PommierCatherine_HM598Unit6_Capstonefinal

Running Head: BRIDGING THE WEB 2.0 RESOURCE GAP 1
Bridging the Gap between Federal Web 2.0 Capability Resources and Local Major Disaster
Response Need
Catherine Pommier
Applied Research Project Capstone
HM598 - 01
Kaplan University

BRIDGING THE WEB 2.0 RESOURCE GAP 2
Abstract
Web 2.0 and social media have become a predominant technological source in the United States.
Emergency Management is utilizing social media for information dissemination. Currently
emergency management is not utilizing Web 2.0 capabilities to full potential. Citizen’s
expectations in government technology exceeds what is being utilized. The disparity between
citizen expectation and emergency management Web 2.0 resource use is compounded by the
inability for state and local entities to request federal assistance through the National Response
Framework. The purpose of this research is to assess Federal Web 2.0 resource requests and use
during a major disaster. Principal Federal Officials and Federal Coordination Officials who
coordinate resources in Joint Field Operation centers are the target population providing insight
into NRF Web 2.0 capability operations. Barriers for Web 2.0 integration is also studied. The
information collected is expected to provide topics for further research. The results also provide
valuable data for proposed Web 2.0 integration as an ESF in the NRF.

Acronyms
EU European Union
CERTS Computer Emergency Response Teams (EU)
EMCVM Emerging Media Crisis Value Model
FCO Federal Coordination Official
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
IC Incident Command
ICT Information and Communications Technologies
IPAWS Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
JFO Joint Field Operation
NEMA National Emergency Management Association
NIMS National Incident Management System
NRF National Response Framework
NSA National Security Agency
PFO Principle Field Officer
PIO Public Information Officer
VSMWG Virtual Social Media Working Group

Bridging the Gap between Federal Web 2.0 Capability Resources and Local Major Disaster
Response Need
Web 2.0 and social media have become a predominant technological medium in the
United States. Currently Emergency Management is experimenting with social media for
information dissemination. There is much more Web 2.0 potential use Emergency Management
have not yet implemented into disaster planning development. This study will provide a literary
review examining Web 2.0 capabilities as they relate to emergency management. Past research
has identified the United States government lagging in technology innovation integration in
Emergency Management Systems. Although some federal, state and local entities have
established websites and social media links for public awareness, alerts systems and training,
Web 2.0 technologies such as facial recognition, resource deployment and responder
coordination have not been successfully integrated into emergency management strategies. The
National Response Framework provides Emergency Management a map for core capabilities and
Essential Resource Functions. This research study will collect qualitative research information
through interviews with federal coordinators in attempts to place Web 2.0 and social media as a
prominent Essential Resource Function. Establishing the immense Web 2.0 and future web
innovations into a separate Essential Function provides a resource link between entities and
structures the inevitable use of such capabilities.
ResearchQuestion
What extent are positive Web 2.0 technology capability use neglected by Emergency
Management and Homeland Security? How often do state and local entities request Federal Web
2.0 expertise during a major disaster response? What Web 2.0 capabilities are beneficial to

Emergency Management? What can FEMA do to facilitate federal Web 2.0 technology
capability resources during a major disaster?
Hypothesis
Incorporating Web 2.0 specialized teams component into an Emergency Support
Function provides the necessary resource link between federal, state and local government for
computer innovation capability interoperability.
Considerations
The National Response Framework is the recommended nationwide footprint.
Theoretically, incorporating social media as a component in an essential support function (ESF)
would necessitate establishing Web 2.0 policy and use precedent as well as providing a federal
social media expert resource. Addressing Web 2.0 increased capabilities and use predominance
worldwide, including Web 2.0 as a core capability within the NRF should also be considered.
Federal lead may garner the necessary course facilitating state and local emergency management
towards implementing full Web 2.0 capabilities within emergency management functions. A
specified social media officer fused in and Essential Resource Function (ESF) is a topic
combining innovation and leadership motivation. Since Web 2.0 capabilities are mentioned only
once in the NRF, it is difficult to address what impact implementing an ESF component would
be in facilitated a federal Web 2.0 resource (FEMA, 2011, p, 72. This researcher’s intent is to
culminate information significant for use in a proposal for NRF and ESF reform.
“Social Media” is a term readily used by laypersons interchangeably with “Web 2.0”.
Loosely defined Web 2.0 innovation created a two-way platform on the web. Whereas Web 1.0
provided for email and messaging, Web 2.0 advanced user platforms enabling personal websites,

blogs, video postings etc. Social media is a creation in Web 2.0 innovation. Social Media
encourages user-generated content and offers users a platform in which to share content among
different networks. For purposes of this study, both Web 2.0 and social media information will
be presented as Web 2.0 capabilities. The desire is not to have technical definition hamper the
intent of the research. Further Web 2.0 capability definition can be addressed in further Web 2.0
or social media defined research.
Additional Questions
This research is limited by scope. During literary research, additional questions arose
which should be addressed in further research. This research project should provoke the
question why a framework has not already been devised bridging current Web 2.0 capabilities
with emergency management planning. Additional questions to consider are listed.
1) How substantial must new innovation or use predominance be before there is a
revision to ESF or the NRF programs?
2) Is there an undisclosed avenue for state and local entities to gain Web 2.0 resource
assistance during a disaster?
3) Do federal emergency management currently offer Web 2.0 capabilities in emergency
management operations without a request from state and local entities?
4) Can federal emergency management offer Web 2.0 capabilities without a request
from state and local entities and if so under what ESF are they entitled to do so?
These questions provide ample discussion for additional research study. An attempt to answer
many of these questions was conducted through literary review. The ultimate question why a

