How Local Governments Hinder Our Response to Natural Disasters

Read this article: "How Local Governments Hinder Our Response to Natural Disasters" by Mr. David Wachsmuth; it could potentially be construed as heresy in some circles, but there is also a degree of truth in the observations he makes. Wachsmuth looks at the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy and talks about how the Mayor's office usurped the power to lead following landfall favoring improvisation instead of the plans the OEM had created.

One of the more interesting takeaways from the article is this:

"Collaborations need to be achievable to be useful. The sociologist Lee Clarke argues that disaster plans are "fantasy documents"—tools for building trust in an organization rather than actual, implementable plans. This was certainly true in the response to Sandy. More modest plans, which take account of political realities and power relations, are more likely to be useful than comprehensive but unachievable fantasy documents." 

A lot of time, effort, and money goes into disaster planning and yet I've seen firsthand, as I'm sure many of you have as well, the ad hoc nature of response environments. Even when the best curated plans are exercised ad nauseam, challenges remain. This is not to say that planning can account for every facet of a disaster, but it would seem that two opposing forces are being pushed simultaneously, the need for rigidity in planning that ICS and the command and control mentality require, and the push for greater community involvement to build resilience and self-reliance. 

How do you reconcile the rigidity that is often seen in municipal planning with the inherent ad hoc nature of grassroots community response? What does that look like in a plan for a city? As it stands many plans don't account for emergent response activities but with the role Occupy Sandy played following Sandy, that will hopefully change.

If the idea that the Mayor's office totally disregarded OEM's plans seems crazy...you can read about how Michael Brown, (you may remember him as "brownie"), disregarded the newly minted National Response Plan following Hurricane Katrina...plan-averse public officials it seems, are nothing new.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/15/AR2006031502320.html

Human Resilience

Source: Sethdcohen.com

We talk about a community’s ability to cope with and recover from disasters in terms of resilience, but for the most part fail to extend the definition to include how to better mentally and emotionally prepare the people who will be affected. Disaster impacts are quantified by physical damage done to homes, infrastructure, and the total economic losses that result. While these factors are central in determining the severity of an event, it’s a sterile way of classifying the scope of something that exacts a heavy human toll.

According to a Gallup poll, the clinical diagnosis of depression in zip codes heavily affected by Sandy increased by 25% in the weeks following the storm. This coming at a time when Health and Human Service organizations that remained operational were stretched thin and left to deal with the overwhelming number of storm-related needs. What the poll didn’t measure were the number of individuals who were on medications for a pre-existing mental illness that stopped taking them due to facilities being taken off line, medication being lost in the storm, or not being able to contact their case worker due to lack of power, public transportation outages, and an absence of reliable information. 

In addition to the challenges posed by a lack of medications and reliable information, many substance abuse clinics worried/worry about the rise in abuse and relapses as a result of Sandy-related stresses. But the worry extends beyond substance and drug abuse, PTSD in adults and children, acute stress-related behaviors, flashbacks, hoarding, and a host of other personal mental issues continue to plague the survivors in their ability to recover. 

While organizations like the Staten Island Mental Health Society, Long Island Mental Health Services, and other nonprofit human service organizations have setup support groups, free crisis counseling, and other Sandy-related programming, the scale of the ongoing trauma point to an area needing urgent attention, understanding, and additional resources to adequately ensure support is there for those who need it. 

The greatest challenge facing those who preach preparedness is that there is no way for a person to understand how they will react in the face of an event until they're faced with an event. Training can help, but for the average person, training isn't realistic. Up to this point, check lists like the one put out by the American Psychological Association, the Disaster Distress Hotline, self care, and having a strong network of friends and family have been the promoted best practices to help individuals prepare for post-event psychological trauma. To enhance our knowledge of the short and long term psychological affects natural disasters have on people, the Feinstein Institute was recently awarded a $600,000 grant from the CDC. Over the next 2 years, a study will be conducted aimed at deepening our understanding of how to better prepare people to cope with the impacts of natural weather events that are forecast to become more common. 

As a stronger emphasis is placed on whole of community response, stronger advocacy will be needed to ensure that human resilience is made a key value and takeaway as a result of Superstorm Sandy. While building codes can uniformly address needed changes to how we protect ourselves, and flood maps will tell us how high to build, resilience in people is a far more dynamic and individualistic challenge, one that will require ongoing thought and resource to ensure that the communities we're working to make stronger can weather the next storm.

