|
<br />.
<br />
<br />-
<br />.
<br />
<br />Public Information
<br />Program Strategies
<br />
<br />The 1999 CRS Coordinator's Manual
<br />introduced a new element in Activity 330
<br />(Outreach Projects). Instead of scoring various
<br />public information activities according to how
<br />many of the 10 topics are covered, a community
<br />can receive credit for developing its own
<br />approach to publicizing the information that it
<br />deems is most important,
<br />
<br />The benefit of the public information program
<br />strategy (OPS) is that the outreach projects are
<br />better thought out and are more appropriate
<br />locally than simply copying model projects
<br />purely for CRS credit. Projects pursuant to a
<br />carefully prepared strategy are expected to be
<br />more effective than the other credited outreach
<br />projects (OPF, OPC, OPA), even though they
<br />may not reach as many people,
<br />
<br />The secret to this is carefully preparing the
<br />strategy document. It should not be a quick
<br />exercise in writing a paper to justify what is
<br />currently being done or what the community can
<br />do cheaply, It should be a careful review of
<br />what public information activities are needed,
<br />what are already being done, and what new ones
<br />will help. It is vital that people outside the
<br />communIty's government be involved in order
<br />to provide a different perspective and input on
<br />how to effectively reach residents,
<br />
<br />In 1999, eight communities have submitted
<br />strategy documents for OPS credit, Some have
<br />been credited, some have not, and some have
<br />been credited after changes were made, There
<br />have been three common concerns.
<br />
<br />The first is the makeup of the strategy team, The
<br />CRS Coordinator's Manual notes:
<br />
<br />The strategy team need not be a formal
<br />organization. At a minimum it must consist of
<br />three people, including:
<br />
<br />(1) Someone familiar with the community's
<br />floodplain management program, and
<br />
<br />(2) At least one representative from
<br />outside the community's government.
<br />
<br />The submittal needs to identify which team
<br />members represent these concerns, ISO cannot
<br />assume that because the emergency manager is
<br />
<br />NFIP/CRS Update
<br />
<br />listed as a team member, that person knows the
<br />community's floodplain management program,
<br />
<br />The objective of having a representative from
<br />outside the community's government is to add a
<br />different, non-governmental, perspective to the
<br />team. The best persons to have would be flood-
<br />plain residents, i.e" the folks that the strategy
<br />will be designed to reach, The non-government-
<br />al representative(s) could also be someone from
<br />the Red Cross, the Chamber of Commerce, an
<br />insurance agency, the schools, etc. Having
<br />someone from another local government does
<br />not qualify,
<br />
<br />The second concern is how comprehensive the
<br />strategy should be, It should not be simply a
<br />recommendatIOn for one or two new projects,
<br />That would make it no different from the
<br />previously credited Additional Outreach
<br />Projects (OP A), It needs to have a serious
<br />review of all the public information activIties
<br />going on in the communIty, including those by
<br />the county, the Red Cross, television stations
<br />and others, in addi tion to the local govemme~t.
<br />
<br />The strategy needs to identify what the appro-
<br />priate messages are to prepare people for the
<br />local flood hazard and identify gaps in the
<br />current activities where those messages are not
<br />getting out. It needs to list all of the activities
<br />recommended, including those already receivmg
<br />CRS credit. No one said a good OPS would be
<br />simple or easy, If it were, it would not be worth
<br />100 points.
<br />
<br />The third concern has been with crediting cil1es
<br />and villages for county-wide strategies, The
<br />CRS encourages county-wide or multi-commu-
<br />nity approaches to floodplain management
<br />because such programs are more consistent and
<br />cover wider areas, Often, they can be conducted
<br />at less cost to each individual community,
<br />
<br />For a city to receive credit for a county or area-
<br />wide OPS, it must document the following:
<br />
<br />1, The city must have participated on the
<br />strategy team and will participate in the
<br />annua1 evaluation,
<br />
<br />2, The description of the flood hazard must
<br />reflect the city's hazard. For example, a
<br />county OPS that focuses on coastal flooding
<br />would not be appropriate for an inland city,
<br />
<br />- 7-
<br />
<br />Winter 2000
<br />
|