Outrage!

When indoor air quality problems strike schools, students, staff and parents often get angry. But communicating early and often regarding IAQ problems can save time and money. Here's why.

A consulting firm was hired by a school board in central Florida to investigate the cause of indoor air quality (IAQ) complaints in one of its schools. After an extensive investigation was completed, a story on the IAQ problem appeared in the local newspaper with the following quotes by school employees

and the families of affected children: "Because they did the testing, did we expect they'd find anything? No!" "As far as I'm concerned, they've basically done nothing at this point," and "I still don't think it's safe." Despite thousands of dollars spent on the investigation, the school administration still hadn't gained the satisfaction or confidence of the employees or the public.

The story above is a typical scenario when IAQ problems are discovered in the school environment. No matter how diligent administrators' attempts are to diagnose and solve the problem, those affected frequently don't believe their best interests have been served. With this breakdown in trust, it's not surprising that IAQ problems often evolve from complaints of headaches and sore throats to lengthy legal battles and expensive building repair costs.

IAQ cases are often characterized by a progression of events: School staff alert the administration to the presence of a problem, the administration is perceived as being slow to react or plays down the problem, and both groups become angry. Along the way, opportunities for de-escalating the problem are missed, undermining the relationship between the administration and staff and causing repair costs to skyrocket.

Most IAQ cases are also characterized by two distinct milestones: when the IAQ problem is actually solved and when the occupants believe the problem is solved. The farther apart these milestones, the more expensive the rehabilitative effort. While the goal of communications is to have these events occur simultaneously, this often is not the case. Instead, there is a breakdown in communications between the administration and school occupants, making it difficult for the occupants to trust the diagnosis of the problem and the effectiveness of the repairs. As a result, new complaints, whether real or imagined, may be lodged and additional repairs needed before the occupants are satisfied.

How Risk Communications Can Help

Responding effectively to IAQ problems in the workplace has a psychological as well as a technical component. The tenets of risk communication offer insight into the human response to danger in the environment - in this case IAQ problems in the school environment. By following the principles of risk communication, the school administration can develop effective messages; maintain two-way communications; gain the trust of school staff, school attendees and their families and the general public; and defuse the emotional reactions that cause so many IAQ situations to escalate into public relations nightmares.

Outrage - Precursor to the IAQ Nightmare

The practice of risk communications is based on the premise that the public assesses risk more in terms of moral-emotional issues (called outrage) than quantitative risk (the potential for harm to human health, called hazard).[1, 2] Using this terminology, Peter Sandman, a nationally known risk communications expert, assesses the public's perception of risk using the following equation:

Risk = Hazard + Outrage

According to this equation, the public's perception of risk is based on a combination of hazard and more than 20 possible moral-emotional issues (see box), not purely on the physical harm that the risk poses.[1, 2] When present, these moral-emotional issues or outrage factors predispose the public to react by becoming frightened and angry, often distorting the level of risk that actually exists.

Real and Perceived Risk

Demonstrating this point, Stephen Breyer, a Supreme Court judge, researched the disparity between perceived and actual risk and how these perceptions have imbalanced the regulatory guidelines controlling risk.[3, 4] For example, consider the fear of asbestos, which has resulted in the evacuation or demolition of hundreds of buildings. Yet, the mortality associated with asbestos exposure is only 0.005 to 0.006 deaths per million.[3] According to Breyer, "Few citizens realize that many EPA regulations of 'toxic substances' address risks that are no greater than what people routinely incur from drinking a cup of coffee each day or eating a peanut butter sandwich for lunch.

Not surprisingly, risk assessors and the public often have widely varying perceptions of the amount of risk associated with environmental factors. While risk assessors calculate risk by multiplying the magnitude of the risk (i.e., the chance you will die if you are affected) by the probability it will occur, the public assigns risk according to the moral-emotional issues associated with the event.[1, 2] Not surprisingly, the correlation between these two types of risk assessment is extremely low.[5]

Addressing Emotions

To address the subjective response to risk, the school administration's response to an IAQ problem should address the emotional factors by promoting communications with school staff, school attendees and attendee families, and by involving them throughout the problem-solving effort. Because these groups are typically excluded from the rehabilitation process, they tend to be skeptical of both the diagnosis and the repairs, and are more likely to find fault with the administration's handling of the situation. As a result, more extensive building repairs are required to quell the situation. Also, the likelihood that the media will cover the story is increased, exacerbating the situation.

