What We Have is a Failure to Communicate

There are few sounds that instill a sense of foreboding more so than the Emergency Alert System tones. Our response (well mine anyway) is Pavlovian, which I suppose is a good thing...however, recent events beg the question, what happens when these alert messages come too late or not at all, and who’s to blame?

Crisis communication and emergency notification are continual challenges for city and county agencies because when they get it right no one knows it, but when it goes wrong, the results play out publicly.

Issuing a warning isn’t easy or straightforward. In order to reach people, you need the means to do so, whether it’s a reverse 911 system, the Emergency Alert System, a network of sirens, or some other mass notification means, you need a way of sending a message. Then you have to account for the different languages spoken in your communities, or more specifically, the languages in the area you're notifying. In Alameda County alone (where I live) there are at least 53 different languages spoken; once you’ve figured out where those languages are spoken, you're halfway there. Next, you have to craft a message that concisely gets your point across and does so in a way that works in the languages you need to contact. Finally, when crafting your messaging and selecting the mechanism for distribution, you need to take into account that some of your population may not be able to read, have a hearing impairment, have a cognitive impairment, have issues with mobility, don’t have a computer or smart phone, or access to cable or news radio.

And while you might think that if the process were to breakdown, the point of failure would be in overlooking one of the aspects of communication mentioned above; however, as recent events illustrate (Oroville & San Jose), the delay often comes in hitting send.

Like most things related to public safety, there's a lot of trust involved; but trust is fickle under the best of circumstances, and trust in government even more so. Maintaining that trust requires prudent judgement, especially if you’re the one in charge of making the ‘go / no go’ decision on warning people in advance of an emergency, because what if you’re wrong? What if variables suddenly change, what if the message doesn’t have the intended effect, or people don’t get the message at all?

In 2011 Hurricane Irene did a great deal of damage in the Catskills Region of New York State, significantly impacting the State of Vermont and many other places along the eastern seaboard and Caribbean. However, even in the face of Irene being the 7th costliest Hurricane to spin through the Atlantic, what many took away from that experience was that Hurricane Irene was the storm that wasn't. The Mayor's Office in New York City took a hit, the media took a hit, and the credibility of those responsible for public safety was dinged for over-reacting.

In 2014 Hurricane Sandy was forecast to hit New York...similar warnings were issued by the Mayor’s office, the media, and social media that a Hurricane with significant storm surge was going to impact New York City and Long Island, those warnings largely fell on deaf ears.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Which brings us to the handling of the Oroville Dam Crisis, which is summed up best in the following:

                              KC Green

Understanding that the situation in Oroville was constantly evolving means some slack must be given, with flow rates over the unknown and untested emergency spillway being a giant question mark. It doesn't however change the fact that not four hours before the evacuation order was issued, the public was told that everything was under control...when clearly it wasn't.

To go from 'everything is fine' to having the next communication most people receive being this, is problematic:

A similar situation followed shortly after in San Jose, CA when the Coyote creek overflowed its banks requiring the evacuation of 14,000 people from nearby subdivisions. This time however, instead of being told to evacuate at the 11th hour, the city didn't issue anything and residents are understandably upset.

If communicating risk and managing expectations is what this is all about (and in my opinion, it is), then how do we expect our elected officials and managers to balance between being too 'knee-jerk' to being 'too little too late,' if both risk and expectations are inherently subjective? It feels like a lose-lose situation to me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not begrudging anyone their righteous indignation for how the above situations were "managed"…and I don’t think this is something that should be glossed over. What I do have agita about though, is having people believe that pointing the blame solely at elected officials is an answer that will bring about change.

I believe that improvements need to be made in how governments communicate risk and to be better in transparently communicating that risk regardless of circumstance. I also believe the public needs to take a hard look at what they can do to better prepare themselves in advance of future events. Blaming others for our ills is a national pastime, but when we fail as individuals to examine what we currently do (which is often very little) to what we know should be done, we are dooming ourselves to repeat these scenarios again and again. 

Northridge 20 years later

At 4:31am 20 years ago residents of Southern California were jolted awake by a 6.7 magnitude quake that lasted for 30 seconds. What was soon dubbed the Northridge Earthquake was a reminder for many residents that Southern California is firmly between the cross hairs of the San Andreas Fault.

