Social Good Summit: Day 1

Day 1 of the Social Good Summit and I'm in recovery. Today was a mind melting, rapid-fire, Ted-styled idea jam™. Six hours of captivating stories, innovative ideas, and compelling calls to action, from how technology is playing a central role in combating malaria, to the quest for conflict free technology and the dark-side of society's techno-fetish. The discussions and conversations had today were and continue to be a lot to process. 

The theme of this years Social Good Summit is #2030NOW, building on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) created in 2000 to help to guide the discussion for what the post-2015 conversation will look like...with 2030 being the metaphorical finish line.

Giving yourself 15 years to tackle significant systemic issues impacting the global human condition--to say that's ambitious would be an understatement. So with 2015 fast approaching, the UN issued a progress report in July giving a state of the union on where things stand related to the MDGs:

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/mdg-report-2013-english.pdf

So what does any of this have to do with the Social Good Summit? Even with the report citing some amazing progress being made, due to a myriad of factors, the MDGs won't be realized by the original deadline. So instead of dropping it, a Post-2015 Agenda is being created, and because things have changed since the MDGs were created, like new instruments to measure impact and new approaches conceived at conferences like Rio+20, a shift in the approach to the post-2015 agenda is needed.

Enter the Social Good Summit.

While the purpose of the Summit isn't to write the book on how to approach life after 2015, it is talking about how to continue chipping away at the MDGs and to do so with greater efficiency. Since 2000 there has been explosive growth in the development and application of technology, mobile or otherwise, in addressing many of the societal issues outlined by the MDGs. By bringing together leaders in industry, the humanitarian sector, education, nonprofits, and the social media sphere to talk about what's working and what isn't, the resulting nuggets of wisdom gained through trial and error can hopefully be incorporated into how 2015 and beyond is approached.

Bring on Day 2.

Failure isn't a four letter word

When we fall short of reaching our goals we tend to quietly sweep it under the rug and move on; no one shouts from the rooftops about how they missed the mark, which is both surprising, and not.

It’s not surprising because no one likes admitting when things don’t go according to plan, especially when there are expectations associated with the outcomes: donor, beneficiary, volunteer, and otherwise.

It is surprising however, in light of the talk about “professionalizing” the disaster response sector. In working for a smaller disaster-response non-profit I was forced to do more with less, as a result, I needed to know a little about a lot. Because I’m kind of a dork, I started reading management books to help broaden my horizons and understanding around non-profit type things, books like: ‘the 5 dysfunctions of a team’, and ‘the 4 secrets every great manager should know’, etc… And while there were a lot of commonalities, the one thing that was repeatedly said was: don’t be afraid to fail, and failure is the greatest teacher.

If that’s true, why is it that the business world is embracing failure and being rewarded for it through innovation and massive profits, while we in disaster response manage to avoid the subject entirely and have to fight for dollars? If we’re serious about “professionalizing” what we do, I believe open and honest conversations about where gaps persist are needed so that planning can take place, benchmarks can be set, and communication can be directed to ensure accountability in our evolution as a sector of practitioners.

We push for transparency around: financial stewardship, the communication of program impacts, our role within community response and recovery, etc...However, I’ve yet to read an article by an organization about a time where they didn’t accomplish what they set out to do. Is that due to a fear that if we tell funders that we came up short that we won’t get grants renewed and funding will dry up? Is it complacency? Is it a lack of definition around roles and responsibilities? Or is it that we’re just not failing? Of course I don’t want our Search and Rescue personnel to fail, nor do I want to prolong a communities recovery so that we can "figure things out", but if we continually come to the same conclusions as to the challenges and gaps faced when conducting response and recovery operations, why aren’t we as a sector jumping on the failure bandwagon by trying new things and seeing what works?

Recognizing the need for an open dialogue/forum on the subject of failure, Engineers without Boarders began the site: www.admittingfailure.com. A place where stories of magnificent flops can be shared and what was learned as a result. After watching the Occupy Sandy debrief trailer the questions of why we aren’t embracing failure as a sector keep coming up in my head.