framework in which state and local entities can request federal Web 2.0 is not already established
is so vast, this research project was not subsidized to accomplish such a feat.
Literature Review
Social Media is a phenomena which has swept the nation. A case study published in the
California Management review indicates Social Media use and capabilities are increasing at an
exponential rate (Mount & Martinez, 2014). Individuals have more information about business,
events, celebrations and “friends’” everyday living at their fingertips than ever before. Social
Networking “encourages people to disclose more personal information than people would have
felt comfortable with only a mere decade ago (Smyth, 2011, p. 946).” A look into social media
use shows Emergency Management conventional public information means are becoming
outdated. The established social media medium has found a prominent position in the public
personal sector. Tamara Spicer’s literature research analysis indicates a there is a “disparity”
between the guidance provided and performance expectation of public affairs practitioners in the
area of social media and emergency management (Spicer, 2013, p. 90). A comparison study of
relevant, timely message strategies for emergency events found in the Journal of Strategic
Security concludes the same disproportion. The study summarized crisis and emergency
managers must acknowledge audience perception and technology accessibility in relation to
resource tools used. Emerging technologies have cultivated a citizen sense of control over a
crises with better connection to the community (Page, Freberg & Saling, 2013). There is a gap
between Emergency Management Web 2.0 technology use and the predominance in citizen
everyday use. Citizen’s expectations in government technology exceeds what is being utilized.
A quantitative research project was conducted by Yee San Su, Clarence Wardle III and
Zoe Thorkeldsen from CNA Analysis Solutions in partnership with the National Emergency

Management Association (NEMA). The research was considered preliminary social media
research. The focus centered on the topic of social media. Use and needs for state, county and
local emergency management were examined. NEMA distributed a 56 question survey via the
internet to State Emergency Management. Public Information Officers at all 50 State Emergency
Management agencies were asked to further distribute the survey link to their corresponding
county and local emergency management agencies. A request was made for the PIO’s to
encourage survey completion representation from each entity (Su, Wardell & Thorkildsen,
2013). The approach to the survey can be duplicated to the point where a third party was
involved in survey distribution. There is no indication the PIO’s acting as a third party, complied
with CNA’s request (Su, Wardell & Thorkildsen, 2013). Participation from county and local
entities, exhibits participation request lack of emphasis. The research study reports 82 percent of
State Emergency Management Agencies were represented but only an 8 percent county
representation was noted. Nevertheless, 500 respondents representing 426 different agencies
were received (Su, Wardell & Thorkildsen, 2013). As a preliminary research project seeking a
wide emergency management engagement with social media overview, the population sampling
was significant and sufficient for this research.
CNA analyzed the data. The average state, county and local emergency entity respondent
considered themselves “moderately familiar” with social media such as Facebook, Twitter and
YouTube but were unfamiliar with other Web 2.0 capability concepts. This information suggest
Web 2.0 capacities are not being used for lack of understanding. All state agencies, 68 percent
of county agencies and 85 percent of local agencies reported using social media (Su, Wardell &
Thorkildsen, 2013). The numbers appear high but the analysis reports social media solely being
used for public information website postings. Data collection was specifically addressed in CNA

research. CNA found all levels reliant on manual data-extraction hampering any efforts to
upscale capabilities during a disaster incident (Su, Wardell & Thorkildsen, 2013). Respondents
showed no insight into further Web 2.0 or social media capabilities such as data extraction
application. CNA’s research found the agencies lacking Web 2.0 dedicated personnel as the
main challenge to Emergency Management Social Media use. Less than one in six agencies
have a dedicated Web 2.0 expert hired as personnel (Su, Wardell & Thorkildsen, 2013). CNA
conclusions indicate state, county and local emergency management personnel desired federal
funding support, federal training in how social media can be used, and federal guidance and
standards (Su, Wardell & Thorkildsen, 2013). Although Web 2.0 capabilities have advanced,
emergency management at state, county and local levels are not pursuing full Web 2.0 capability
avenues to better prepare and respond to disaster situations. The CNA research report boasts the
most comprehensive Web 2.0 set of survey data from emergency management agencies to date
(Su, Wardell & Thorkildsen, 2013). Further literature review substantiates CNA’s claim.
Qualitative research interviewing stakeholders during a California wildfire further attests
to disparity between citizen expectations and emergency management provisions. People frantic
for information during the fires “sought out information specific to their needs and engaged in
interactive information sharing networks that included Web 2.0 technologies (Van Leuven, 2009,
p. 60). A local radio station filled the void between direct government supplied information to
citizens. Van Leuven’s research detected a citizen desire for specific information relating to
their specific need rather than searching through conventional emergency management data
dissemination. A second Van Leuven finding using citizen interviews identified a citizen desire
to contribute their own information and interact with others in similar circumstances. Critical
information sharing through Web 2.0 technologies provided greater context and psychological