The ABC coverage above shows what happened: neighborhoods on fire, no electricity, no water, elevated freeway collapse, and a lot of uncertainty. But that was 20 years ago, that couldn't happen now...could it? 

In this article "Buildings Vulnerable 20 years after Northridge Quake" Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti is quoted as saying:

"We're as well prepared as any city in America, which is to say we're unprepared...I don't think anybody in America is very well prepared ... There's always going to be an earthquake we can't be prepared for."

And while that isn't the resounding vote of confidence you hope for from the Mayor of a city with more than 12 million people a stone's throw from the San Andreas fault...you have to wonder, if the Mayor has this type of attitude, then why are hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent annually to fund Regional Catastrophic Planning Teams ($857,000 in 2011/2012 (see pg 106) and upgraded Emergency Operations Centers ($400,000)?

If you look at my completely unscientific method of earthquake prediction you'll notice that the last major earthquake before Northridge was the Sylmar quake in '71--a 6.6 in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Sylmar was roughly 20 years before Northridge and today marks the passage of 20 years since, and it feels like disaster amnesia has wholly enveloped Southern California...so much so that the mayor seems to have a "well...what can ya do?" mindset.

Growing a culture of preparedness in a diverse region of 12+ million people is no small feat, but when a significant number of residential structures continue to remain at risk 20 years later, the supply chains and infrastructure that criss-cross the San Andreas remain vulnerable, and preparedness is a foreign concept to a generation of people that weren't alive in '94, it becomes apparent that there is a lot to do and it feels like we're living on borrowed time.

So unless you're an engineer or have deep pockets and can throw money at this, I encourage you to take a few simple steps to help prepare:

• Buy some MRE's (Meals ready to eat)
• Get some Water: 1 gallon / day / person (3-5 day supply -- more is better)
• Flashlights and batteries (candles tend to burn homes down during aftershocks)
• A hand crank radio for news updates and if needed, a charge of your phone
• Have some cash, preferably smaller bills (not all ATM's will be knocked out but why take that chance?)
• Extra Medication / eye glasses 
• Know where your water and gas meters are and how to turn them off (fires will be a major problem)
• Create a meeting point with your friends / family so that if you're separated you know where to go and when to be there

There is more you can and should do, but this is a start. Listen to the podcast below for 2 surprising facts about the most common injuries after Northridge and how you can prevent them from happening to you.

Being an alarmist never does anyone any good, but you also want to be ready...an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The Future of Long Term Recovery

Last week marked the 1 year anniversary of Hurricane Sandy making landfall in the mid-Atlantic region. These large scale events offer an opportunity that many communities aren't afforded, an exact quantification of progress, a cataloguing of what's been done, and a questioning of what has not. Many smaller events, like the flooding in Texas or the recent blizzard in North Dakota are examples of disasters that strike, but that won't necessarily be revisited by our collective consciousness--they are blips that quickly fade into the noise of the 24 hour news cycle. While larger events like: the Haiti Earthquake, Hurricane Katrina, and the Japanese Earthquake/Tsunami too will fade in time, their anniversaries are opportunities to refocus attention at the less straightforward side of disasters--Long Term Recovery.

Long Term Recovery as a topic for general discussion is one that doesn't get much attention even though it's a process that all communities impacted by an event must go through; partially because Long Term Recovery (LTR) isn't sexy, but more because it's incredibly intricate and difficult to distill into easily digestible stories. Last week there were countless articles asking why more hasn't been done, and whether the progress that has been made is the right direction to be headed in. And while it's great that attention is being paid to the recovery of communities that have largely fallen out of the spotlight, I'm not convinced that it's a viable way to impact the national dialogue on improving what's being done.

Recovery Continuum, NDRF: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/recoveryframework/ndrf.pdf

And therein lies the challenge--how do you change the recovery paradigm? How do you impact what's being done? In the world of response, both short term and intermediate, the loop from start to finish is anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. This quick lifecycle makes it easier to try new things and track their relative success or failure. With Long Term Recovery, the identification of best practices and the integration of their revisions are different because LTR operates on timelines measured in years, not months. In addition to LTR's duration, there is no clearly identified "finish" line, what a completed recovery for one community looks like may not necessarily coincide with that of another. This discrepancy creates additional challenges when trying to compare the impacts of programming carried over from one LTR response to another.

