RC1 Risk Comm Program Review Form - FY18-19

Risk Communications Program Review

Montana Public Health

Local Health Jurisdiction*

Date of Review*

https://phep.formstack.com/forms/images/2/calendar.png

Month

Day

Year

Name*

First Name*

Last Name*

Email Address*

Phone*

Scoring

The scoring for this review is divided into two parts. The first is a component evaluation, in which a value is given to the 22 most relevant elements of a risk communications plan. The second is a subjective score to assess the overall style and effectiveness of the plan.

Rate yourself based on

WHAT WORKS BEST IN YOUR JURISDICTION GIVEN YOUR STAFF, RESOURCES, & SITUATION

Component Score – 0 thru 3

0 – Missing: Activity/Plan/Resource is needed, but not conducted or unavailable
1 – Poor: Activity/Plan/Resource is conducted or available, but does not meet needs
2 – Working: Activity/Plan/Resource is conducted or available, meets needs, but can be improved
3 – Good: Activity/Plan/Resource is conducted or available, and meets needs well
3 – Good: Activity/Plan/Resource is not needed or applicable

Subjective score – 1 thru 10, with 1 being a dismal representation of public information planning that needs vast improvement and development (i.e. throw it out and start over), and 10 being so well developed that the jurisdiction should spend planning efforts elsewhere. Subjective scoring is based on clarity of writing, inclusion of pertinent appendices, organization of the plan, inclusion or reference to other relevant procedures or information, and perceived interoperability with local and state partners.

Click Here for the 16-17 RC1 WebEx

Strategic Risk Communications Review

Evaluate your Risk Communications activities from a strategic perspective. This may be part of a strategic planning process; however, if your jurisdiction does not conduct strategic planning, then just look at your risk communication capabilities from a strategic perspective.

1. Rate your inclusion of public health relevant Critical Community Assets

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Certain community asset such as infrastructure, systems, and resources may be critical to public health. Critical infrastructure examples may include: water purification plant or waste water removal system. Critical system examples may include: patient transport or communications. Critical resources examples may include: mayor, sheriff, director of public health, key doctors, and local social or cultural figures [may be informal]. Consider aspects of these critical community assets (CCA) may be vulnerable to damage or harm, potentially leading to a significant health event in the event of failure of injury. For example, regarding critical infrastructure, a failure of the intake or head-works of the water treatment system may shut down the water treatment plan, which may cause a public health hazard. A critical systems example may include consideration of the electrical supply to the communication system. A critical resource example may include the health of the only or a well-loved doctor. The concept follows that if one of these aspects is affected, then a CCA may be weakened or lost. If a CCA is weakened or lost, then the public health may be at greater risk and/or there may be social cognitive distress. Identifying your public health relevant CCA or and their points of vulnerability can be helpful for developing a well-rounded strategic perspective.

2. Rate your inclusion of Risk Comm AARs and Lessons Learned in your strategic review

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Have you reviewed your systems and capabilities for risk communications? Have you recorded lessons learned from previous years? Have you assessed your continuity of operations staffing and resources?

3. Rate your inclusion of Public Health relevant public events and trends in your strategic review

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Are all major holidays accounted for? Are all major local events accounted for (e.g., rodeo, fair, powwow)? Are important public health days, weeks, and months accounted for (e.g., world AIDS day, national immunization month)? Are public seasons and activity trends accounted for (e.g., schools season, hunting season, recreational water season)?

4. Rate your inclusion of Public Health relevant seasonal disease trends & hazards in your strategic review

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Are disease and vector seasons accounted for (e.g., flu season, tick season, WNV season)? Are disaster seasons accounted for (e.g., fire season, flood season, winter storm season)?

5. Rate your inclusion of at-risk populations in your strategic review

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Have you considered the communication tools and resources needed to communicate effectively to populations with access needs (e.g., no telephone or internet) or functional needs (e.g., difficultly hearing or seeing)? Is there a system to communicate to specific or unique at-risk audiences in a disaster event?

6. Rate your Risk Communications Objectives

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Are your Public Health Goals and Objectives supported by Risk Communications Objectives? Are your Public Health Objectives written in the active voice (e.g., "Reduce the rate of influenza in Beaverhead County against the 5 year trend")? If you have Risk Comm Objectives, are they task oriented (e.g., "Increase hand washing at fairs and petting zoos")?

7. Rate your Risk Communications Priorities

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Is your first priority "Health and Life Safety"? Do your priorities weigh likelihood against severity?