The Speed of Long Term Recovery

Normandy Beach, NJ   Credit: Jeremy M. Lange

Today marks the one-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy making its historic landfall in the mid-Atlantic region. There are numerous articles commemorating the event by examining the causes and impacts ranging from meteorological to psychological, in an effort to better understand what’s been done and what’s left to do. Regardless of the cause or reason, each article revolves around the theme that while steps towards recovery have been made, real issues continue to plague families struggling through the recovery gauntlet. But this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Sandy impacted millions of people, and did incredible damage to infrastructure and the fabric of communities, so where is it written that 364 days later everything has to be fixed? Most articles question the progress, or lack thereof and ask “what’s holding up the recovery process?” While valid, in reading those same articles I ask if anyone has stopped to consider that it may be dubbed “Long” Term Recovery for a reason, and that it could be due to the fact that holistic rehabilitation takes time.

Because recovery is unique to the community impacted, it’s tough to measure progress without benchmarks. And creating generic benchmarks can’t be done because in each community different demographic sets were impacted--differently. All you can do is track what’s been done on a timeline so that in the future you have something to measure against, to create community-specific recovery data that can be the beginnings of benchmark creation. The long-term recovery of a town or county is a herculean task, when you multiply that by the size and population density of Sandy impacted areas, the scale of recovery needed for the mid-Atlantic region borders on Sisyphean.

I don’t bring that up as a scapegoat for broken programs or inefficient bureaucracy, I bring it up because it’s easy to lose sight of the enormity of the task when reading about how “little” has been done. So instead of adding to the cacophony of damning stats and stories of those still battling the federal government for recovery dollars, I choose to look at the two schools of thought that have added to the complexity of the recovery efforts and have helped set its tempo.

The dueling narratives at work in the mid-Atlantic region are not surprising, one focused on speed and the other trying to be more thoughtful in its approach to recovery. What is surprising is how they have the ability to spur progress and what directions that progress takes.

Restore the Shore

The cries that no act of god or mother nature will keep us from our homes are common as a community dusts itself off and sets about putting the pieces of their lives back together. Following Sandy the phrase “restore the shore” was adopted across NJ and could be felt in many other coastal communities as an unofficial mantra. For NJ building back along the shore wasn’t a question, the question was how quickly it could happen. This fixation on speed was amplified by statements committing resources to building back in the midst of early recovery chaos; oftentimes these proclamations of civic hubris are more about political theater than actually implementing recovery programming, but, it fed the mentality that there was no other course than to build it back, and to do so as quickly as possible. Part of the impetus for speed is due to many of the seaside communities relying heavily on tourism to keep their doors open and the boardwalk and other nostalgic throwbacks are what draw people to the shore year after year.

When Moore, OK was struck for the 5^th time in just over a decade by an EF-5 tornado, people were throwing walls and trusses together to get on with their lives as soon as they could—just as they always had. However, it was only until some questioned whether repeating the storm/construction cycle that contributed to the loss of life and property was the best course of action, and asked whether changes should be enacted to building codes to mitigate future loss of life and property, did people pump the brakes on recovery. However, in the face of intense pressure, no changes to Moore’s building codes have taken affect, so all those who have rebuilt are not subject to any changes that would make their homes more resilient in the face of the next storm. Build it back and get on with life dictated the tempo in Moore and while I don’t wish a repeat storm, I don’t know what it will take for people to wake up.

Bob Bielk/The Asbury Park Press, via Associated Press

In September of this year the rebuilt boardwalk in Seaside Park and Seaside Heights, NJ burned down taking significant sections of commercial property along with it. The cause of the blaze was faulty wiring. Investigators found that wiring that had been completely submerged by the storm surge had not been replaced and was overlooked in the rush to reopen the boardwalk. While the loss of the newly built boardwalk and iconic businesses are tragic, some believe that instead of re-rebuilding a boardwalk that would get washed away in a future storm, maybe this is would be an opportunity to explore options that preserve the shore as an economic driver while also incorporating measures that would mitigate the damage form a future storm of equal or greater magnitude. Those hoping for a pause on construction were disappointed when Governor Christie promised additional recovery dollars to be earmarked for boardwalk construction in an effort to get ready for next year’s summer season.

While getting families back in their homes and re-opening businesses are the foundational elements of community recovery, the above are two higher profile examples of how haste can work against the underlying efforts driving recovery. 