In recognition of these challenges, FEMA issued a report spanning 7 years of Long Term Recovery, from 2004-2011. This report was created in an effort to provide guidance and a baseline from which to codify best practices implemented during the LTR timeframe. While shorter than many federal documents, clocking in at 69 pages, it's a long read that can be difficult to dig into if you're not a) interested in the subject or b) in the midst of navigating LTR.

So, LTR is tough to improve upon because it operates on a timeline that makes reviewing successful best practices and evolving them difficult, and the federal reporting to aid in that process isn't written for the audience it would benefit the most. So the question remains...how do you influence Long Term Recovery?

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/rebuild/ltrc/2011_report.pdf

The best way to positively influence the recovery paradigm is to take the nuggets of wisdom compiled from previous events and integrate them into preparedness planning and frameworks (I realize that isn't groundbreaking). In working with communities that have gone through the paces of early recovery and are faced with the dramatic slowing of progress as LTR gets off the ground, people have generally said the same thing, that they wish they knew then what they know now. While papers have been written on the challenges of creating preparedness messaging that resonates with communities that creates action, the disconnect that exists between words and action in this realm is surprising given the facts:

• Survivors have communicated that they wish they knew what to expect during response and recovery
• There is a federal focus on building resilience involving the whole of community
• By investing $1 in preparedness, $5 is saved in recovery
• The trend in major events causing billions in damages is increasing
• A Climate Change Executive Order calling for federal agencies and local governments to include the impacts of climate change into their planning for future projects was just issued

In light of the above information and the fact that it's nothing many of us haven't been aware of for some time, why is making progress in the one area of the disaster lifecycle where it matters most, seemingly impossible? With so many organizations and state agencies out there who focus on building community resilience as a part of their mission, coupled with the availability of federal funding and the beginnings of a call for elected officials to become better versed in the language of emergency response, who would've thought that gaining ground in this area would be such a fight?

Nonprofit response and recovery plays catch up, always starting after the event has done the damage. Any efficiencies gained on the reactive side of the disaster spectrum would be welcome, but I believe there is near universal agreement that the opportunities exist within the realm of preparedness. So if history has illustrated the need, science tells us that the future is going to bring more of the same or worse, math backs up the economics of investing in preparedness, and the government has said that the focus should be on building community resilience--what exactly is holding things up?

The future of LTR doesn't exist in a new program or refinement of its model. The future exists in finding the political will to fund what we already know, and give communities a chance to implement changes before the articles written commemorating the next event that irrevocably altered the fabric of a community, are about them.

Surviving a blackout

When the lights went out in NYC for a few hours there were inconveniences for people and losses for business. However, it was only for a few hours and people chalked it up to a once in a lifetime experience.

While many hope that's the case, the aging power grid and books like 'One Second After' point to the potential for a more protracted "lights out" scenario. 

American Blackout is a special that National Geographic will be airing on Oct 27th that explores what a protracted blackout scenario would look like. While I don't know if I'll tune in, I did checkout the interactive website. It breaks down what a 10-day blackout scenario would look like for an individual and I think the format is something that would be interesting to see applied to the broader world of preparedness. It's engaging, interactive, and kept me clicking. 

If you want to kill some time, check it out. 

Do you know of something similar? Leave a comment below, I would like to see what else is out there. 

Survive The Blackout

http://www.survivetheblackout.com/

Cyclone Phailin heralds the winds of change

It was as if the news media was so starved from a lack of Hurricane activity in the Atlantic that when Cyclone Phailin quickly intensified from a Category 1 to a 4 in just over 24 hours, the internet exploded at the prospect of dramatic news coverage. Never mind that Super Typhoons Utor and Usagi in the Pacific caused widespread damage earlier this year to little domestic fanfare. 