So maybe we don't need to shout it from the rooftops, but how about we submit 3 things we could've done better as response transitions to recovery in Moore, OK and the surrounding communities. Submit them to NVOAD to begin a base of institutional response knowledge, put them into a hat, pull them out, and talk about them so that we can figure out ways to ensure that the next time we respond that the same challenges don't persist. 

Honesty is the best policy and failure is the best teacher...if we can't be honest with each other enough to admit where we can be better, how are we going to learn from our mistakes in an effort to avoid making them again in the future?

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)

Funding Disaster Preparedness and Community Resilience

I recently posted about the Rockefeller Foundation and their move to create a $100 Million Preparedness fund, something that will hopefully change the mindsets of how private donors and foundations view the funding of disaster-related initiatives.  

Any opportunity to challenge traditional funding mindsets is important and I believe by Rockefeller establishing this fund, the current funding trickle that disaster organizations fight over can turn into a steady flow for disaster-related operations and programming. While establishing consistent access to funding is key, I believe there may be a larger opportunity connected to what Rockefeller is doing; I believe there may be an opportunity to leverage this fund, or the idea that spurred the creation of this fund, in a way that can work to create an environment of accountability in reporting, coordination, and the creation of standards to improve the unity of effort around preparedness and community resilience.

Challenge

The current landscape for disaster funding comes as a reaction to events and as such is based around a shorter-term view of how to measure impact. A great number of donors have their own ideas of what “success” is as it relates to preparedness, response, and recovery, with little overlap existing between those ideas. This diversity makes generating consensus around standards in any facet of the disaster life cycle difficult because everyone is beholden to different funders—for many of whom disaster response is not a part of their mission / mandate.

With the push for broader inclusion around the ideas of resilience and preparedness at a local level, and the money to back it predominately coming through state agencies to local/county Emergency Management Agencies (EMA), there is little room to support those at the ground level through education and planning to further the ideas of resilience beyond its current state.

Opportunity

As a philanthropic leader, The Rockefeller Foundation can as part of its existing preparedness fund, or with the creation of a separate fund, begin to implement a standards-based grant program that offers money for preparedness and resilience focused initiatives. In exchange for accepting funding, community based organizations would have to adopt an operational framework and common standards that relate to disasters that scale to meet needs, and can be easily replicated. Sounds easy, right? We know money is a means to an end, and we’ve seen the success of this funding model with the dollars flowing from the Federal government to City, County, and State EMA. As long as NIMS/ICS compliance is maintained, State Agencies remain eligible for Federal dollars, which is what a large percentage of their operational budgets are derived from.

The result is consistency in action across City, County, and State EMA, something that hasn’t been possible in the non-profit world. The reason why there is uniformity of effort and a greater consistency in language amongst the federal family is because of the strings attached to available dollars requiring compliance with NIMS/ICS.

I believe The Rockefeller Foundation can be the financial muscle that gets the ball rolling for a similar initiative amongst disaster response and community resilience focused non-profits. With the help of IAEM, CNCS, NVOAD, FEMA and other leaders in the sector, the creation of a commonly accepted framework for the preparedness and response can be built with a financial incentive for adopting it.

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. 

The Good for Nothing Club*

 
Civic Engagement: Community Disaster Relief Wagon from Lori H. Ersolmaz on Vimeo.

The reason I posted this video is because it captures the spirit of so many people who just start helping after a disaster...whether it's flying across the country and renting a U-Haul to create a mobile kitchen, or helping someone cleanup their home, the power of people helping people is pretty amazing.

The other reason I posted it is because I think this video captures the sentiment of a lot of Spontaneous Unaffiliated Volunteers (SUVs) and their motivations for getting involved, which I believe is an important first step in being able to setup systems that work with this type of mentality. Better understanding the motivations of SUVs will help to create dynamic and flexible systems of coordination that support these types of individuals on a local level, while working to integrate them into the broader response context instead of ignoring or marginalizing them and their impacts.

Have a good weekend...see you on Monday.