support. Citizens throughout the California fire disaster studied expressed the want for
Emergency Management to hire Web 2.0 experts adopting interactive emergency information
philosophies (Van Leuven, 2009). Citizen’s social media involvement expectations exceeded
government provisions.
Including social media into Emergency Management planning is currently lacking for
several reasons. Businesses are averse in using innovative social media prospects because they
lack usage expertise (Mount & Martinez, 2014). Web 2.0 inclusion into emergency response and
operation plans are frequently hampered by leadership lack of knowledge, understanding and
fear of new technology. A research study by Master’s graduate Tamara Spicer found emergency
response agencies uncomfortable with social media language and conversation. Spicer points
out the social media conversation is the new medium for citizen conversation. Therefore social
media conversation affects every aspect of the homeland security enterprise, especially the
emergency response to disasters (Spicer, 2013). Samuel Johnson’s research into FEMA’s need
for improved Web 2.0 strategies in collaboration and shared situational awareness identifies the
same resistance. Laurie Van Leuven’s 2009 study on optimizing citizen engagement during
emergencies through use of Web 2.0 technologies states lack of resources, lack of trust, and
unfamiliarity with technology and information overload (Van Leuven, 2009). Current research
shows emergency managers hesitant to use social media capabilities without having Web 2.0
experience or capability knowledge.
Public information outlet has been emergency management’s premier Web 2.0 capability
focus. CNA Analysis and Solutions conducted research for the National Emergency
Management Association concerning emergency management and Emergency Manager’s use of
Social Media. The research found state, county and local emergency management using Social

Media predominately as a public communication delivery method. Three Incident Command
(IC) sections were identified as utilizing social media; public information, operations and
planning (Su, Wardell & Thorkildsen, 2013). Although ICs are using social media within their
structure, social media is not identified under a specific essential resource function location.
Emergency management using social media are struggling with Web 2.0 capabilities in real
world events. Capabilities other than having a department “page” are beyond what a majority of
current emergency manager social media users are willing or able to use. Additionally,
difficulties arise when policies are not updated including agency social media use (Denscombe,
2012). CNA research fell short in providing Federal agencies social media resource assistance
contribution in the National Response Framework (NRF).
Looking towards FEMA or DHS for Emergency Management Web 2.0 promotion falls
short. Incorporating Web 2.0 collaborative capabilities between federal, state and local agencies
are hampered by the initial ability for Federal employees to use Web 2.0 functions in their daily
duties. A Master’s research project conducted by Samuel Johnson II describes FEMA’s policies
and strategy more limiting in Web 2.0 use than innovative. Employee policy regulates Web 2.0
use requiring DHS Office of Public Affairs (OPA) content approval prior to any postings. Real-
time interaction is prohibited (Johnson, 2012, p. 17). Johnson’s research into collaboration
within the Whole of Community developing shared situational awareness contributes basic
strategy hurdles. Federal employee policies prohibiting or deterring Web 2.0 use contradicts
FEMA’s encouragement for innovative and formative collaboration strategies (Johnson, 2012).
The National Incident Management System (NIMS) communication training is focused on
communication among first responders. NIMS restricts public information officers (PIO) use of
social media and trains the use of traditional media systems (Page, Freberg & Saling, 2013).

Federal employee limitations in social media and Web 2.0 use during developing disaster
responses is another hurdle in Web 2.0 inclusion into the NRF.
Research published by the Journal of Strategy Security uses the Emergency Media Crisis
Value Model (EMCVM) comparing social media use during Hurricane Irene and the Aurora,
Colorado shooting in 2012. The results showed social media communication were effective in
both man-made and natural disaster events. Further results indicated the vast array of social
media platforms requires Web 2.0 savvy decisions concerning content, strategy and appropriate
social media platforms for information dissemination (Page, Freberg & Saling, 2013). This
research provides an example where a small portion of Web 2.0 can increase disaster response
success. A more comprehensive Web 2.0 technology application can provide an even higher
success grading.
Missing from Emergency Management social network use is real-time collaborative
capabilities. Digital volunteerism, crowd sourcing, applications and social media monitoring are
new to Emergency Management leaders but are useful valuable resources (Spicer, 2013). The
Department of Homeland Security has attempted to engage state and local agencies in
developing social media principals in Emergency Management planning. According to Spicer’s
article in the Journal of Strategic Security, the Department of Homeland Security Science and
Technology Directorate has established Virtual Social Media Working Groups (VSMWG).
Social media experts comprise the VSMWG. The VSMWG mission is to provide examples and
best practices from agencies already using social media (Page, Freberg & Saling, 2013). The
Department of Homeland Security published a Social Media Strategy in 2012. The report
identifies the VSMWG as a working group established in recognition of international response
efforts (DHS, 2012). For use as an informational and training tool, the documents sets out an

explanation of the benefits of social media for public safety and applications for social media
technologies and public safety. The VSMWG is not a response team. The VSMWG described
tasks are to establish and collect social media “best practices and solutions DHS, 2012. p. 2).
The report provides basic information and extends links to agencies who have engaged in social
media website planning. There are two outstanding points found in the document. First, the
document identifies social media inclusion in ICS planning. This prompting is a positive
anticipation into future social media NRF inclusion. The second point is much less resounding.
In the final paragraph, almost as a disclaimer, the document reads:
“Currently, groups of GIS and database technicians spontaneously come together and
provide ad hoc support in analyzing and displaying social media data and information in
easy-to-understand formats, including maps and graphs. These ad hoc efforts must be
assessed and appropriately legitimized in ways that reliably enhance emergency response
and recovery efforts (DHS, 2012).”
Unfortunately, that is where the document ends. Lacking is guidance in legitimizing efforts to
DHS standards.
VSMWG published another report entitled “Lessons Learned: Social Media and
Hurricane Sandy”. The document is a “lessons learned” applied analysis concerning Emergency
Management social media use during Hurricane Sandy. Learning from local entity preparation,
the VSMWG acknowledges Hurricane Sandy was the first event in which a “government entity
officially used social media for response activities (DHS, 2013b, p 7). The report detailed
previously unrecorded methods state, local and non-governmental entities used social media.
Several tools were identified such as: Twitter, Facebook, SMS, photo-sharing, video-sharing,