What captured everyone's attention is that Cyclone Phailin underwent explosive intensification, leaving little time for Indian Authorities to alert the densely populated coast where Phailin was due to strike. With memories of the 'Himalayan Tsunami' that killed thousands in June still fresh on everyone's minds, the prospect of a Category 4 Cyclone hitting the coast seemed impossible. Couple this with the fact that the US Navy's Joint Typhoon Warning Center was calling into question the reports the IMD (Indian Meteorological Department) was issuing, claiming they were downplaying the speed and the intensity of the storms potential impacts, and it looked as if a major humanitarian crisis were about to unfold before our eyes.

photo credit: Luke Villapaz 

In a bold move, the State government of Odisha publicized their intent to make Cyclone Phailin a 'zero casualty' event and conducted the mass evacuation of all citizens within 5km of the coast. Local leaders went through towns and villages aggressively moving close to 1 million individuals and families out of harms way to the network of shelters built after the 1999 Cyclone that killed 10,000.

The outcome is that the number of deaths reported are at 14 and expected to climb but not by much, major thoroughfares were cleared of debris within 24 hours, train service has been restored, and the power to much of the impacted states will begin to be restored on Monday. 

While damage assessments are ongoing and the true scope of Phailin's impacts are still being calculated, it would appear that India has managed to take lessons learned from the past and apply them to a current crisis and actually have it pay dividends. India has just proved to the world that investing in disaster preparedness is a worthwhile proposition. Even in the face of governmental turnover, political infighting, a massive geographic area in which to implement the plan, and over a decade to let disaster amnesia sink in, the rapid evacuation of close to a million people and what appears to be the speedy restoration of access and infrastructure point to the fact that India got it right.

As reports emerge about what recovery will look like, it'll be interesting to read how the increase in mobile technology aided in the delivery of critical information that helped expedite evacuations.

It also raises the question, while we're still less than a decade out from Katrina making landfall, how would we fare if faced with another Katrina-like storm hitting the Gulf Coast? Would we rise to the occasion, learning from the past or are we doomed to make the same mistakes again and again?

International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction

This Sunday, October 13th, marks International Disaster Risk Reduction Day. This year's theme focuses on 'Individuals with Disabilities and Disasters.' Given the approximately 1 billion people around the world that live with some form of disability, talking about how to better incorporate and account for them in the planning process is a critical and often overlooked aspect of disaster preparedness.

It's surprising that given the focus on building resilience at a local level as a means of reducing a community's dependence on outside resources following an event, that accounting for people with disabilities within community preparedness, or disaster risk reduction is not talked about more.

A recent example of this was the number of the aging population and individuals with mobility challenges stuck in high rises throughout the metro New York City area following Sandy. No plans were in place to ensure wellness checks were conducted or that needed food, medication, etc. would get to those who needed it. The result was an undisclosed number of people stuck without food, water, power, medications, or information about what was happening and few people realizing it. This oversight became life threatening when temperatures dropped and a nor'easter blew through Metro NYC on Nov 7th.

Help raise awareness around this important aspect of preparedness by lending your voice and going to: http://www.unisdr.org/2013/iddr/ to learn more about how you can get the word out about this important aspect of community resilience.

https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/4931-disability-is-not-inability?locale=en

Resilient Infrastructure

During the government shutdown I mentioned that the Governor of Colorado has employed the National Guard to continue to restore critical infrastructure without the financial support of the federal government. The reason is that without these critical conduits, a number of communities in Colorado would remain cut off throughout the winter, exacerbating the damage done and potentially reframing the options families and municipalities have when they do get back to assess the damage. Frozen water will warp houses and blowout foundations-so the need for gaining access is critical to salvaging what's left in those communities.

And it got me thinking...when we talk about community preparedness, we don't talk about our nation's infrastructure which seemingly go hand-in-hand. Within the dept. of homeland security there is an entire office devoted to the protection of infrastructure but it's unclear (to me) who is responsible for it's maintenance and upkeep? Some Federal Agency? Is it the State's responsibility? And as I thought about it in the context of response and recovery, building in resilience and the issues of upkeep/maintenance are crucial.

But before we go further lets get on the same page as to what infrastructure is. My narrow-minded view limited infrastructure to: roads, bridges, and rail transport...but it turns out it, there's much more to it according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. Infrastructure ranges from: Aviation and Dams to Drinking Water, Energy, Hazardous Waste, Inland Waterways, Levees, Ports, and so much more.

To give you an idea of the enormity of the challenge associated with upkeep and maintenance, there are 600,000+ bridges in the US. and 1 in 9 of them is structurally deficient...and that's just bridges.