* The good for nothing club, people who do "good" for "nothing." Kinda corny...but I like it.

The Digital Divide

While the rapid evolution of technology appears to be the panacea for what ails communities struggling with preparedness, response, and recovery issues, it's important to remember that not everyone has the same access to, or comfort with existing or newer technological innovations. While the technologist is pushing the envelope and creating new opportunities to utilize technological platforms following disasters, there are a lot of people out there who don't fall under the digital umbrella.

Dubbed 'The Digital Divide,' the below infographic does a good job of highlighting some of the remaining challenges to the widespread adoption of technology; however, what the infographic fails to include is the aging population and how the internet usage of those 65 and older are only at 42 percent according to livescience.com. Given that the focus of so many organizations following an event is on addressing the needs of vulnerable populations like the elderly, their lack of access to reliable communications has, and will continue to hamper the communication of critical information before, during, and after an event.

As we look to technology to spur innovation and enable resource strapped muncipalities to do more with less, we must remember that crucial stakeholders aren't currently a part of the preparedness/resilience conversation. I believe that civic engagement and tech innovation are essential to mitigating the loss of life during an event and leveraging the support given after, but that it's up to the communications providers to put the infrastructure in place and offer reliable services so that the innovations can have an impact.

Hacking our way towards Resilience

The concepts of preparedness and whole of community are being pushed to the forefront of the conversation when talking about creating community resilience; transforming them from abstract ideas and words used in grant proposals, to tangible ideas and actions.

Civic engagement and the growing base of concerned and motivated individuals rallying around the idea that they can create a tangible impact on their community through technological ideation is spurring a wave of innovation. It's casting a broad net that is reaching a new breed of disaster practitioner--the technologist. An example of this transition can be seen in the integration of technology in civic activism through groups like Code for America and events like the national day of civic hacking. These forms of civic engagement have also worked to influence disaster response and recovery.

http://h4d2.eu/ (Hackathon for Disaster Response 2.0)

http://codeforamerica.org/2013/05/31/be-part-of-something-big-this-weekend/

http://hackeroo.io/

http://rockawayhelp.com/

https://www.hackerleague.org/

The recent surge in civic engagement has predominately come in the form of Hackathons; a hackathon being an "event in which computer programmers and others involved in software development, including graphic designers, interface designers and project managers, collaborate intensively on software projects" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackathon). The focus or theme around these events is to address a community-based issue and they are drawing bright, young innovators to the table and are producing some surprising ideas and apps centered around the idea of Peer-to-Peer disaster recovery / survivor-centric response. 

With the recognition that technology and mobile platforms are rapidly changing how the business of disaster response and recovery is conducted, the focus of some of these coding marathons is to address the challenges communities face as they work through the turbulence of community-wide recovery. The resources are out there as well as a loose infrastructure needed to galvanize a community around the cause of streamlined/expedited disaster response and recovery...all that remains is the will to push it forward and make it a reality.

Given the popularity and explosive growth civic hacking has experienced, I believe there is  an opportunity for National VOAD and FEMA's Innovation advisory team to sponsor a disaster hackathon of their own. Organizing and leveraging the ideas and spirit of civic engagement to address the common challenges of community-wide response and recovery, is a way to create resilience and engage a constituency that has the 'local touch' and can provide the context needed to make the apps relevant with the backing of national coalitions and entities that can push for widespread adoption.

SF72.org

There's a lot of talk about community preparedness and whole of community engagement when we talk of disasters; however, the transition from talk to action is a precarious path filled with budget cuts and opposing viewpoints on how preparedness dollars should be spent.

SF72.org is a site created by the SF Dept of Emergency Management and shows a progressive approach to changing mindsets around preparedness. While it's only a video, I believe it's a step in the right direction that will resonate with people and work to start a dialogue around creating more resilience in communities, especially communities in the bay area where the earthquake threat is real.

The site is still relatively new but the video is a nice introduction and hopefully a sign of more good things to come...



SF72. This is our city. from crowcrag on Vimeo.