8. Rate your external communications (i.e., routine Risk Comm) Policies / Plan

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Are / Is your Risk Communication (i.e., external communication) policies / plan effective and efficient? Do you have a single plan for Risk Comm and CERC? Does it function as a policy? Should it be separated? If you have policies, are there gaps? Can your policies be improved?

9. Rate your Annual Message Planning

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Is Annual Message Planning relevant? Does annual message planing lead to backyard planing for messaging campaigns? Are the time-frames for messaging relevant to the seasonal trends and events? Do you have to many planned messages to go out in a narrow time-frame?

10. Rate your Campaign Outlines

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Have you identified the appropriate number of target audiences for each event? Have you identified the media types for each target audience? Have you developed 3 messages per media type for each target audience?

11. Is your Message Archive easily navigable?

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Could someone other than you find what they were looking for without your help?

12. Rate you collection of have Source Documents

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Do you have Source Information readily available (web addresses do count)?

Crisis & Emergency Risk Communications Plan

Your Crisis & Emergency Risk Communications (CERC) information may be in a general Risk Communications Plan. If this is the case, and it is functional, then there is no need to change. However, if your CERC information is in a Risk Comm plan and it is not functional, then consider narrowing the Risk Comm plan down to just CERC and develop external communication policies to address routine Risk Comm messages.

1. Rate your CERC Plan's "Administrative Record"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Does the plan include a list of contributors, distribution list, and a record of change?

2. Rate your CERC Plan's "Purpose"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Does the Purpose of the plan provide direction for work?

3. Rate your CERC Plan's "Scope"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Are the limits of the plan clearly defined?

4. Rate your CERC Plan's "Assumptions"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Do your assumptions support the concept that other organizations, individuals, and agencies will or will not be prepared with resources, staff, and training?

5. Rate your CERC Plan's "Roles and Responsibilities"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Are the Roles and Responsibilities of the County Public Information Officer (PIO) , Incident Lead PIO, Public Health PIO, the Risk Communications Coordinator (RCC), and/or support staff clearly discernable, understandable, and to they give direction for work? Are there limits to the type of work each PIO/RCC/Staff Member is permitted to do, and are those limits defined?

6. Rate your CERC Plan's "Concept of Operation"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Is the work flow outlined (e.g., Planning >>> Target Audience Identification and Analysis >>> Series Development >>> Message Draft #1 >>> Pre-testing >>> Message Draft #2 >>> Approval Process >>> Production >>> Distribution and Dissemination >>> Monitoring and Evaluation)?

7. Rate your CERC Plan's "Activation" Subsection

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Is the notification process outlined? Are there thresholds or triggers identified which direct responsibility to different roles?

8. Rate your CERC Plan's 'Operations' Subsection

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Are the needed message development resources outlined (e.g., CERC Standard Operating Guidelines)? Is the methodology of how those resources will be used outline? Is the Access and Functional Needs Community Addressed?

9. Rate your CERC Plan's "Maintenance"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Is the review schedule for plan revision defined (i.e., annual, 2nd or 3rd PHEP Deliverable Quarter with Date)?

10. Rate your CERC Plan's "Training"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Are the primary and annual training requirements for general staff, RCC, and the PIO defined?

11. Rate your CERC Plan's "Exercise"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Is a drill and exercise schedule defined listing each of the modes of communication and other risk communication functions?

12. Rate your CERC Plan's "Call Center" Annex

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Is an alternate location identified? Are the procedures for activating, escalating, deescalating, and deactivating the call center identified?

13. Rate your CERC Plan's Technical Writing and Readability

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Technical Writing: Are all sentences as short and clear as possible? Do your “may’s” connote permission (e.g., “the PIO may not publish without SME approval”)? Do your “might’s” connote choice of action (e.g., “the PIO might post a Facebook message with a press release”)? Are all personal pronouns removed? Are all redundant phrases or concepts removed? Are all figures of speech removed? Are all intensifiers removed (e.g., very, really, actually, virtually, etc.)? Are all positions identified by title (e.g., the RCC) and not by name? Etcetera…. Readability: Is the subject clear in every sentence? Are the words precise to the intent? Is the reading level below 13? Can a reasonable person under moderate stress read and comprehend the entire plan in under 1 hour?

