MPH 520 Module 4 Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Example

Clear Words in a Crisis: Risk Communication During a Drinking Water Emergency

Student Name

Master of Public Health Program, Aspen University

MPH 520: Disaster Management and Emergency Preparedness

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Clear Words in a Crisis: Risk Communication During a Drinking Water Emergency

In an emergency, what people are told, and when, can matter as much as the physical response. Clear, timely messages help people protect themselves, while confusion and delay erode trust and can lead to harm. This paper applies the crisis and emergency risk communication model to a composite chemical spill that contaminated a river water intake serving 280,000 people.

The Model

Crisis and emergency risk communication integrates the traditions of risk communication, which helps people weigh threats before they occur, and crisis communication, which responds to events underway. The model describes phases from precrisis through the initial event, maintenance, resolution and evaluation, each with its own communication tasks (Reynolds & Seeger, 2005).

Six Principles

Federal guidance boils the approach down to six principles, which ask communicators to move quickly, get facts right, stay believable, show they care, tell people what to do and treat audiences with respect (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). Being first and being right can conflict, since early information is often incomplete; the answer is to share what is known, what is not yet known and when updates will come.

The Event

On a winter morning, residents near a composite river city reported a licorice-like odor in tap water. A storage tank at an industrial site upriver had leaked a chemical used in coal processing into the river just above the water utility's intake. Little toxicity information existed for the chemical. By evening, the utility and health department issued a do-not-use order for drinking, cooking and bathing for 280,000 people.

Initial Phase

In the first hours, communicators needed to explain the risk simply, tell people exactly what to do and show that officials were in charge. The first message, issued jointly by the health officer, utility and governor, said: do not drink, cook with or bathe in tap water; flushing toilets and fighting fires are safe; bottled water is being distributed at listed sites; updates will come at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. daily.

A Message Map

Communicators prepared a message map, a set of three key messages for each likely question, each short enough to be understood quickly.

Expressing Empathy

Residents were frightened and angry. The health officer opened each briefing by acknowledging that people were worried and inconvenienced and that officials shared their concern. Empathy does not replace information, but it signals that officials understand what people are experiencing, which makes them more willing to listen. Preparedness scholars stress that communities, not only agencies, must be able to respond, and trusted communication is how agencies enlist them (Nelson et al., 2007).

Maintenance Phase

Over the following days, the story changed as tests came in and zones were cleared. Communicators explained the flushing process for each zone, answered questions about pregnant women and infants, and admitted when information changed. When a recommendation that pregnant women continue using bottled water came after the general all-clear, officials explained why the extra caution applied.

Reaching Everyone

Not everyone watches television or uses social media. The department used radio in English and Spanish, robocalls, door hangers in apartment complexes, messages through churches and senior centers and text alerts. Community health workers visited homebound residents. Staff kept wording simple enough for a sixth grader, and native speakers produced each translation. Deaf and hard-of-hearing residents received captioned video updates and interpreter-led briefings, and messages were shared with agencies serving people with intellectual disabilities.

Rumors and Uncertainty

Rumors spread quickly, including claims that the chemical caused cancer and that officials were hiding test results. The department posted all test results online, held daily briefings and created a rumor control line. Uncertainty about the chemical's long-term effects was acknowledged plainly, along with the steps being taken to learn more.

Resolution and Evaluation

After the order was lifted, the department held community meetings to answer remaining questions and conducted a survey to evaluate communication. Most residents had heard the do-not-use message within 12 hours, but trust in the water's safety remained low for weeks. The evaluation recommended pre-scripted messages for water emergencies and faster release of test data.

Speaking With One Voice

Officials from the utility, the health department, the state and the company involved initially gave different answers about the chemical's risks, which confused residents. A joint information center was then set up so all agencies agreed on messages before release. Speaking with one voice is a core crisis communication practice.

Social Media

Social media spread both accurate information and rumors. The department posted short updates with images of maps and water sites, answered common questions publicly and flagged false claims with corrections. Monitoring social media also revealed which messages were misunderstood, allowing quick revision.

Pre-Event Preparation

Communication capacity must be built before a crisis. The evaluation recommended pre-scripted messages for water contamination, chemical releases and boil-water notices, trained spokespeople, translation agreements and a list of community partners who can relay messages. These steps reduce the time from event to first message.

Trust as the Foundation

Messages work only if people trust the messenger. Trust built before a crisis through honest, consistent communication on routine issues carries into emergencies. After this event, the department began quarterly community meetings on water quality to maintain relationships and credibility.

Conclusion

Crisis and emergency risk communication gives officials a framework for speaking during emergencies, built on speed, accuracy, credibility, empathy, clear calls to action and respect, with messages adapted through each phase. In the composite water emergency, clear early instructions, message maps, multiple channels and honest handling of uncertainty helped protect residents, while lessons about trust point to preparation before the next crisis.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Crisis and emergency risk communication (CERC) manual. https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/manual/index.asp

Nelson, C., Lurie, N., Wasserman, J., & Zakowski, S. (2007). Conceptualizing and defining public health emergency preparedness. American Journal of Public Health, 97(Suppl. 1), S9-S11. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.114496

Reynolds, B., & Seeger, M. W. (2005). Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of Health Communication, 10(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730590904571