This article, written by Barbara Reynolds and Matthew W. Seeger and published within the Journal of Health Communication, describes a model of communication known as crisis and emergency risk communication (CERC). The model is outlined as a merger of many traditional notions of health and risk communication with work in crisis and disaster communication. The specific kinds of communication activities that, according to the authors, should be called for at various stages of disaster or crisis development are outlined. Although crises are by definition uncertain, equivocal, and often chaotic situations, the CERC model is presented as a tool health communicators can use to help manage these complex events.

Table 2. A working model of CERC

I. Precrisis (Risk Messages; Warnings; Preparations)
Communication and education campaigns targeted to both the public and the response community to facilitate:

• Monitoring and recognition of emerging risks
• General public understanding of risk
• Public preparation for the possibility of an adverse event
• Changes in behaviour to reduce the likelihood of harm (self-efficacy)
• Specific warning messages regarding some eminent threat
• Alliances and cooperation with agencies, organisations, and groups
• Development of consensual recommendations by experts and first responders
• Message development and testing for subsequent stages

II. Initial Event (Uncertainty Reduction; Self-efficacy; Reassurance)
Rapid communication to the general public and to affected groups seeking to establish:

• Empathy, reassurance, and reduction in emotional turmoil
• Designated crisis/agency spokespersons and formal channels and methods of communication
• General and broad-based understanding of the crisis circumstances, consequences, and anticipated outcomes based on available information
• Reduction of crisis-related uncertainty
• Specific understanding of emergency management and medical community responses
• Understanding of self-efficacy and personal response activities (how/where to get more information)

III. Maintenance (Ongoing Uncertainty Reduction; Self-efficacy; Reassurance)
Communication to the general public and to affected groups seeking to facilitate:

• More accurate public understandings of ongoing risks
• Understanding of background factors and issues
• Broad-based support and cooperation with response and recovery efforts
• Feedback from affected publics and correction of any misunderstandings/rumours
• Ongoing explanation and reiteration of self-efficacy and personal response activities (how/where to get more information) begun in Stage II.
• Informed decision making by the public based on understanding of risks/benefits

IV. Resolution (Updates Regarding Resolution; Discussions about Cause and New Risks/New Understandings of Risk)
Public communication and campaigns directed toward the general public and affected groups seeking to:

• Inform and persuade about ongoing clean-up, remediation, recovery, and rebuilding efforts
• Facilitate broad-based, honest, and open discussion and resolution of issues regarding cause, blame, responsibility, and adequacy of response.
• Improve/create public understanding of new risks and new understandings of risk as well as new risk avoidance behaviours and response procedures
• Promote the activities and capabilities of agencies and organisations to reinforce positive corporate identity and image

V. Evaluation (Discussions of Adequacy of Response; Consensus About Lessons and New Understandings of Risks)
Communication directed toward agencies and the response community to:

• Evaluate and assess responses, including communication effectiveness
• Document, formalise, and communicate lessons learned
• Determine specific actions to improve crisis communication and crisis response capability
• Create linkages to precrisis activities (Stage I)

Click here for the full article from which this table was excerpted.

Journal of Health Communication e-newsletter, May 2005; Journal of Health Communication, 10:43–55, 2005, pps 52-53.