Resilient Communities

The other narrative at play, one that’s not quite as popular as it doesn’t have a catchy slogan is the idea that seaside communities have been given an opportunity to rethink their future. That instead of building back to pre-storm conditions, new construction techniques and approaches to planning can make communities less susceptible to storm surges and high wind events, while fulfilling traditional civic needs. Some, like retired coastal geologist Orrin Pilkey take a stronger stance, urging people to retreat from the coast in advance of what will be stronger storms and rising seas. While Mr. Pilkey may be in the minority, there is a growing call for substantive action on the part of those in charge to restore natural marsh and wetlands. These natural sponges absorb storm surge and many were filled in for property development. Their return would be a natural mitigation measure that would lessen future storm impacts while improving the eco-systems of coastal habitats that help drive tourism. Another well-received natural measure is the creation of dunes to mitigate the impacts of high winds and storm surge. In addition to these natural solutions, there are design contests and other actions tied to the receipt of federal dollars that are trying to shake communities out of the build it back mentality.

 

Credit: CT Audubon Society

While the resilient approach to reducing impacts of future Sandy-like storms that will be the new normal seem like the only way forward, much of the call for building resilience into recovery has only been talk up to this point.

So how do you measure the speed of recovery? And whose benchmarks are you going to use? These questions are central to how the next 12 months will play out along the mid-Atlantic region. Many homeowners just want the ability to go home and are pushing for dollars to achieve that end, while others worry that the home they go back to will be at risk the next time a storm rumbles up the east coast.

Like most things in disaster response and recovery, there is no clear way forward. It’s up to those entrusted to oversee the process to strike a balance that works in getting people back in their homes while incorporating as many mitigation measures as possible to reduce future storm impacts.

Which side makes the most sense to you? 

Wind Mapping

Wind, it can ruin picnics and turn an enjoyable day at the beach into an unexpected sandblasting. These mysterious forces create the waves we surf and cool us on the hottest of days, but to many, the wind, how it's formed and why it acts the way it does reamins a mystery.

In the West, the Santa Ana winds wreck havoc, in the Midwest it's Tornadic winds that keep people looking over their shoulders, in the Mississippi River Valley Derecho's are becoming more regular, and on the East and Gulf Coasts, there are Hurricanes. While I won't profess to be smart enough to be able to communicate the intricacies of wind, it's formation, etc...I do know that seeing something that is usually only felt, is another way to help conceptualize it, which is why the wind mapping I found at hint.fm is so cool. As they put it, their wind maps are living portraits of the winds over the US...while the image below is static, go here and you'll see what they mean by 'living portrait.'

They have the disclaimer that their maps are for art purposes and not science, but it's still a unique way to visualize something that is only felt and not seen.

B9S4XJZ63EBC

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.

So where exactly did all of the Sandy money go?

Yesterday I posted about the massive $1.4 Million grant that Presbyterian Disaster Assistance received and the questions I have surrounding the award and how the public can measure the return on that investment. This morning I came across an article from Mother Jones covering similar issues, specifically: "What Happened To The Money Occupy Sandy Raised?"

The article examines a growing discontent over how some organizations, specifically Occupy Sandy, have, through a perceived lack of transparency and community inclusion, not been honest about how the remainder of Sandy donations are going to be dispersed, when, and to whom on the Rockaway Peninsula. 

A Train service restored to Rockaway Peninsula (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

The article also points out that there is no clear picture of how the money that has been raised by Occupy Sandy has been spent; this is due to a lack of tracking and documentation, an oversight that almost every spontaneous group succumbs to in the craziness of response and something that needs to addressed as a part of community preparedness moving forward.

What’s happening in the mid-Atlantic region is a shift from response to recovery, and with that the recognition that the coffers that were once brimming with an unprecedented number of donations from individuals, groups, and foundations, are now beginning to run low. Coupled with this dip is the understanding that beyond federal funding for beach restoration and mitigation projects, remains a list of projects that need time, attention, and most of all…money.

What this is creating is a catch-22 situation that centers on the idea of fiduciary stewardship. Throwing money off the back of the proverbial truck just because you have it and are being pressured to spend it, isn't the right approach...those who get it will be happy, those who don't will vilify you for not doing your due diligence in identifying the best way to stretch the limited dollars that are left. Yet the longer you hold onto the funds to identify innovative ways to stretch the remaining cash to impact as many people as possible, the more people scream about secrecy and exclusionary practices.

This catch 22 is fueled by the idea that your mission and operational focus is the most important and as such, you should be given the money to continue your work--given this rationale, satisfying everyone isn't possible. So in that regard, I can see why Occupy is taking their time, because once that money is gone…it’s gone, so why not take the time needed to ensure that it goes as far as possible and advances the recovery of as many as possible. Occupy Sandy's actions to this point give me no reason to believe that they will do anything other than what they’ve stated, which is transition the funding to local groups in the best, most responsible way possible (that’s me paraphrasing).

