Govt shutdown and disaster response

I talked about the new reality we face as practitioners in yesterday's post, the world where more frequent and stronger weather-related events impact greater numbers people than ever before. Well a new wrinkle has been added to our unique operating environment--a partial government shutdown. The impacts of this shutdown will take time to fully understand, but I've read a lot of conflicting reports about what this means exactly to community response and recovery.

Source: Larry Downing/Reuters

FEMA
There's a worry about whether FEMA-related programming will continue, and the answer is, yes they will i.e. Individual Assistance and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). And according to Dan Watson, a spokesman for FEMA:

“There are more than 1,000 FEMA workers on the ground in Colorado responding to the floods. They are not being impacted by the shutdown."

So there will be the administrative personnel to ensure that the recovery machine keeps moving. This brings a sigh of relief to the residents in Colorado who are beginning to understand the impact the floodwaters had. Colorado State government on the other had will spend between $40-$80,000/day keeping 120 National Guardsmen focused on the rehabilitation of critical infrastructure that would otherwise have stopped.

However, for the city of Moore, OK the shutdown looks like it could delay a 4 Million dollar reimbursement check FEMA needs to cut for reimbursing cleanup costs. And for those on the east coast, the shutdown looks like it will slow down the dispersement of available grant funds fueling long term recovery. Even though money has been allocated for Sandy Relief, there's the problem with staffing. For instance, of the 749 employees in HUD's Community Planning and Development office which handles grants to cities and states for recovery, only 13 employees will go to work everyday during the shutdown. Long Term Recovery is a slow process to begin with when fully staffed and all the kinks worked out, I believe the reduction in staffing will have a ripple effect that will be felt for months to come and work against the gains made in advancing recovery in communities impacted by Sandy.

Because funding for long term recovery comes from a diverse range of federal entities, making exceptions to keep people working in the various agencies on behalf of impacted communities during the shutdown would've required a herculean effort that did not materialize. It seems that disaster specific dollars are available, the question that remains is whether or not there are enough people to provide the oversight needed to keep things moving.

Environmental Protection Agency
You can't have disasters without some sort of environmental impact, which is why the EPA plays a critical role in helping to define what that impact is and how best to address it.

The EPA states that those who are engaged in activities that:

"ensure continued public health and safety, including safe use of food and drugs and safe use of hazardous materials; those who protect federal lands, buildings, equipment and research property; those who conduct law enforcement and criminal investigations; and those who provide emergency and disaster assistance" will continue working.

While good to know, it remains unclear at this time as to whether or not the work the EPA was doing in Colorado to define the extent of the potential environmental impacts the floodwaters had on the Fracking wells continues or not. With 94% of the EPA's employees not working and reports that the amount of oil spilled as a result of the flooding has topped 40,000 gallons, I sincerely hope that the EPA has boots on the ground. 

I don't know about you, but I'm not overcome with a sense of calm, I guess it's because I keep thinking about what would happen should another event take place? Say a major hurricane makes landfall, would FEMA be able to deploy resources? In theory, I imagine they would because the funds used to implement PA/IA programming come from the Disaster Relief Fund; however, actually implementing those programs may be impossible due to furloughed personnel. 

Partial or total, a shutdown of our government will have serious ramifications that impact communities recovering from disasters--I hope that common ground can be found so the business of helping communities recover can begin in earnest once again.

Moving from managing Disasters, to managing Risks

The United Nation's Office for Disaster Risk Reduction has issued their 2013 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, a comprehensive report on...you guessed it, reducing disaster risk. Disaster Risk Reduction is essentially the International equivalent to community preparedness and resilience--working to integrate best practices and workable solutions into communities at risk.

If you've read more than a post or two you've seen the words "preparedness," "resilience," and 'community-based response" dot this blog and for good reason, these words are driving influences behind where and how Emergency Management dollars are allocated. However, transforming these words from rhetoric into action remains a challenge for local, state, and national agencies alike; and as we enter the eighth month of 2013, usually the most active month of hurricane season, 53 events have already been designated disasters by FEMA up from the yearly average of 19 during the 60's.

To be fair, the hard push towards whole of community disaster risk reduction is fairly new and will take time to yield tangible results; this newness coupled with the fact that it’s been non-stop disasters of some kind for as long as I can remember, and an argument for why more communities aren’t better prepared can be made. Then you read an article from Mother Jones where Superstorm Sandy is used as an example of how some of the damage from Sandy could have been avoided, and you begin to question whether that argument is valid. The article cites studies from early 01 and 09 that forecast exactly what happened in late Oct / early Nov of last year...in some cases studies that were commissioned by the city of New York but no action was taken as a result of the findings. 