websites and mapping. These tools were then associated with the purpose served: one-way
information sharing, two-way information sharing, situational awareness, rumor control,
reconnection, decision-making, donations, and volunteer management (DHS, 2013b, p. 7).
Much of the tools are familiar and easily accessible to the general public. Basic social media
technologies were used. The report reveals social media success during Hurricane Sandy does
not fall solely on government ingenuity or planning. VSMWG reports a “non-cohesive
government approach to providing information from multiple government agencies in one place
(DHS, 2013a, p. 8). The kudo’s go to nonprofit and volunteer organizations who stepped in to
assist. These NGO’s developed platforms, combining information and making the information
available to the public. NGO information and assistance were also used by responders.
Hurricane Sandy brought about another new development. A FEMA webmaster issued
guidelines for all U.S. websites two days after Hurricane Sandy landfall. A U.S. Government
Hurricane Sandy specific website was then created using these quaint new guidelines (DHS,
2013b). The assistance was authorized under ESF #15 External Affairs. Under ESF #15 the sole
authorization under the core capability Public Information and Warning for social media use is
the dissemination of information (DHS, 2013b). The new web guidelines provided four bullet
points. Each local entity was required to establish their own website consisting of only firsthand
information. The entity was to notify the U.S. web master the site was established and under
which of the five specified categories the site fell under: 1) Health and safety 2) How to Get Help
3) Find Friends and Family 4) Donate/Volunteer and 5) What the Government is Doing.
Agencies were then guided to create a cross-link and embed the U. S. Hurricane Sandy widget to
their agency website. Lastly, agencies were asked to advise FEMA if statistics, situation reports,
blog spots, press releases, safety tip or other details were included in the webpage (DHS, 2013b).

The final request suggest addition Web 2.0 technology capabilities involving web analysis. The
report does not publish these statistics from non-Federal websites. Dissemination is one-way
communication which does not fully engage Web 2.0 potential.
A global Web 2.0 technology integrated use in emergency management comparison
shows many of the world’s most predominant urban cities are still perplexed. Prior and Roth
research on contemporary approaches to risk management explores how urban environment
disaster may influence the use of social and technical services. The research is a global study
into urban reaction to shock and disturbance. Using Sydney, Los Angeles, Singapore and
London as focus group global urban cities, Prior and Roth examined preparedness and crisis
communication before and during a disaster. Web 2.0 use was one thread in their study. Their
findings showed open dialogue and public involvement and support for self-organization
underdeveloped in the cities examined. “Recent efforts to adapt public risk and crisis
communication to the complexity of contemporary information and communication systems
serve as a case in point (Prior & Roth, 2013, p. 66).” A global urban study is an indicator for
how the United States compares with other nations. While all cities found Web 2.0 an inviting
remedy for community involvement, communication and preparedness, the technology is
mystifying in capabilities. Using Web 2.0 was still found to be overwhelming in comprehension.
London and Los Angeles representative interviewees described the technology “game changers
in crisis communication (Prior & Roth, 2013, p. 66).” One Web 2.0 facet found more
identifiably usable in function ability as a public warning system. Los Angeles specifically,
viewed social networking valuable in providing information that is “timely, personal, and closely
context specific (Prior & Roth, 2013, p. 66). Still aloof globally is the ability to use Web 2.0 as a

means to acquire increased community participation prior to disaster in the planning and buy-in
phase.
Prior and Roth address the Global understanding there is a need to include vulnerable
populations in risk management. There is a global interest in using Web 2.0 technologies to
reach vulnerable sub-populations within cities. Structural and long-term improvements in risk
management require a steady dialogue between authorities and additional resources involved in
assisting with vulnerable populations. Web 2.0 capabilities are a focus to target disaster
preparedness information towards vulnerable, multi-cultural and multi-lingual sub-populations
(Prior & Roth, 2013). This Global understanding parallels the U.S. interest in the FEMA
diversity program.
The European Union cofounded a project called FOCUS using an embedded scenario
integrating innovative concepts for security research. The FOCUS project base their information
integration research on the growing multimedia data available. Foreseeing the expanded amount
of data sources available, FOCUS explores the use of Web 2.0 for security, welfare, trust and
potentially creating new economic opportunities (Munne, 2013). The EU has taken steps to
formulate plausible uses for Web 2.0. The project identifies three basic information integration
ramifications. Similar to fusion centers within the United States, the EU identifies
standardization of information models and communication networks (Munne, 2013). The EU
has placed Web 2.0 within a network useable across EU countries and organizations. A model as
seen available in the United States for intelligence gathering tasked by Fusion Centers. The
United States fusion centers have predominately incorporated Fusion Centers as a law
enforcement tool networking intelligence gathering specifically for terrorist or criminal activity

