2023-2024 NET Program Changes: Difference between revisions

From WikiNET
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Blanked the page)
Tags: Blanking Manual revert
 
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:


<span style="background:#FFFF00; color:#FFFF00">.</span><span style="background:#FFFF00">'''THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND NOT FINAL.'''</span><span style="background:#FFFF00; color:#FFFF00">.</span>
Jeremy Van Keuren here.
This is a "read ahead" page for NET volunteers and others reviewing proposed changes to the Portland NET program. A feedback survey link will be posted to this page after the presentation on November 8, 2023.
==BACKGROUND: The case for making changes to the NET program==
Both PBEM and the City of Portland are undergoing (and undertaking) the most sweeping bureaucratic changes seen in decades. This is resulting in reprioritizing and movement of resources, and that does impact NET programming directly. Expanding our view beyond City government and into the sociological, the COVID pandemic and climate change has made permanent changes to how we view disaster, resilience, and community organizing.
<br/>
<br/>
=== People are accustomed to meeting and organizing on virtual platforms ===
It's difficult to believe that before the pandemic, virtual meetings were still a relative novelty. Sure, we had Skype ([https://www.wired.co.uk/article/skype-coronavirus-pandemic remember them?]) but that was more often used to connect with your granny living thousands of miles away. Today, we're meeting over Zoom with people sitting literally in the next ''room''.
From the NET community organizing perspective, there are both pros and cons to plan around. On the plus side, '''meeting online reduces obstacles to NET participation.''' Where a parent used to have to book childcare to take part in a NET meeting, now they can join online. Where someone who doesn't speak English fluently might feel self conscious requesting live interpretation, it's simpler for PBEM to detail a live interpreter to an online meeting. Where a less committed ATV might groan at the prospect of getting off the couch to go meet with neighbors, joining online may feel more palatable. And so on.
There are a few problems as well:
* There's an old saw that '''80% of communication is nonverbal.''' [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-words/201109/is-nonverbal-communication-a-numbers-game That may oversimplify thing a bit], but the notion is still relevant. Even if online communication doesn't deaden nonverbal communication [https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2021/09/30/body-language-in-a-virtual-world-how-to-communicate-your-message-effectively/?sh=4308c9524964 it does stymie it]. Blotting nonverbal communication makes misunderstandings and misfired social behaviors more likely. <ref>No joke, just a couple weeks ago, I was in a neighborhood association hybrid meeting where everyone was being chill until one person ("Person A") at the table stood up and started angrily yelling at someone online and off camera ("Person B") because the latter participant's tone and meaning were completely misunderstood. Not only that, but I speculate Person A would not have expressed themselves so aggressively if Person B had been there in person.</ref>
* '''AI bots are taking notes.''' Some of you may have noticed that folks are sending surrogate bots to take notes instead of arriving themselves. I think any reasonable person would agree that doesn't constitute "active participation". But it's better than not participating at all.
* '''Virtual meetings make hands-on team training more challenging,''' though certainly not impossible.
My position is that meeting online is not as good as meeting in person, but that online meetings are here to stay and teams should accommodate neighbors who need to use it. PBEM recommends that NET teams, team leaders, and PBEM address challenges:
# '''PBEM should help develop best practices for NETs to do hybrid meetings.''' Hybrid meetings are still challenging, but they're getting easier.
# '''PBEM encourages each team to get their own free Google Meet account.''' PBEM can no longer support a paid Zoom account for NET (though we are retaining a single Zoom account that NETs might use for exceptionally large, long, or complicated meetings).
# '''NET Team Leaders should accept that not all volunteers (active NET/BEECN/ATV) will participate in person.''' But they can/should reasonably request occasional "all hands" in person meetings.
# PBEM should work with NETs/FPN to '''develop team training/exercise curriculum that can work for online and hybrid audiences.'''
<br/>
=== The urgency of climate change resilience is supplanting earthquake resilience in Portland ===
NET is an all-hazards response resource and responding to the threat of a CSZ earthquake will always be the standard PBEM wants to train NETs to. But an earthquake hasn't killed anyone in Oregon for at least three centuries. Meanwhile, extreme weather events in Oregon linked to climate change, such as the 2021 heat dome, have killed hundreds and contribute to ongoing health problems for many.