We continue to hit on the points of: preparedness, resilience, and whole of community in an effort to help bolster preparedness and risk reduction at the local level, yet there seems to be a lack of any kind of political will to enact change. Who wants to spend money on levee re-construction when there hasn’t been a flood? Why shouldn’t we broaden our tax base and rezone riverfront land to build rental properties? Of course the Emergency Manager Position should be the fire or police chief, they have the expertise and the city doesn’t have to pay for another position. With cities going bankrupt, drastic times are calling for drastic measures, even if that means taking risks with lives and property.

It’s easy to say that it’s because programs lack proper funding that the recommendations of the studies conducted are not heeded, when in truth it ends up costing communities more in the long run to ignore them. There needs to be the will of those in power to make unpopular decisions and to do so in the name of preparing and protecting their community. As of July 3rd, Moore, Ok city's council had delayed their vote that would upgrade building codes to mandate that homes have construction techniques that make them more resistant to Tornadic winds, and earlier today, that same city council voted to approve the $32 Million dollar cleanup price tag that will be reimbursed by FEMA.

Maybe the federal government needs to re-evaluate the benchmarks used in determining what constitutes a federal declaration, maybe if communities knew that they’d be on their own unless it was a major event, stronger building codes would already be in place, and the time, energy, and attention needed would be paid to preparedness activities. If those draconian measures aren't politically palatable, then stipulating that in order to receive FEMA assistance, mitigation initiatives need to be a part of their recovery and rebuilding planning. This would send a message that the status quo is no longer acceptable when it comes to repair and rebuild following disasters and that by managing risks we can reduce their impacts.

Dolla Dolla bills y'all

According to this NYTimes article, NY State Attorney General Eric Schniederman is questioning why so much of the money raised in response to SuperStorm Sandy remains unspent. While the article talks about why non-profit agencies and organizations have yet to spend/allocate all of the money received in response to the plea for financial support following Sandy, what it also does is highlight the mentality people have around money and disasters—a touchy subject to be sure.

The message being pushed when a disaster strikes is that 'cash is king,' that your dollars are far more valuable than a tractor-trailer of unsorted, used clothing. While a donation of your old clothing sound like a good idea in theory, in reality, it isn’t and I've seen firsthand the unintended impact of how those donations can do more harm than good. Money is good because it's flexible, requires little in the way of logistics and personnel to manage it, and can respond to dynamic post-disaster needs that shift every 24-48 hours. Once an organization starts receiving donations however, everyone has ideas on how that money could/should be spent. 

Some organizations tout their ability to turn your donations into goods and services on the ground quickly, those groups are often criticized because many question whether due diligence is undertaken to ensure that the dollars are being spent on those who truly need it. Then there are those organizations/groups who hold off on spending donations they receive, citing the need to wait and see what happens when the dust settles, they are criticized for not being responsive enough and for lacking transparency. 

It seems that even with the best intentions at heart, someone, somewhere isn't going to like how you're doing things and take you to task for it. So what's right when it comes to spending: fast and furious or slow and cautious? The answer that I've found is a healthy mix of both.

The Robin Hood Foundation awarded over $60 Million dollars following the 12.12.12 concert for Sandy Relief to local and national organizations, and did so in record time. The rationale being that they were just the name, they didn’t have the “do” capacity to spend the money on response and recovery activities, so why hold onto it? While the money was awarded to a wide variety of agencies and organizations, Robin Hood still drew criticism that they were spending the money too quickly and not being thoughtful enough about who it went to and whether some should be held for longer-term community needs.

On the flipside, as the NY Times article expounds upon, there are questions about the millions the Red Cross raised and why it hasn't been spent; but local groups aren’t immune either, groups like Occupy Sandy are feeling the heat as well. They have money in the coffers but are looking to see how far FEMA, insurance, and any additional financial assistance individuals, businesses, and the communities as a whole receive before applying their additional financial resources. Unfortunately, the thoughtful approach is rarely seen as thoughtful, it’s seen more as deceitful and usually draws harsh criticism. 