(Coyle, 2014). The EU are blending the uses for information and communications across
multiple organizations exemplified in the second EU goal.
The second trend identified by the EU FOCUS project is system integration. Partnering
civil-military entities with the private sector is seen as a collaborative means Web 2.0
capabilities can join forces into a supranational EU Team (Munne, 2013). The FOCUS
Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTS) in the EU are loosely identified as private
citizen or business teams. CERTS are a national response team. CERTS combined efforts into a
network across the EU is an example. Instead of each CERTS working separately, networking
across the EU community provides increased data and collaboration. National CERTS
responding within one country have the ability to network with CERTS across the EU.
Third in the EU FOCUS project considerations is the use of both “Semantic data
integration” with “Big Data” bringing capabilities into a Web 3.0 realm. Semantic data
integration enhances Web 2.0. Semantic data collection enables searching meaningless raw
document data information gaining useful information. By putting more metadata with data,
semantic data applications can analyze the data, discover what the data is and produce useful
information (Bertolucci, 2012). Beyond this research focus, the EU considerations into
information integration is leading in innovation. According to Informationweek, a magazine
geared to connecting the business technology community, Semantic Web global acceptance is
years away (Bertolucci, 2012). Understanding the capabilities and means to use those
capabilities hampers global Semantic Web incorporation. The EU including Semantic Web
consideration into the FOCUS project exceeds U.S. technology community’s expectations.
An article by Sara Smyth entitled “The New Social Media Paradox: A symbol of Self-
Determination or a Boon for Big Brother?” identifies the beginning of ‘Arab Spring’ as an

ultimate test for the democratic power of social media (Smyth, 2012). Smyth accounts a 2011
Facebook video posting of Mohamed Bouazizi dousing himself with accelerant and lighting
himself on fire in front of a Tunisia provincial capital building. Bouazizi was protesting police
harassment. Several other protestors were present. Bouazizi’s cousin posted the video which
incited a plethora of revolts and a wave of public defiance throughout the world. New York City
was among several cities targeted by protestors encouraged by civilian journalists sharing
experiences through blogs, photos, videos on social networking sites (Smyth, 2012). Smyth
identifies the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots and the 2011 UK riots as further examples when
citizens become on-the-spot journalist. Cell phone cameras recorded disturbances, capturing
images of violence to be instantaneously posted on the internet. Chronicling the event provided
police images of the unrest. The images also gave police personal information stockpile
accessibility (Smyth, 2012). Technologies in facial recognition with searchable personal
information on Facebook harvests probable cause for increased warrants and searches.
In 2013, Edward Snowden became to poster child for civil rights protestors against the
United States government access to metadata. Social media users sharing information from what
they ate for breakfast to whom they are going to bed with at night hit the network. Users know
this information can and will be conveyed over and over exponentially with each “like”, each
“retweet” or “share”. When Edward Snowden told the world the National Security Agency
(NSA) was using information from social media outlets, citizens were then outraged about
information being collected. Social media platform owners routinely share user’s aggregated
metadata with third parties customizing marketing strategies. Information selling is why social
media platforms are able to provide the social networking platform free for users (Dijck, 2014).
Another third party is government agencies. Citizens have willingly given up their privacy in

exchange for free convenient platform services. “Metadata appear to have become a regular
currency for citizens to pay for their communication services and security, a trade-off that has
nestled into the comfort zone of most people (Dijck, 2014, p 197).” Both government and
business use metadata collected by various social media and communications platforms tracking
information on human behavior. Datafication is a legitimate means to access, understand and
monitor people’s behavior (Dijck, 2014, p. 198). The difference between government and
business metadata collection is the use intent.
Social networking has presented challenges to the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
“Simply stated, they blur the line between what information is private and what is fair game for
public attention (Seo, 2014, p. 4). Networks using the word “private” or “privacy” in
instructions for users to set their personal social media settings increases citizen Fourth
Amendment rights confusion. Social Media users adjusting their “privacy” settings have the
expectation this alteration provides legal security and personal information privacy (Seo, 2014).
Once a photo, tweet, or post is entered into social media the ability to retweets, repost, photo
sharing make privacy arguments less viable.
Another application available using Web 2.0 technology is facial recognition capabilities
applied to social media posts. Victim identification and suspect identification application during
mass casualty or major disaster events is beneficial for both Emergency Management and
Homeland Security. Facial recognition application is an intelligence gathering tool far exceeding
past generated fingerprint and DNA expectations. Social networking generates data base
terabytes. Facebook photo tagging alone is an incomparable resource. Personal and friend
tagging on billions of images uploaded by users was enhanced even further when Facebook
entered into automatic facial recognition software application. Facebook software groups similar

photos together and suggests the name of the person in the photo (Smyth, 2012). Quick and
easy, users are able to tag friends and family generating a collective identification information
system. “While Facebook users might regard this feature as helpful and harmless, it allows the
company to build up an enormous global databank of billions of images of people which can be
shared with any private or public entity, for any reason (Smyth, 2012, p. 935).” Facebook facial
recognition applications do not arbitrate whether the image tagged is a Facebook client or
nonuser. Image compilation combined with facial recognition programs imbedded in Web 2.0
capabilities generates several useful Emergency Management and Homeland Security facilities.
Victim identification and suspect identification are merely two uses. Placing identified faces at
specific locations at specific times is another.
Carnegie Mellon University sponsored three separate Web 2.0 facial identification
research studies. The study results were presented at a BlackHat conference in 2011. In the first
study, researchers attempted to identify selected anonymous profiles on the popular dating site
Match.com. Publicly-available profile pictures from a Facebook database were downloaded and
utilized with a Google facial recognition program. The researchers were able to identify one in
ten Match.com pseudonym users. In a second study researchers were able to identify college
students using a facial recognition program. One in three were identified with a computation
time of less than 3 seconds. A Facebook college network family were used for the database. The
final study displayed a far more reaching investigation into what can be obtained using personal
information supplied to social media. Using the basic Facebook profiles from the subjects in
study 2, researchers were able to predict the participants’ social security numbers with a 27
percent accuracy (Acquisti, 2011). There is so much information freely divulged in social media
networks. Emergency Management and Homeland Security using Web 2.0 capabilities and