Both the administration and individuals affected by an IAQ problem tend to react to the situation in a common, recognizable pattern. This progression of emotions, shown below, is similar to that exhibited when faced with a mortal illness, death or other circumstance in which one has little or no control: stage 1 - denial; stage 2 - outrage; stage 3 - acceptance.

Each of these stages is characterized by unique activities and catalysts, which prompt transition to the next stage. Depending on the point at which a public involvement program is initiated, the duration and intensity of these phases, and whether they occur at all, vary. Correspondingly, project costs also vary, depending on the level of outrage generated among the building occupants before they believe the problem has been solved.

Stage 1. Denial

Stage 1 begins when initial complaints are reported to the administration, which commonly responds by assigning the problem to either the facility management or building maintenance department. These departments typically respond by performing maintenance-type activities such as changing air handling filters or cleaning air ducts. However, affected individuals usually view these efforts as less than satisfactory responses to the problem. At this stage, administration conveys the message that no real problem exists or that only overly sensitive individuals are affected by it. As a result, trust between the two groups begins to deteriorate as they become increasingly frustrated.

At this stage, affected individuals may believe that the administration is withholding information or that there is a "cover-up." To gain more attention for their cause, they often form a committee and hire attorneys and doctors to substantiate their claims, which propels the situation into stage 2. This action causes the administration to view claims management as the key concern, so they turn the problem over to their risk management specialists or attorneys. At this point, case information becomes privileged and confidential, further aggravating the situation.

Stage 2. Outrage

If school occupants continue to perceive that their concerns are being ignored or trivialized, the administration finds itself in an increasingly adversarial position, which is stage 2. By this time, both sides have developed formal positions in relation to the IAQ problem, so the effort needed to move both parties towards a more conciliatory position has increased dramatically, as have the costs. For example, the occupants may hire doctors to confirm that their complaints are building related while management hires consultants to conduct air sampling in the hopes of proving that the building is safe. Because taxpayers' money is involved, the situation will likely gain the attention of the media.

Stage 3. Acceptance

To progress to Stage 3, the channels of communication and trust between the administration and the school occupants must be re-established. The administration realizes that legal posturing is not necessarily accomplishing the desired goal and that teamwork would be more effective in reaching a solution. At this point, upper-level administration typically takes an active role and invites an ad hoc employee committee to help resolve the problem. As a result, trust between the administration and the school occupants is renewed, their respective attorneys focus more on mediation and arbitration than litigation, and media coverage declines.

During stage 3, the technical solution to the IAQ problem is implemented [TABULAR DATA OMITTED] and, as a result, emotions on both sides stabilize. At the same time, the costs for attorneys and other specialists level off. Unfortunately, the legal fees spent during stage 2 would have been better allocated if they had gone towards resolving the conflict instead of escalating it.

Communicating About the Problem

When IAQ problems exist, the nature of the exchange between the administration and school inhabitants can either fan the flames or help put out the communications fire. Often, lawyers argue against admitting that a problem even exists, fearing this information might be used later to prove liability. But individuals affected by IAQ problems want concrete answers to their questions of "What have I been exposed to?" "What are the effects?" and "When will you have the answers?" Sharing this information early can avert anger and fear in school inhabitants and the public in general.

Constructive exchanges consist of short, simple responses that are tactful and sensitive to their audiences. The administration should emphasize efforts to contain the IAQ source, correct the problem and coordinate the solutions with all the parties concerned to generate a sense of control, trust and empowerment. Instead of feelings of fear and victimization, these constructive communications engender teamwork, which is the first, most basic step to rehabilitation.

Acting Early and Lower Costs

By understanding the causes of public outrage and the typical progression of an IAQ situation, the administration is more likely to avoid negative media coverage and control costs. A successful communications program that makes the school occupants part of the initial response and diagnostic team can help avoid the outrage associated with stage 2 by allowing staff to share control over impacts. Thus, the situation would move directly to the acceptance stage (stage 3).