Given that we've defined infrastructure as basically everything that enables us to live the lives we're accustomed to--water from our faucets, goods in our stores, electricity at the ready, and schools to teach our children, how's all that infrastructure doing? Judging by recent history--not so good, remember The I-5 Skagit River Bridge Collapse in WA and the I-35W Mississippi Bridge Collapse? Of course that's only two events and bridge events at that, but when it comes to bridges...one is too many and given all the elements that makeup our infrastructure, any deficiency in one area will have an impact in others.

Since we've already determined that infrastructure is about much more than bridges, where do you go to better understand the current state of our infrastructure? You go to the Infrastructure Report Card put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Every 4 years the ASCE rates our infrastructure--this year, the US infrastructure received a D+ and the site above provides a very interactive way to why.

Regardless of whether you see the ASCE issuing this report as a massive conflict of interest or not, the fact remains that resilient infrastructure is an important building block to resilient communities. How will the Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power, the utility overseeing the water infrastructure in Los Angeles, providing 3.9 million people drinking water through 11,000+kms of piping in a very seismically active area, deal with the service disruptions caused by the next big earthquake? Thinking through these types of scenarios and integrating innovation that will work to improve infrastructure resilience will ultimately deburden those responsible for its restoration during response/early recovery.

It's in our best interest to ensure that our "infrastructure" as broadly encompassing a word as it is, be as resilient and up to date as possible so that when they are tested by a disaster it can be up and running as quickly as possible and while we're making gains--we need to be doing better.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/documents/2013-Report-Card.pdf

FEMA's Think Tank

The least innovative logo design

After highlighting the Social Good Summit (which I'm still soliciting input for), I began to look at what else is being done to solicit input and ideas from a broader audience to address the problems we face as a community of practice. Given the 'whole of community' push, events like the Social Good Summit miss the opportunity to hear from stakeholder's themselves, people who aren't in senior-level positions but still have something to say. So is there a forum for everyday people to have their voice heard? How is the whole of community being included in the process of ideation and innovation outside of response activities?

The answer, or part of the answer is the FEMA Think Tank. Some critics of the Federal Government may say that the title of the entity is an oxymoron, but the fact remains that a forum exists where anyone who believes they can contribute to the National conversation on community preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation, etc...has the opportunity to submit an idea.

The Think Tank has two main components, an online forum and a discussion session conducted by FEMA's Deputy Administrator Rich Serino.

Online Forum
This aspect of the Think Tank allows individuals to submit ideas, the community then reads and votes on each idea, the concept being, the higher the score, the more people agree. An aspect of this forum that I appreciate is the fact that you need to create a profile before submitting and/or voting. While the system can still be influenced, the gating factor seems to provide enough of a deterrent so that things aren't skewed too much in one direction or the other.

Discussion Sessions
This part of the Think Tank is equally as interesting. Based on the ideas generated from the online forum, conference calls are held by Deputy Administrator Rich Serino in an effort to engage a broader audience within emergency management and disaster response to discuss the ideas brought to light via the forum.

Critics have called this more of a dog and pony show than actually seeking out and stress testing new ideas, but the fact remains that it exists and is being used. The motivations for its creation can be questioned, but if people are gaining access to a senior level FEMA official to talk about ideas they have to better what we do, then I would say that its accomplishing something fairly unique.

FEMA is working not only with the public at large, it's also working to leverage the expertise of the private sector to help create solutions to persistent challenges in the disaster space. FEMA recently held a "Data Jam / Think Tank," and while the name sounds like something my Mom might have come up with, it attracted some savvy tech companies: Air BnB, twillo, google, Huffington Post's Social Impact to name a few, to focus on Innovating to improve Disaster Recovery.

Technology is empowering individuals, those who have gone through an event and those who haven't. It's giving everyone a chance to have a voice, and while having a voice is important, it's what you choose to say that ends up making a difference. And with outlets like the Think Tank and access to tools that previously didn't exist, what people choose to say is being magnified and making a difference.

Preparedness Messages in Music

Music is a great to raise awareness. How often have you woken up with a song stuck in your head? What if the lyrics bouncing through your brain contained relevant information instead of being about breaking up, falling in love, or working for the weekend?