programs can positively identify victims, identify family members and associates, and obtain
vital statistics.
Writing for Homeland Security Affairs, Andrew Heighington identifies the “see
something, say something” campaign lost to effective Web 2.0 capabilities. Open dialogue and
communication with the public has been hampered because the U.S. government has not enabled
Web 2.0 two way communication. At the time the article was written twenty-two of the twenty-
four major federal agencies had official Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts. FEMA also
maintain blogs and mobile websites (Heighington, 2011, p. 2). The “see something, say
something” campaign does not invite citizens to utilize Web 2.0 for interactive communications.
Heighington suggests tapping into the mobile revolution. “With potentially millions of eyes on
the ground that know who or what to look for, the public would become a valuable bottom-up
resource that significantly increases our ability to prevent an imminent terrorist attack from
occurring and/or capture a perpetrator (Heighington, 2011, p. 4). Web 2. 0 user is able to use
their computer, tablet, or smartphone enabling interactions and conversations enhanced with
real-time information (Page, Freberg & Saling, 2013). Utilizing Web 2.0 for public information
gathering involves more than government metadata monitoring or surveillance.
Heighington rates FEMA as the leading government agency in mobile use. The
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is used primarily as a public warning
system sending text alerts to cell-phone users within a county-sized geographic area (2011). The
few examples and research projects provided here show a much bigger picture awaiting
Emergency Management integration far extended from the ESF #15 information dissemination
component.

How FEMA enables federal Web 2.0 resource assistance to state and local agencies is a
question unanswered in literature review research. The National Response Framework is a
plausible consideration. Lieutenant Commander Michael DiPace provides research into the NRF
using cross-case analysis. The research overview describes “formalizing the 15 preexisting ESF
as the principal federal coordinating structures for executing response core capabilities” (DiPace,
2014, p. 4). DiPace further relates ESF identify and describe resources and capabilities by
function which are routinely requested or used in major disasters. Thirty-one core capabilities
are defined necessary to minimize disaster risks targeted at whole community approach to
prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery. Fourteen are response related (2014, p.
3). DiPace identified NRF deficiencies by analyzing NRF effectiveness in three sampled major
disasters. Planning, public information and warning, operational communications and situational
assessment response core capabilities were found lacking in two of three disasters analyzed.
Operations communications shortfall was evident in all three (DiPace, 2014, p. 106). DiPace’s
results are significant. Web 2.0 application literature review provides invaluable resources for
all four core capabilities deficient in the DiPace research. Examples for planning, public
information and warning, operational communications and situational assessments using Web
2.0 capabilities have been given.
Method
Literature review, current FEMA training and real world involvement analysis indicate a
FEMA National Response Framework Web 2.0 lack in leadership and response assistance.
FEMA leadership including Web 2.0 as an essential source function is a potential solution. To
investigate this hypothesis stakeholders will be the primary resource for input. Literature review
found input from stakeholders working within Joint Field Operations (JFO) missing in research

studies. JFO centers are temporary facilities housing multi-agencies coordinating resources
during a presidentially declared disaster. JFOs provide a central location for coordination
between federal, state, local, tribal, nongovernmental and private sector organizations
(Geoplatform.gov, 2015). Following the National Incident Management system, a JFO houses
operations, planning, logistics, finance and administration coordination staff. Decision
concerning official requests for additional ESF or core capability resources are made in this
environment.
A qualitative method will be used to examine federal social media resource requests, use
and barriers experienced through the JFO environment. Qualitative research provides the
opportunity to interpret stakeholder attitudes, insights and perceptions tasked with response
resources. This research project focus on the federal environment is subsequent to research
findings provided in previous state, county and local environment research conducted by CNA.
CNA’s findings showed a desire for increased federal direction and assistance in Web 2.0
technologies (Su, Wardell & Thorkildsen, 2013). Federal environment research is needed to
ascertain need, use and requests for Web 2.0 technology and capabilities during an actual event.
This research is considered primary investigative research. An investigative method is
being used to ascertain specific Web 2.0 technology topics for further research. Identifying
needs, want, and barriers will enable explicit continued research. Qualitative research will garner
how Web 2.0 is currently being used in a JFO setting, what are perceived current barriers for
federal Web 2.0 capability requests, and perceived Web 2.0 value during an actual event. A
qualitative approach using field research and interviews will obtain the crux of current social
media capabilities in the JFO setting. Research results can be used by FEMA for NRF policy
and procedure adjustment.

Scope
The scope of this research will be confined to the Joint Operations Center environment.
There were 44 declared major disasters in 2014 (FEMA, 2014). The research will be confined to
interviews with Principal Federal Official (PFO) and Federal Coordination Officials (FCO). The
research will address five major areas in question 1) Federal Web 2.0 capability resources 2)
Web 2.0 capability assistance requests by state, county and local jurisdictions 3) Web 2.0
capabilities used in a JFO setting 4) Social media value and 5) Social media barriers. This
research can and should be conducted yearly using the same methods and design. Accumulated
data and yearly result comparisons are valuable for Web 2.0 in NRF program analysis. Because
Web 2.0 technologies are rapidly increasing and changing continued yearly results increase the
study validity. When a Web 2.0 component is added as a core capability within FEMA ESF
designations, the research will still hold validity in determining policy change success.
Sampling
A Principal Federal Official (PFO) is assigned to Presidential declared major disaster
incidents. According to the Homeland Security National Response Framework, a PFO is
specifically designated when the incident is of catastrophic proportion or unusually complex
requiring extraordinary coordination. Not every major disaster will have a PFO assigned. The
PFO is appointed and serves in the field. PFO responsibility is to ensure consistency of Federal
support and overall NIMS effectiveness (DHS, 2008). Increasing research validity, a sampling
will not be taken from the PFO population pool. There were 44 declared major disaster events in
2014 (FEMA, 2014). Realizing not every major disaster will have a PFO assigned, a maximum

