Should "emergency" notification systems be used only in actual emergencies?
It appears there are differing opinions on this issue among ENS managers across the country. In a recent nationwide study we conducted of more than 400 notification system decision-makers, 58% said they use their systems for "emergency situations only" while 42% said they use it for "emergency, urgent, and non-emergency situations equally." Clearly, two camps exist with regards to appropriate ENS usage.
For those in the "emergency only" camp, there is often a fear by managers that frequent use will desensitize citizens to alerts. If the public receives regular, routine messages through the notification system, according to the theory, people may ignore alerts when a real crisis exists. Also, the E911 data used to populate these systems may not legally be applicable for non-emergency situations--another possible factor.
For those in the "emergency and non-emergency" camp, there is a belief that more liberal use provides citizens with greater familiarity and deeper comfort in interacting with the system. It also serves as a highly visible connection point between citizens and first responder agencies, creating a sense of community involvement and trust.
I suppose we lean toward the latter camp. In all our years of involvement in ENS, the most memorable and innovative notification programs tended toward a greater frequency of use. In these agencies, systems and procedures are exercised regularly and users are often better trained. This leads to greater confidence and fewer mistakes. Further, citizens appreciate the system, feeling local public safety agencies are proactive and "on the ball."
There is one caveat here, however. As a citizen, I don't mind receiving frequent communications as long as the information is highly relevant to me. Flooding me with frivolous or poorly targeted information will annoy and frustrate me (I don't really want to hear about the citizen watch meeting being held in a community on the other side of the county). So, even though we support using ENS for non-emergency purposes, we recommend these alerts be well targeted and highly relevant.
What do you think? We'd love to hear from you on this topic no matter your philosophical leanings.
All the best,
Lorin
For a copy of a white paper highlighting results from this study funded by Blackboard Connect, click here.
Top
It appears there are differing opinions on this issue among ENS managers across the country. In a recent nationwide study we conducted of more than 400 notification system decision-makers, 58% said they use their systems for "emergency situations only" while 42% said they use it for "emergency, urgent, and non-emergency situations equally." Clearly, two camps exist with regards to appropriate ENS usage.
For those in the "emergency only" camp, there is often a fear by managers that frequent use will desensitize citizens to alerts. If the public receives regular, routine messages through the notification system, according to the theory, people may ignore alerts when a real crisis exists. Also, the E911 data used to populate these systems may not legally be applicable for non-emergency situations--another possible factor.
For those in the "emergency and non-emergency" camp, there is a belief that more liberal use provides citizens with greater familiarity and deeper comfort in interacting with the system. It also serves as a highly visible connection point between citizens and first responder agencies, creating a sense of community involvement and trust.
I suppose we lean toward the latter camp. In all our years of involvement in ENS, the most memorable and innovative notification programs tended toward a greater frequency of use. In these agencies, systems and procedures are exercised regularly and users are often better trained. This leads to greater confidence and fewer mistakes. Further, citizens appreciate the system, feeling local public safety agencies are proactive and "on the ball."
There is one caveat here, however. As a citizen, I don't mind receiving frequent communications as long as the information is highly relevant to me. Flooding me with frivolous or poorly targeted information will annoy and frustrate me (I don't really want to hear about the citizen watch meeting being held in a community on the other side of the county). So, even though we support using ENS for non-emergency purposes, we recommend these alerts be well targeted and highly relevant.
What do you think? We'd love to hear from you on this topic no matter your philosophical leanings.
All the best,
Lorin
For a copy of a white paper highlighting results from this study funded by Blackboard Connect, click here.