However, Occupy Sandy doesn’t get off scot-free. I believe those individuals and organizations that are dissatisfied with the lack of transparency and communication around how the remaining funds are to be spent and when, have every right to be vocal about their discontent. Saying inflammatory statements however is counter-productive and discredits the work that has been accomplished because you disagree with how long its taking to disperse money: 

“ If Occupy Sandy doesn't tell the Rockaways community how it plans to spend the rest of the money, I personally believe they have outstayed their welcome.” (see linked article for context) 

What many fail to recognize is that before the storm made landfall, Occupy Sandy didn’t exist; just like the other hundred or so groups that came about to solve community problems caused/exacerbated by the storm. While I appreciate the scrutiny being applied to Occupy in an effort to "keep them honest," lets not forget about the army of established non-profit organizations that came to the area and received significant donations as well. I haven't seen one article asking for an accounting of where/how those groups spent their donations and their the ones who are supposed to be model for how groups like Occupy Sandy learn to do response better. It would be interesting to put the same resources and scrutiny applied to Occupy Sandy to some of the more established disaster response non-profits who responded and compare and contrast findings.

All that to say, Occupy Sandy, get a plan for how you intend to spend the remaining money and publish an accounting of what you've spent and where thus far…if you don’t know, then tell us…you're not the first Spontaneous organization to be overwhelmed and not put the effort needed into tracking and documenting donations, and you won't be the last. And for those who are demanding answers, good for you…but remember that there are other organizations out there with track records of disaster response who also received copious amounts of donor dollars flying under the radar, why not ask for an accounting of their donations received vs. dollars spent on community programming...you might be surprised by what you find. 

$1.4 Million dollar grant to Presbyterians for Volunteer Housing?!?!

Please read this press release found on Disaster News first to get background so that we start on the same page.

Now, please forgive the incredulity as I know what it takes to find housing for 50+ volunteers in disaster areas during immediate response, it's not easy, and even when it does work, there are always problems. But when learning about the grant from the Red Cross to Presbyterian Disaster Assistance (PDA) for $1.4 million dollars to "setup and coordinate volunteer housing" my jaw dropped.

Before I get into it, if anyone has any additional information on the details of this grant and would like to share them...please do, because it's in the details that I hope an explanation can be found. In going to the PDA site, you need to search to find any mention of it and in the world of disaster response this is a big deal...so what gives, where's the pomp and circumstance?

In the immediate aftermath of a disaster the need for housing is great, for displaced families, for first responders from outside the immediate area, for Federal officials, and also for Volunteers groups. Depending on the size/scope/type of disaster, the availability or lack thereof of housing can create a panic. This could be seen in the New York metro area following Sandy where housing was scarce and the need was great, and the influx of people overwhelmed what little was available. I spent several weeks knocking on doors before finding suitable space on Staten Island and on Long Beach on Long Island. All that to say, I understand what goes into setting up volunteer housing.

The reason why my jaw dropped is because setting up volunteer housing for 50+ people had a price tag closer to $1-2,000 mostly spent on infrastructure improvements: showers, shelving, secure storage, etc...and PDA now has $1.4 million?

To better understand how PDA does Volunteer housing, I found this document that outlines their Volunteer Village model. In the document you will see that the individuals responsible for running these villages are volunteers, so there is no cost for personnel to run the sites. In addition, there is a $20/person/night charge for staying on-site, presumably to cover utilities and upkeep. In addition to that, these villages don't take individuals...so it's not a holistic volunteer housing solution because it doesn't accommodate Individual Volunteers who need a place to sleep.

So what exactly is PDA going to do with $1.4 Million dollars? Even if they setup 100 volunteer housing sites in the mid-atlantic region, as far as I understand it, they are a cost neutral proposition. Even if PDA took between 5-10% and used it for admin/salaries...there's still well over $1 Million to spend on this and I just don't see how.

I would love to see what the plan is, how many sites will be setup, when, and for how long? How many Volunteers are to be housed under the terms of the grant? Where is this money going exactly? How do Long Term Recovery Groups feel about this in the Mid-Atlantic region? Is PDA a pro-bono subcontractor now?

A lot of questions come to mind and I'm short on answers. I realize I'm owed nothing, but a greater degree of transparency would be helpful especially as articles are beginning to pop up asking where, why, or why not Sandy Recovery funds have been spent...and this massive grant, a first of its kind if I'm not mistaken, is flying under the radar.