The messages in music are powerful and KRS-One's "Disaster Kit" is no exception; it has a lot of good information and he even manages to make water purification rhyme.

And while listening to this may sound strange, using rap and other genres of music to spread unusual messages is taking root within the development community. USAID has funded programming in the Caribbean that uses music as a way for kids to relate to foreign subject matter and make it relevant to them. (http://blog.usaid.gov/2013/05/how-rap-music-is-saving-lives-in-the-Caribbean/)

However the messages are being spread, the fact that the preparedness message is being spread in such a unique way is great to see.



The below video makes you realize just how difficult it can be to create a song about disaster preparedness sound good.

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.

The Road to Recovery

An area where I believe significant benefit can be derived that would aid in the mitigation of the groundhogs day scenario many communities face when responding to and recovering from disasters, is to spend time looking at how other communities faced similar events and then adapt and evolve what they did to suit the idiosyncrasies of their community.

In an effort to see what's being done along those lines, I've made an effort to get my hands on more articles coming from the world of academia, to broaden and challenge my views on what can and should be done to promote resilience at a local level. I can't remember how I stumbled upon this one, but it comes to us from the 'Lincoln Institute of Land Policy' and is titled "The Road to Recovery."

https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2259_1598_The_Road_to_Recovery_0713LL.pdf

While any event adversely affecting individuals and families is unfortunate, it's good to know that there are people out there looking at and learning from previous disasters trying to find commonalities and lessons that can be shared. While it's good to know, I have a concern, with no disrespect to the good people at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, who's reading articles of this nature outside of the academic community and socially challenged individuals like me? How are we broadening the circle of knowledge and experience when articles that examine and try to synthesize what's worked and what hasn't, exist in obscure publications that no one outside the academic circles have heard of?

I say this because what this article covers is important; it examines the role of the various levels of government in recovery and rebuilding trying to find commonalities in "disparate environments" to help the recovery of future communities impacted by similar disasters. At a quick 8 pages you can consider this bathroom reading...but it wasn't the length that struck me though, it was what was said about Collaboration:

Supporting Collaboration: Building sustainable capacity and capability for long-term recovery through genuine collaboration and coordination, both horizontally among local groups and vertically among different levels of government. Vertically organized, hierarchical agencies—with clear organizational charts and streamlined channels of communication—are usually not well suited to manage disaster recovery, because the lack of “connecting flow” across vertical hierarchies limits collaboration as well as the flow of new and updated information among organizations. U.S. National agencies involved in recovery, for example, are more adept at administering individual programs than they are at solving complex problems that cut across governmental institutional boundaries. By contrast, horizontally organized agencies can promote interagency coordination and information sharing, allowing individual groups to adapt to new contexts and information while remaining responsible to their parent organization. 

(Pg 18)

And...
The reason I was struck was because it's brutally honest and makes sense given what I've seen during the transition from response to recovery. How this plays out at a local level is that Long Term Recovery Committees (LTRCs) are the horizontally organized representative coalitions of local organizations described above tasked with solving the complex problem of Long Term Community Recovery.

Quick sidebar: Long Term Recovery Committees are coalitions of local organizations and agencies established to administer the long term recovery of a community, allocating dollars to individuals and families who go through the unmet needs / case management process while organizing the voluntary workforce to stretch recovery dollars. For more information on LTRCs go here.

So if LTRCs, these horizontally organized coalitions are the right tool for the job and the research reinforces it, why aren't more communities being educated and walked through the formation of an LTRC before the next event as a part of resilience programming?

When LTRCs are setup after a disaster there is often considerable turbulence due to: the stress of going through response, the amount of money they are responsible for, the politics and influence at play, the newness of the relationships of the constituent members, and the fact that a community is looking to them for guidance and direction on how best to quickly and effectively put the pieces back together.

By proactively addressing this, we would give communities time to deal with the many challenges that come with LTRC formation without the pressure of an ongoing response effort. This luxury would expedite the organization of how monetary donations are handled as well as work to fast track the start of case management and ultimately the work of repair and rebuild.

Don't get me wrong, creating an LTRC is no small feat, but if the upsides are so great and every community impacted by a disaster will need to form one, why isn't more being done?