NET doesn't need to "choose" between preparing for an earthquake and climate change resilience, so we won't. But, NET training and outreach should reflect and incorporate the threats posed by extreme weather events. 
* '''PBEM should offer a proportionally appropriate number of training events relevant to extreme weather event response and climate change resilience.''' This might include shelter response training, polishing training for heat illness response, outreach, and more.
<br/>
=== Neighborhood-based response teams exist for no other purpose than to respond to an earthquake ===
''Every'' NET deployment since 1994 has been centralized through PBEM. PBEM sets the volunteer position descriptions, the shift schedules, and the NETs ultimately report to PBEM. The reason is that, per NET Guidelines, NETs will only self deploy if there is a citywide disaster '''''and''''' routine communication systems are disabled. In other words: an earthquake.<ref>Yeah ok, and the off chance of an [https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/the-disaster-that-could-follow-from-a-flash-in-the-sky EMP]. But let's keep this simple.</ref>
This realization opens a few other implications that help us organize our work:
# Teams of NET volunteers exist really for only two divisible reasons: for local self deployment after an earthquake, and for socializing/training together.
# NET "Operations Plans" are really "Earthquake Plans".
# ATVs are a resource that NETs should recruit, but generally only as part of a Neighborhood Earthquake Plan.
With all these implications in mind, I suggest the following changes:
* Operations Plans now be called Neighborhood Earthquake Response Frameworks (NERFs...no, seriously)
* Team service area boundaries for earthquake response, instead of conforming to neighborhood association boundaries, reflect the block scale areas a team decides on.
* Developing a NERF:
** Includes any interested NET volunteers, ATV, and neighbors inside a team service area;
** PBEM develop curriculum to step teams through the arc of developing a NERF, to include initial community outreach/recruitment, progressive community involvement, response capacity analysis, and capacity planning.
** PBEM develop an online system of reporting for every NERF/neighborhood team, taking into account their capacity planning, and providing a resilience score. This will give teams (and PBEM on a broader scale) quantifiable goals to meet.
=== NET meeting numbers are generally low ===
This was happening before COVID, but the pandemic certainly appeared to exacerbate the problem. Not all teams are in this situation, but many Team Leaders report low meeting turnouts. At the same time, PBEM fairly consistently sees high turnouts for deployments. So, we suspect the reason low meeting turnout is happening is not because volunteers are unengaged.
<br /><br />
==What are Jeremy's proposed solutions?==
In order, we propose:
#In the NET Guidelines, simplify and toss out the distinctions between "PBEM Initiated Deployments", "Self Deployments", and "Standing Orders". Replace with rules governing "Centralized Deployments" and "Earthquake Deployment".
#Dispense with the term "Operations Plans" and call them "Earthquake Plans" to reflect what the plan is actually for and to help put NETs in the mindset of forming a plan around earthquake response.
#Using GIS, allow Teams to decide on service area boundaries that reflect the [[Team Service Areas|response area]] they want to/feel comfortable responding inside of after an earthquake.
#Give NET volunteers the option of participating in earthquake planning in their neighborhoods (assembling and maintaining a NERF) if they choose to; active NETs do not have to, and all NETs can still participate in centralized deployments.
#*NERF teams can meet in person (preferred) or through online meetings.
#* NERF teams can bring in non-NETs (ATVs)
#*There will be a series of planning milestones for NERFs, for example:
#**Decide on (and get approval for) service area boundaries and have them published to the NET map
#**Decide on radio frequencies
#**Capacity assessment
#**Capacity planning (which VSFs and how many)
#**Neighborhood outreach
#**Assembling a roster
# Two types of teams: an earthquake planning team (which includes non-NETs in the service area) and broader scale teams that meet for socializing/community outreach/training events...these will be "NET Training Centers", and PBEM will also be one of these NET Training Centers.
#* Use the wiki to host team exercise "recipes" which FPN, PBEM, and individual NETs develop.
Emphasize development of most important VSFs: 02, 06, 08, 09, and 15. They conform with what we train in Basic, best suited to volunteers, already doing a lot of that stuff anyway.
== Notes ==

Latest revision as of 09:09, 11 November 2023

Retrieved from "https://volunteerpdx.net/index.php?title=2023-2024_NET_Program_Changes&oldid=4488"