The bottom line where money is concerned is everyone will have an opinion: it's being spent too fast, it’s not being spent fast enough, it’s not being spent on the right things, etc. This butting of heads is unavoidable but the discussion it generates is central to holistic community recovery, and I believe that part of that discussion should focus on a greater degree of transparency around how donated dollars are being spent, not on the rate of expenditure.

This NewsOK article illustrates a great example of what it means to lose sight of where the donations are going. Following the Moore, OK tornadoes, a Red Cross text to give campaign raised several million dollars and Donors believed all of the money received via that campaign would be funneled to the recovery efforts—this was not entirely true and it was only after considerable pressure that this became the case. 

If we as a community of practice are going to encourage individuals to donate money to our organizations instead of giving clothing, then we have an obligation to show donors how their money is being spent in simple, unfettered terms. At the same time, those of you who donate money need to do your homework and understand that if you do not expressly communicate where your donation is to go, that organizations will apply it to their greatest need at that time or put it toward their general fund. While the debate over the ethics of such actions is heated, it’s common practice and you should be aware of it.

Just as important as educating and communicating with donors, is ensuring community leaders get a crash course in disaster economics before they have to go through it. Part of our jobs in promoting community resilience is to work harder on the front end so that when something does happen there is a familiarity with the process and expectations that will be placed upon them as it relates to the financial side of recovery efforts.

While the road to recovery is a long and bumpy one, educating donors and communities alike on the financial realities and timetables that come with building back better needs to take place. While you will never satisfy all of the people all of the time, working to educate around the realities communities will face can only help everyone in the long run.

A Scar on the Earth

Earth Observatory - Moore, OK

In the image above, you can clearly see the path of Moore's EF-5 that did so much damage. The scar is a reminder of why being prepared and giving as much warning as possible to communities in the path of these storms is so vital. In addition to the lead time meteorologists can give communities of a storms anticipated path, it takes the will of those in positions of power to institute substantive changes to ensure that when storms of this magnitude impact populated areas, that the damage is minimized. For communities in Tornado Alley that 'will' should center on promoting stronger building codes, specifically with Tornados in mind. While momentum has been building around this issue, there is still no movement on adopting stronger codes so that when the repair and rebuild of Moore and the surrounding communities gets underway, they have to build back stronger.

The prevailing mindset is that to build homes to withstand these severe wind events would not be economical, however engineers are coming out saying that is a fallacy as illustrated by the 'Insight' article below. As population densities and suburban sprawl continue to transform the midwest, more communities are going to get "in the way", and by looking at the graphic below, they already are:

map created by IDV Solutions

Just like new flood maps take time to create, changing building codes isn't something that can happen overnight, but the 'can do' attitude that exists in Tornado country means that no one is going to wait to rebuild, revised codes or not. By waiting too long to strengthen codes many homeowners may face a similar fate next time the sirens go off.

Additional Reading:
Oklahoma’s Building Codes Don’t Factor For Tornadoes (kgou.org)
Insight - In U.S. tornado alley, building practices boost damage (uk.reuters.com)

...and Hurricane Season is upon us

As if the non-stop tornados, heavy rains, flooding, red flag warnings, and general misery mother nature is throwing at us at the moment wasn't enough...today marks the beginning of a 5 month period known as Hurricane season -- joy.

Hurricane Prep Week Topics

With the build up and aftermath of Superstorm Sandy still fresh in the minds of those in the mid-atlantic region where repair and rebuild activities are just beginning to hit their stride, Hurricane Season is an unwelcome reminder of still healing wounds.

And while the peak month of August is still 60 days away, FEMA and local emergency management agencies spent the last 7 days reinforcing best practices in preparation for what NOAA is forecasting to be an above average season for Hurricane activity.

Given the prep, the forecasting, the grant dollars available, and cyclical nature that the next 5 months represents...why aren't at risk states better prepared? I ask because during Hurricane Isaac, a storm that made landfall 7 years to the day, more or less in the same areas where Hurricane Katrina made landfall, areas where there should've been a plan forged in the chaos and horrible tragedy that was Hurricane Katrina, was disarray and confusion. There was uncertainty around roles and responsibilities, around the best ways to coordinate response activities, and an overwhelming sense of disbelief.

Disasters by their nature are confusing, chaotic, and stressful...but with the seemingly endless practice that the emergency management community is getting, and ultimately the opportunities to share what's working and what's not via: conferences, papers, LLIS.gov, and picking up the phone and talking to someone who's gone through it, it isn't a herculean leap to want to see improvements.