of 44 PFOs would have been designated in 2014. This quantity is acceptable for research
interview consideration.
An FCO is designated for presidentially declared major disasters. According to the
Homeland Security National Response Framework, the FCO primary responsibility is the overall
coordination and integration for federal emergency management, resource allocation, and
seamless integration of Federal activities in support of, and in coordination with, State tribal, and
local requirements (DHS, 2008, p. 3). The FCO is the direct official with culminating
knowledge required for this research project. There were 44 presidentially declared disasters in
2014 (FEMA, 2014). Acknowledging the probability more than one FCOs were required to
fulfill a 24/7 representation, this number could be doubled or tripled. Tripling the number to 132
is an acceptable number for research interview consideration. It is recommended future
duplicated research follow the same criteria in interviewing each FCO for every JOC
designation.
Both FCO and PFO perception, opinion and direct experience receiving requests,
coordinating federal resource and offering federal resource capabilities which overwhelmed state
and local officials is imperative for this research project validity. Since research has been
conducted on state and local levels, federal official input will enhance any proposal for Web 2.0
inclusion into the NRF. Including every JFO environment in 2014 and each PFO and FCO
within the research will provide a comprehensive analysis throughout 2014. The PFO and FCO
for those incidents will be identified. Personal interviews will be conducted with each identified
PFO’s and FCO’s.

ResearchDesign
The qualitative design garners perspective knowledge and opinion from experts in the
field. A qualitative design using open ended interview questions will produce information
specific to a disaster incident and an overall outlook about Web 2.0 resource capability need,
want, and foreseen barriers. Research will be conducted using a Specialized Interview
technique. Interviews will be conducted with each PFO and FCO assigned to JOC in 2014. The
ability to gather individual PFO and FCO to one location is not practical. Interviews will take
place at the participant’s office or participants preferred location. Using the participant’s
familiar setting affords a greater chance for increased input.
The interviews will be conducted by a single interviewer. The interviewer will be
prepped with instructions on demeanor, representation and approach. Every effort will be made
to assure consistency with each interview. A written greeting, explanation of research, and
request for candid participation will be provided the interviewer. The standard written
introduction is expected to be memorized prior to any interview.
A list of questions will be provided for personal interviews. The questionnaire will
contain three question categories: 1) participant demographics 2) specifics to the JOC event and
3) related to overall JOC experience. Questions will be asked in order. Each person interviewed
will be asked the same questions regardless the previous answers. Additional questions which
arise during the interview can be noted but will be asked at the end of the interview. The
participant will be encouraged to add comment to any point introduced during the interview.
Answers will be audibly recorded for later analysis.

Analysis
Participant demographics will be analyzed by age, number of JOC engagements, years of
experience in emergency management, and knowledge in Web 2.0 application. JOC incidents
will be analyzed by FEMA sector, incident type and federally determined incident size.
Unrestricted answers to opinion ended questions from categories two and three are
desired. The research intent is to gain useable information from federal resource coordinators.
This information will be compiled into categories determining the need and appropriateness for
establishing Web 2.0 capabilities resources as an NRF component. Audio recordings will be
analyzed by audio recognition and transcription analysis software application. Responses will be
analyzed by: 1) requests for federal resource assistance 2) Web 2.0 use during an incident 3)
incident examples where Web 2.0 capabilities might have been helpful but not used 4) perceived
barriers for the use of Web 2.0 capabilities during an event and 5) significant unpredicted input.
Research validity should remain constant. The research can be conducted and should be
duplicated using the same method each following year. There is an unintended sample bias
introduced when a single identified person acts as a PFO or a FCO to multiple incidents.
Reliability in identified questions will be balanced by individualizing answers per incident. FCO
and FRC opinion answers will be analyzed separately to retain a reliable research result.
Expected Results
The proposed research is an attempt to culminate information regarding Federal Web 2.0
resources available to state and local entities during a major disaster. Literature review has
indicated federal assistance has mainly centered on information dissemination. Interviews with
PFO’s and FCO’s who coordinated responses in a JOC setting will provide valuable insight to

improve information dissemination through social media. Because the current NRF solely
authorizes social media for ESF #15, further application during past disasters is not expected.
The hope is obtaining valuable insight from resource coordinators divulging where Web 2.0
capabilities can improve other core functions and capabilities. Result expectations are a lack of
knowledge in innovative Web 2.0 technology applications, insight concerning foreseen barriers
implementing innovative Web 2.0 applications, and noted requests from state and local entities
which federal JOC cannot provide. Results are expected to represent a need for Web 2.0 to be
fully appreciated within the NRF. Results can be used for either further research and or a
proposal for NRF update.
Conclusion
Current research provides culminated results from state, county and local agencies
frustrated with implementing social media into their emergency management program. CNA
analysis results showed a request for federal social media guidance, standards and capabilities
training. Further literary research analysis provided Hurricane Sandy as one of the first
examples where social media was used by government agencies for successful information
dissemination. Non-governmental entities provided social media assistance during the hurricane
disaster response and recovery. Two days after Hurricane Sandy landfall, FEMA offered a
beginning for website guidelines. Still U.S. Federal resources provided under the NFR are solely
information dissemination related. There is a disparity between citizen expectation and
government Web 2.0 technology capabilities. Research was provided exemplifying Web 2.0
capabilities not yet addressed or integrated in Emergency management planning. Capabilities
such as Facebooks facial recognition technology are being used by the general public but are not
yet used for disaster victim identification. A Global comparison research study involving

prominent national cities gave results indicating the U.S. is lagging behind the European Union.
The EU are currently using Web 2.0 capabilities for response and resource coordination. This
research proposal is designed to ascertain where CNA analysis research stopped. The research
will interview field Federal resource coordinators. The research intent is to provide adequate
data for proposed Web 2.0 integration as an ESF into the NRF. The research will also provide
topics for further research study.

