disaster, & Democracy • July & Nov ’06 meetings; iterative drafts & review

  4. WG Members (e.g.) • CDC Coordinating Ofc for Terrorism Preparedness & Emergency Response • Center for Minority Health, Univ of Pittsburgh (PA) • City Manager’s Office, Berkeley (CA) • Disaster Interfaith Services (NYC) • Grand Bayou Families United (LA) • James Lee Witt Associates (DC) • Montgomery County Health Dept (MD) • Natural Hazards Center (CO) • Seattle & King County Public Health (WA) • Tulsa Partners, Project Impact, & Citizen Corps (OK)

  5. 1. Disasters & Epidemics Compel Citizen Judgment and Action • Shock-producing damages – ruptured expectations about physical survival, social order, meaning of life • Response system overload – high-volume &/or widely dispersed demands; functional disabilities • Improvised solutions – unforeseen situations demand creative problem solving & break w/ routine • Disproportionate impacts – chances for greater victimization are unevenly distributed in society • History-in-the-making – political after effects, transformed social expectations, indelible memories

  6. 2. Civic Infrastructure (CI) Yields Remedies thru out Disaster Cycle • Communications network w/ trusted channels that reach dispersed, diverse, & wary populations • Collective wisdom to help set priorities & inform values-laden decisions • Local knowledge to improve reliability & acceptability of disaster plans • Support for responders during response & recovery • Self-organized, innovative solutions for unforeseen circumstances • Rooted-ness in place the personalizes communitywide recovery & amasses resilience

  7. 3. Leaders’ Tools to Tap Civic Infrastructure Are Unevenly Applied • Communication • Typically one-way w/ intent of educating & informing public • Pamphlets, press releases, public meetings, websites like ready.gov • Consultation • Solicitation of opinions thru surveys, polls, focus groups, advisory panel • Citizen input can inform policy decision & implementation, but is one factor among many • Community Engagement • Structured dialogue, joint problem solving, & collaborative action among formal authorities, citizens at-large, & local opinion leaders

  8. 4. Decision Makers Gain Wisdom & Influence thru Community Partners • Greater ability to govern & maintain trust during a crisis • More citizen responders who ease burdens on health & safety agencies • Fiscal probity thru fewer disaster-related losses & expenditures, more tax revenue • Feasible emergency plans that reflect collective values & judgments • Constituents interested in success of public health/safety & emergency mgmt agencies

  9. 5. Certain Ingredients Are Necessary for Genuine CE • Commit the administration; identify agency champion(s) • Assess civic infrastructure; build on prior foundations • Define top issues with community partners • Allocate sufficient resources to sustain CE • Reach out to groups typically absent from policy-making table • Listen to unresolved trauma & grief from past

  10. WG Materials Available On-Linewww.upmc-biosecurity.org • May ’06 - Disease, Disaster, & Democracy: The Public’s Stake in Health Emergency Planning (summit proceedings) • Mar ’07 - Community Engagement: Leadership Tool for Catastrophic Event (consensus report) • May ’07 - How to Work with Community Partners to Prepare for Health Emergencies (leadership handbook)

  11. Acknowledgements • WG was funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), grant number N00140510629, and The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, award number 2004-6-13. • Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in this document are those of the WG and do not necessarily reflect views of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or the Sloan Foundation.

  12. Thank you.

More Related