14. Last CERC Plan Review

https://phep.formstack.com/forms/images/2/calendar.png

Month

Day

Year

Crisis & Emergency Risk Communications Tools

Your Crisis & Emergency Risk Communications (CERC) Tool Box can be Digital (e.g., stored on the web or thumb drive) or Physical (e.g., printed). It may be a good idea to have multiple copies of your Tool Box in accordance with a P.A.C.E. approach, updating them at different intervals.

Primary - e.g., Primary Work Computer (Updated Daily)
Alternate - e.g., SharePoint/Share Drive (Updated Weekly/Monthly)
Contingency - e.g., Print/Physical (Updated Annually)
Emergency - e.g., Thumb drive/iPad (Updated Annually)

1. Do you have a copy of your CERC Plan in your CERC Tool Box?

3 0

3 is Yes / Not Applicable; 0 is No

2. Do you have copies of your Communications Policies in your CERC Tool Box

3 0

3 is Yes / Not Applicable; 0 is No

3. Rate your CERC "Coordination Process" Standard Operating Guideline (SOG)

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: e.g., Information Management >> Planning >> Audience Analysis >> Message Development (SME drafts original text > Supervisor checks grammar and format) >> Pre-Test >> Approval >>> Sync with JIS/JIC >>> Publication

4. Rate your CERC "Information Management"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Is there appropriate information sharing? Is there an analysis process to carry information from Situational Awareness (SA; i.e., an unorganized collection of facts) to a Common Operating Picture (COP; i.e., a concentrated summary of analyzed SA for an effective and efficient common understanding of the current situation)

5. Rate your "CERC Message Planning" SOG

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Does your Message Planning SOG move from inputs to outputs (e.g., SA/COP > Objective > Message Map > MOE/MOP > Task Assessment [e.g. do we need to do an audience analysis or pre-testing] > Task List)? Do you have a Message Map template in your CERC Tool Box?

6. Rate your CERC "Audience Analysis" SOG

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Do you have the most effective means of communicating with each target audience identified? Have you identified themes, symbols, and preferences for each target audience? How does the writer move from sympathy to empathy for the target audience?

7. Rate your "Message Development" SOG

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Does your Message Development SOG move from inputs to outputs (e.g., SA/COP, Message Objective, planning guidance, format templates, and risk facts > talking points > product draft)? Do you have a collection of Message Development Tips, Checklists and Examples in your CERC Tool Box? Message Development tools may include templates and resources for Press Release, Talking Points, Fact Sheets, and Social Media.

_a. Do you have a copy of your "Associated Press Stylebook" in your CERC Tool Box?

3 0

3 is Yes / Not Applicable; 0 is No; preferably less than 10 years old

_b. Rate your "Message Templates"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Do you have Message Templates for all-hazards or common local public health issues in your CERC Tool Box? Have they been updated in the last year?

_c. Rate your "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) Templates

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Do you have FAQs for relevant hazards in your CERC Tool Box? Have they been updated in the last year?

8. Rate your CERC "Pre-Testing Process" SOG

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Are there guidelines for conducting a survey? Does your pre-testing survey draw from a 1-25 (25+ for statistical results) person cross section of the effected population? Is there a survey template?

9. Rate your CERC "Message Approval Process" SOG

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Does your Approval Process address the "Speak with One Voice" approach? Does the Approval Process re-enforce the "Stay in Your Lane" approach?

10. Rate your CERC "Distribution & Dissemination Methodology" SOG

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Does your plan include a P.A.C.E. approach (P.A.C.E.: Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency modes of communication)? Is the Access and Functional Needs Community Addressed?

_a. Rate your "Media Related Contact List"

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Does your media contact list begin with contact information for all relevant PIO's in your jurisdiction and the surrounding area? Do you have at least 3 contacts for each media type? Does your contact list have SME Points of Contact listed?

_b. Last Media Related Contact List Update

https://phep.formstack.com/forms/images/2/calendar.png

Month

Year

11. Rate your CERC "Monitoring and Evaluation" SOG

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: How will various forms of media be monitored? What is the general criteria for evaluation of message failure?

_a. Rate your CERC "Media Interview" SOG

0 1 2 3

Food for Thought: Do you have a Media Interview SOG in your CERC Tool Box? Do you have T.V., Radio, and Print Media addressed in your Good Interview Practices?

Subjective Score

Rate your Strategic Review

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rate your CERC Plan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rate your CERC Tools

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Your Score

150 is a Perfect Score

A: 125-150

B: 100-124

C: 75-99

D: 50-74

F: 0-50