This lesson explores the use of different management leadership styles and methods that are applied to disaster management situations. Leadership and command are differentiated. Mechanisms that can be used to influence others developed include: 1) coercion; 2) reward; 3) position; 4) knowledge; and 5) admiration. Factors that affect leadership include: 1) individual characteristics; 2) competence; 3) experience; 4) self-confidence; 5) judgment; 6) decision-making; and 8) style. Experience and understanding the task are important factors for leadership. Four styles of leadership are developed: 1) directive; 2) supportive; 3) participative; and 4) achievement oriented. Application of each of these styles is discussed. The styles are discussed further as they relate to the various stages of a disaster. The effects of interpersonal relationships and the effects of the environment are stressed. Lastly, leadership does not just happen because a person is appointed as a manager – it must be earned.

The media system controls information resources that public health agencies may wish to use to accomplish their goals, particularly in a crisis. The resources of the public health system sometimes are prized by the media system, and this provides opportunities for public health agencies to gain access to the media. This paper reviews the goals and resources of the media system as they relate to the mission of public health agencies in the periods before, during, and after a public health crisis. The various media are reviewed with attention to the role each can play for different purposes and at different stages of a crisis. The importance of presenting health information in the form of stories is emphasized, with specific advice regarding the attributes of an effective story.

Public health officials often are critical of the way television news covers disasters, while broadcast journalists complain of a lack of cooperation from the public health sector during disaster coverage. This article summarizes the issues discussed in a session on Televised Coverage of Disasters, presented in April 1999 at the UCLA Conference on Public Health and Disasters in Los Angeles. Public health officials were asked to “talk back to their television sets” in a dialog with television journalists. Concerns included: 1) the lack of balance in television coverage that is dominated by sensational images that may frighten rather than inform the public; 2) the potential for psychological damage to viewers when frightening images are shown repeatedly in the days and weeks of the disaster; and 3) the perception that TV reporters place too much emphasis on crime, property damage, and loss of life, giving relatively low priority to disaster preparedness and to public health issues in the aftermath of a disaster. Options for improving communication between television journalists and public health professionals also are discussed.

The following paper presents an argument for enhancing and encouraging the development of neighborhood-based disaster preparedness organizations, particularly as a potential medical triage and treatment resource following a disaster. First, theresearch context for the utility of non-institutional sources of post-disaster assistance is outlined, followed by the more specific instance of medical triage and treatment. An emerging model of community disaster preparedness training is described, noting the modules that address disaster medicine. Positive contributions and limitations are addressed looking to disaster and non-disaster experiences. While the potential for non-traditional resources to aid immediate post-disaster response is becoming both more common and more accepted, there are a number of recommendations that would improve the usefulness and value, including: 1) integration with existing emergency care infrastructure; 2) standardization of training; 3) use of coordinated drills between public safety organizations, hospitals, and voluntary sectors; and 4) dedication of more funding to assist in the creation and maintenance of programs. Because of the relative infancy of these community-based programs, and the infrequency of large-scale disasters, there is little, if any, pre-post research that can demonstrate a measured impact on response. More pre-disaster baseline data-gathering efforts are needed, combined with post-disaster evaluative research to understand the utility of these non-traditional resources in terms of overall response, and in particular the ability to assist in areas of disaster medicine practice. One also expects that under these kinds of [disaster] conditions, family members, fellow employees, and neighbors will spontaneously try to help each other. This was the case following the Mexico City earthquake where untrained, spontaneous volunteers saved 800 people. However, 100people lost their lives while attempting to save others. This is a high price to pay and is preventable through training.

Although the United States has been impacted by numerous devastating disasters over the last 10 years, there have been only limited efforts between the governmental and non-profit/voluntary organizations to meet the multiple disaster health and mental health needs of the community. Too often, responding organizations compete to provide services, duplicate efforts, and frequently under-estimate the need for services.

Recent efforts have been undertaken by The American Red Cross and other groups to resolve this issue. Governmental and community-based organizations have been invited to participate in planning sessions to pre-identify roles and responsibilities, as well as to exchange key information about the services each group can and does provide.

These efforts have lead to an increased awareness of the potential problems and the development of cohesive plans to provide medical and emotional support services to impacted communities. This has led to improved care for those with serious injuries or psychological crisis, while those with less critical problems have been managed appropriately without needing to be immediately referred to overcrowded emergency departments or physician's offices.

Multiple environmental, ecological, and socio-political forces are converging to increase the occurrence of both natural and technological disasters. Ten forces are of most concern in this regard. These are: 1) global warming, with its consequent weather extremes and climate changes; 2) continued rapid human population growth and concomitant increased urbanization; 3) decreased bio-diversity and consequent ecological fragility; 4) deforestation and loss of natural habitat for animal species, with resultant greater overlap of human and animal habitats, human exposure to animal pathogens, and other ecological perturbations; 5) increased technological development throughout the world (especially in developing countries with their typically immature safety programs) 6) globalization and increased population mobility; 7) sub-national religious and ethnic conflicts, and their potential for conflict escalation and large scale displacement of populations; 8) the collapse of several major countries and consequent unraveling of national identity and social order; 9) the rise of terrorism; and 10) dramatic advances in the science and technology of computing, communications, biotechnology, and genomics.

This paper describes 10 lessons learned relative to the public health aspects of emergency management, especially as they pertain to disasters. 1) Planning pays; 2) A bad situation can be made worse by inappropriate responses; 3) Most life saving interventions will occur before the disaster happens and immediately afterwards by local action; 4) Public health emergency management is not a democratic process; 5) Psychological impacts are usually greater than anticipated; 6) Communications and information management are vital, but often are the weak link in the response chain; 7) Collaboration and partnerships are essential; 8) Unsolicited volunteers and aid are inevitable and must be planned for and managed; 9) Never assume anything, and always expect the unexpected; and 10) Post-event evaluation is important, and must be coordinated.

The paramount lesson learned from past emergencies is that the untoward impact of these events can be anticipated and significantly ameliorated by appropriate planning and preparation. On the other hand, preparation for emergency events has deteriorated because of health-care financial constraints, and resources to support planning and needed infrastructure have diminished. Given these realities, the major unresolved challenge is how to ensure that planning for the common good is supported and, in fact, gets done.