The strong correlation between the administration's reluctance (whether real or perceived) to act quickly and increased repair costs indicates the need for a new approach to solving IAQ problems. This point is demonstrated by two recent, multimillion-dollar IAQ cases that occurred in new public buildings in Florida. These buildings experienced serious IAQ problems that were manifested by nearly identical scenarios. Administration was perceived as being slow to investigate employee complaints, causing the employees to band together in ad hoc committees out of a sense of frustration. As the employees became more organized, many hired doctors and lawyers, who demanded action on the employees' behalf. Eventually, the buildings were evacuated.

In both cases, building repair costs skyrocketed because of attorney fees and employee demands for environments with "zero risk," which involved expensive building enhancements. In fact, in one case the repair cost, including the charges for renting temporary office space and relocating staff, was nearly double the building's original $11 million constructed value. The arbitration panel involved in that case said in its ruling, "Numerous opportunities were missed in the early weeks and months of the problem to effectively and inexpensively deal with the issues, but no party took leadership - there was only fingerpointing and blaming." This typical response practically guarantees a lack of employee trust in the eventual solution, prolonging the adversarial relationship and increasing costs.

One Success Story

Not every IAQ story has a bad ending. In fact, a few are textbook examples of how to respond effectively. For example, a public office building in central Florida with an IAQ problem requiring extensive repairs was evacuated before the occupants expressed any health concerns to the administration. By taking the initiative, administration sent the message that it was more concerned about employee well-being than short-term costs. Not surprisingly, the employees never expressed any concern about the situation, repair costs didn't escalate, and the media only briefly covered the story. Interestingly, the risk manager's office was located in the affected building and he had been experiencing symptoms related to the IAQ condition.

Unquestionably, the lesson to be learned here is that the administration must first empathize with the affected school occupants before it can successfully resolve the situation. This can be difficult if you don't work in the affected environment, as the risk manager in the story above did, but that shouldn't diminish the validity of the claims of those who do.

When IAQ problems occur, school administrators are often unprepared for what lies ahead in terms of costs - both in structural repairs and easing strained relations with staff, students, student families and the general public. This is because the emotional response of these groups is often not factored into the rehabilitation process. By anticipating and addressing these emotions or outrage factors early in the process, the administration can develop an interactive program that includes school staff, students and student families in the problem-solving effort. When successful, confrontations and litigation are avoided, repair costs are controlled, and the communication and trust between the administration, its staff and the public can actually be improved.

REFERENCES

1 Sandman, P.M. "Hazard versus Outrage in the Public Perception of Risk." In: Covello, V.T., McCallum, D.B., Pavlova, M.T., eds. Effective Risk Communication. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 45-49. 1989.

2 Sandman, P.M. "Siting Controversial Facilities: Some Principles, Paradoxes, and Heresies." Consensus. pp. 2-3. July 1992.

3 Breyer, S. Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1993.

4 Graham, J.D. "Regulation: A Risky Business." Wall St. Journal. New York: Dow Jones & Company, Inc. May 18, 1994.

5 Sandman, P.M. Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Communication. Fairfax, Virginia: American Industrial Hygiene Association. 1993.

ABOUT CH2M HILL

CH2M HILL is a world leader in providing innovative, technically sound problem-solving skills that help its clients maintain their competitive edge in the fast-changing business world. As the country's largest environmental consulting firm, CH2M HILL offers comprehensive services that range from planning and design to turn-key operations, including indoor air quality, water and wastewater, transportation, hazardous and solid waste, energy assessments, risk communications and community relations.

For more information on how CH2M HILL can help solve your school district's indoor air quality or other environmental engineering needs, contact David Odom at 407/423-0030 or 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 405, Orlando, Florida 32801.

J. David Odom, III, is vice president of Indoor Air Quality Services in the Orlando, Florida, office of CH2M HILL, an environmental consulting firm with 120 offices on six continents. For more than 11 years, he has been a consultant and has provided expert witness testimony on numerous multimillion-dollar IAQ cases.

Christine R. Barr, a technical communications specialist in CH2M HILL's Gainesville, Florida, office, has published several articles on risk communications.