I know that disaster response doesn't follow a linear progression and that the best laid plans are often tossed aside because the [insert disaster type here] doesn't adhere to the construct of the plan. With that said, we've been doing this long enough that instituting some sort of benchmarking system to measure response and recovery could be created. Not to shame or chastise, but to learn what works for a particular community and grow it, integrate it into future planning to help mitigate the threat of a groundhog day scenario as communities stare down the next 5 months of potential Hurricane activity.

It's not all doom and gloom, some communities are adapting and adopting mechanisms that will allow for the tracking and sharing of a detailed recovery plan. The Recovery Diva posted this re: The Joplin recovery; lots of good information here and I encourage you to read the fact sheet, a great tool and template I hope other communities adopt...communities that may be facing the daunting task of picking up the pieces following a similar situation now and in the future.

The proof is in the analytics and sweet infographic

While saying: "Social Media is a big deal and we need to start paying attention," it's interesting to see statistical data gleaned from the real world to back it up.

In addition to the below infographic (compliments of USF's MPA program), Patrick Meier posted a breakdown of the 2.1 million tweets in the first 48 hours after the Moore tornado...providing data that will reaffirm your burgeoning love affair with social platforms.

University of San Francisco Online Master of Public Administration

Show me the money...

While not all disasters are created equal in terms of news coverage, scope of damage, and economic impact, etc...the desire to do something is powerful, and oftentimes that desire manifests itself in the form of making a monetary donation.

The knee-jerk reaction is to donate to the Red Cross, a response that can be seen in the high profile donations of Kevin Durant, Carrie Underwood, The Oklahoma Thunder, and Chesapeake Energy Corp. Following the Moore tornado, the Red Cross has received more than $15 million in donations which underscores the power donations have following an event. However, with the advent of crowdfunding sites, the landscape of how people donate money to response & recovery is beginning to change. With a stronger emphasis being placed on accountability, speed, and impact, donors are looking at new ways to ensure their donations go to the people who need it as expeditiously as possible.

This shift towards a higher degree of accountability and results reporting is best illustrated by the authority in non-profit rankings, Charity Navigator. They are introducing additional metrics as part of their ratings to include timely, detailed donor reporting on fund allocation and program impacts. To read more about the evolution of the non-profit rating system and how your charity of choice ranks, their site is a wealth of information.

In response to the donor desire for greater accountability and speed, sites like: indiegogo and gofundme are working to eliminate "the middle man" by empowering donors to give directly to impacted families. While donors feel a more direct connection, the potential for fraud increases significantly due to the fact that anyone can claim to be a survivor and need help.

With the understanding that millions of dollars are flowing into communities following disasters, coupled with the perception that traditional aid is too clunky and bureaucratic, I believe there will be a rapid proliferation of direct giving tools and applications aimed at shifting donations to impacted communities from traditional aid structures.

Donate Responsibly

Often referred to as the second disaster, the wave of unsolicited donations, usually in the form of used clothing can tie up key personnel and physical resources that would otherwise be allocated to other key response activities.

As you choose how best to help the communities impacted by the recent severe weather events in Texas and Oklahoma, please remember that cash is king.

Preparedness and Learning from Experience

Granbury, TX May 2013

Springtime in the US is a time for renewal and growth. It's also a time when warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico collides with Arctic air channeled down by the Rockies from Canada to create some of the most powerful storms nature can produce. The map shows all of the tornado strikes from 1950-2006, what it doesn't show is how the repeated strikes have changed the mentality of those who live in "tornado alley."

                          Moore, OK 2013                                  

This NY Times article asks important questions of why more people run outside to film an oncoming tornado than run inside or underground to protect their loved ones and family members? There is no simple answer, but one big reason is that many don't have a safe room or storm shelter to run to.      

For at least the third time in 14 years, federal     money (taxpayer money) will be funneled to help Moore get back on its feet with initial estimates at $2 Billion in costs. While it's encouraging to read that the Mayor of Moore wants new building codes instituted that require safe rooms, why is reform so slow and in such a piece meal fashion given the historical data available?

If repeated loss of life and property are the only catalysts that will effect change at a local level, then changing how states receive federal aid should be considered; putting additional requirements on federal aid to show how and on what mitigation dollars are going towards will be a tangible step towards creating and reinforcing resilience at a local level. Stopping tornados is impossible, but applying what has been learned to make families safer and communities more resilient with the resources available isn't.