LTRC Resources
Church World Service leads the way with free LTRC training, and as linked above, National VOAD has a manual that outlines the processes and best practices that come with forming an LTRC. In addition to the material resources available, there are countless communities that have gone through this with just as many individuals to tap for advice and guidance.

Lets start building the foundations required for each aspect of disaster response and recovery now so that when something happens this isn't a surprise, this isn't the first time people are meeting and hearing about LTRCs. This is the low hanging fruit with a potential for significant impact...proactive education is free, resources are available, and yet we see the groundhogs day scenario play out again and again making the road to recovery a long one.

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.

A Lesson in Sharing

We talk about learning from the past so that we don't make the same mistakes in the future, systems are setup to help facilitate the sharing of lessons learned...but how effective are we at actually sharing?

How many of you know what LLIS.gov is? More importantly, how many of you actually have access to it? That repository of information is an example of a body of "best practice" that sits under-utilized due to access issues. LLIS is the "Lessons Learned Information Sharing site hosted by DHS. Lessons learned do no good when they're locked away...especially when there are communities out there thirsty for information; for better or worse, the sharing of what we do needs to be done better.

Lessons tend to be shared at conferences amongst smaller groups of people who have a lot of the same experiences and knowledge base. Given the variety of individuals who are getting involved at a local level and the growth of local actors in response activities, the need to know what's working and especially what isn't, has to be pushed out on a broader scale. The folks at Occupy have created a mini-documentary chronicling what worked and didn't and I would imagine that based on the success of their operations, many will watch and try to replicate what they did when a disaster strikes in their community. By Occupy chronicling what they did, how they did it, and intentionally pushing it out to the world, they are taking a more aggressive approach to transparency then I've seen the response community do in the past. And while it may not be perfect, I imagine it will be honest, straightforward and will resonate with those would-be responders in communities preparing for the next event.

I look forward to watching the full length production from Occupy and am hopeful that it isn't a prescriptive "how to" video but more of a chronicle of their experiences for others to learn from. Either way, I think the sharing of this information is a step in the right direction and hope that it spurs conversations about how it can be done better by more people in all facets of disaster.

CRO -- Chief Resilience Officer

In a move that hopefully signifies a change in how foundations and donors view funding disaster initiatives, the Rockefeller Foundation is blazing a path forward with the creation of a $100 Million Dollar Global Disaster Preparedness Fund. At the center of the fund is the "100 Resilient Cities Centennial Challenge," a global grant program that essentially works to incentivize the integration of resilience into urban and disaster planning. Those who win a grant award will receive funding for a "Chief Resilience Officer," an individual who will be responsible for oversight and implementation of the city's master recovery plan.

Beyond the initial PR splash, there are few details on the application / nomination process at this time, but will be something I watch for updates on given the questions an initiative of this nature raises. Since many cities already have robust preparedness plans in place, seeing how this position will integrate with those existing plans and where the position will sit within the Emergency Management hierarchy could be telling of how effective it will be. Will this position create another layer of planning and procedural bureaucracy that cities have to wade through, or will the Resilience Officer have the authority to begin to make sweeping changes to how cities define and enact resilience in the face of disasters? While much of the authority will most likely be derived from how and where the dollars are to be spent, it will be interesting to learn how the position is to be integrated in with the existing HR frameworks.

While I imagine cities are excited at the prospect of supplemental dollars in their preparedness coffers in light of dwindling federal money to support their efforts, non-profits should be equally excited or at the very least encouraged by this move. The quest for consistent funding for disaster-focused non-profits is all consuming and the results are often weak given the reluctance of foundations (public and private) to fund response activities...let alone general ops to keep the doors open.

The reason the creation of this fund with Rockefeller backing is so important, is because of the momentum and acceptance it will hopefully generate throughout the donor community when approached with opportunities to fund disaster initiatives. For the same reasons no one likes to go first for anything are the same reasons no one wants to be the first to fund something new.  

I'm hopeful that with the creation of this $100 million fund and the coverage it will generate, that mindsets will shift and the foundation world will recognize the importance of funding non-profit disaster-related initiatives associated with preparedness/response/recovery.

Shifts in mindsets move at a glacial pace when dollars aren't involved and a move of the type I would like to see happen would entail a lot of money, as a result, I don't see any radical changes happening anytime soon…but the creation of this fund is the first step in the right direction.