Annual Meeting - SCEC.org

SCEC Advisory Council | Report
Evaluation of the CEO Program
Along with his request of 7 September that the Advisory Council evaluate SCEC’s CEO program,
the Director posed the following specific questions:
• Are the basic elements of the CEO program – formal and informal education, public
outreach, knowledge transfer – in appropriate balance?
• Is the Dare to Prepare campaign, currently SCEC’s premier effort in public outreach,
appropriately organized through the Earthquake Country Alliance?
• Is the current funding of the CEO program (10% of base budget plus contracted activities) at
the appropriate level? What is the role of special projects in the funding of CEO
The Advisory Council knows of no other organization that has accomplished more in the area of
communication, education, and outreach, nor done so as effectively and as informed by knowledge
from the social and behavioral sciences, than SCEC. Existing CEO activities are laudable across the
program, and SCEC should take justifiable pride in its myriad efforts at presenting earthquake
issues clearly and compellingly to the public and to decision makers. That said, it is appropriate to
consider additional possible CEO tasks and new directions, both in partnership with other
organizations and within the program.
Outreach to NGOs. In the area of new partnerships, SCEC should consider devising and
implementing specific plans to reach out to those non-government organizations (NGOs) that
would be pressed into service after a damaging California earthquake, particularly NGOs likely to
provide goods and services to low-income populations not likely to be able to prepare for such a
disaster on their own. Coordination with the parallel project sponsored by the Fritz Institute in the
San Francisco Bay area (a key contact there is Rich Eisner) on this issue should prove useful in
developing this plan.
Targeting CEO opportunities in political systems. One of the general objectives of the SCEC
CEO program, and of SCEC in general, is to foster improvements in scientific understanding that
result in a seismically safer southern California. Multiple strategies are needed to effect appropriate
actions across the diverse sectors of society, e.g., what convinces households to act may not yield
actions by local governments or the private sector. It could prove useful for the SCEC CEO
program to identify local political action points and craft customized CEO activities to propel local
communities or organizations in the direction of enhanced seismic safety. For example, the
“Committee of 25” in Palm Springs is made up of influential residents who, if convinced, could
easily exercise influence over local political priority setting and subsequent actions for that city’s
earthquake readiness, e.g., by retrofitting the airport.
Leveraging other hazard planning efforts. SCEC CEO activities are understandably earthquake
focused and include laudable outreach efforts to partners throughout the southland and the state.
It might be productive to now consider, and selectively pursue, partnerships that leverage SCEC
CEO efforts by joining forces with other organizations in the same geographical area that are
working on plans to address other hazards, e.g., other natural hazards and acts of terrorism.
Formal review of CEO activities. In the area of new internal directions, it is timely for the SCEC
CEO program to initiate a thorough review of its programs. A cost-effective way to accomplish
such a review would be through a one-time “visiting committee” or workshop of external CEO
professionals expert in hazards issues charged to review CEO program elements and provide
critical findings and recommendations.
Use of OES/CSSE survey results. It would be appropriate (particularly given that the SCEC CEO
program was instrumental in instigating the survey) to develop a plan to utilize the results of the
Office of Emergency Services (OES) California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC) survey of
2008 SCEC Annual Meeting | 25