References
Acquisti, A., Gross, R., & Stutzman, F. (2011). Faces of Facebook: Privacy in the age of
augmented reality. Proceedings from BlackHat USA Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.blackhat.com/docs/webcast/acquisti-face-BH-Webinar-2012-out.pdf
Bertolucci, J. (2012, November 26). Big data + semantic web: Love at first terabyte? Retrieved
from http://www.informationweek.com/big-data/big-data-analytics/big-data-+-semantic-
web-love-at-first-terabyte/d/d-id/1107520
Coyle, T. P. (2014). Eyes of the storm: Can fusion centers play a critical role during the
response phase of natural disasters through collaborative relationships with emergency
operations centers (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://www-hsdl-
org.lib.kaplan.edu/?view&did=760169
Denscombe, M. (2012). Research proposals: A practical guide. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lib.kaplan.edu/eds/detail?sid=7551274c-f415-454b-b0fc-
7c57f15f3056@sessionmgr4001&vid=0#db=nlebk&AN=501288
Department of Homeland Security. (2008). What’s new in the national response framework
(website). Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/whatsnew.pdf
Department of Homeland Security (2012). Social media strategy: Virtual social media working
group and DHS first responder group. Retrieved from
https://communities.firstresponder.gov/DHS_VSMWG_Social_Media_Strategy_Formatt
ed_May_2013_FINAL.pdf
Department of Homeland Security (2013a). Emergency support function #15-External affairs
annex. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1914-25045-
7063/final_esf_15_external_affairs_20130501.pdf

Department of Homeland Security (2013b). Lessons learned: Social media and Hurricane
Sandy. Retrieved from
https://communities.firstresponder.gov/DHS_VSMWG_Lessons_Learned_Social_Media
_and_Hurricane_Sandy_Formatted_June_2013_FINAL.pdf
Dijck, J. V. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveiliance: Big Data between scientific
paradigm and ideology. Surveillance and Society. 12 (2), 197-208. Retrieved from
http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-
society/article/view/datafication/datafic.
DiPace, M. S. (2014). National Response Framework: A cross-case analysis (master’s thesis).
Retrieved from https://www-hsdl-org.lib.kaplan.edu/?view&did=758137.
Egli, D. S. (2013). Beyond the storm: Strengthening preparedness, response, & resilience in the
21st Century. Journal of Strategic Security 6 (2) 32-45. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.6.2.3
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2011). National disaster recover framework.
Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/recoveryframework/ndrf.pdf
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2014). Disaster declaration for 2014 (website).
Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/year/2014
Geoplatform.gov. (2015). FEMA Joint Field Operations. Retrieved from
http://www.geoplatform.gov/geoconops/hls-missions/disaster-operations/fema-joint-
field-operations.
Heighington, A. (2011). Homeland security in real-time: The power of the public and mobile
technology. Homeland Security Affairs, 7(1) Retrieved from
https://www.hsaj.org/articles/48.

Johnson, S. R. (2012). Improving Web 2.0 strategy for FEMA to enable collaboration and
shared situational awareness across the whole of community (master’s thesis). Retrieved
from https://www-hsdl-org.lib.kaplan.edu/?view&did=710207
Mount, M. & Martinez, M. G. (2014). Social media: A tool for open innovation. California
Management Review, 56(4), 124-143. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2014.56.4.124.
Munné, R. (2013). Future security trends and their impact from an industry point of view.
Information & Security, 29(2), 147-160. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11610/isij.2911
Page, S., Freberg, K. & Saling, K. (2013). Emerging media crisis value model: A comparison of
relevant, timely message strategies for emergency events. Journal of Strategic Security. 6
(2). 20-31. Retrieved from
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=jss
Prior, T., & Roth, F. (2013). Disaster, resilience and security in global cities. Journal of Strategic
Security, 6(2), 59-69. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.6.2.5
Seo, O. S. (2014). Government monitoring of social networks and the read of The Fourth
Amendment. Criminal Justice 28 (4). 36-40. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1507290890?accountid=34544
Smyth, S. M. (2012). The new social media Paradox: A symbol of self-determination or a boon
for Big Brother. International Journal of Cyber Criminology 6 (1), 924-950. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.lib.kaplan.edu/docview/1077383753?accountid=34544
Su, Y.S., Wardell, C., & Thorkildsen, Z. (2013). Social media in the emergency management
field 2012 Survey results. Retrieved from https://www-hsdl-
org.lib.kaplan.edu/?view&did=738098

Van Leuven, L J. (2009). Optimizing citizen engagement during emergencies through use of Web
2.0 technologies (master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://www-hsdl-
org.lib.kaplan.edu/?view&did=37776.

PommierCatherine_HM598Unit6_Capstonefinal

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to PommierCatherine_HM598Unit6_Capstonefinal

Similar to PommierCatherine_HM598Unit6_Capstonefinal (20)

PommierCatherine_HM598Unit6_Capstonefinal