To declare, or not declare...that is the question...

Washington, IL November Tornado Source: imugr

While never having had the responsibility of sitting in a County Executive's position or position of even greater responsibility at the state level, I would imagine that when a disaster strikes, they are conflicted: on the one hand they worry about the safety of their constituents, and on the other, they want the event to cause enough damage so that their jurisdiction can qualify for federal assistance. In a time when cities are declaring bankruptcy and tax bases are eroding, elected officials have to navigate the emotional fallout of a disaster as well as figure out how to pay for the subsequent response and recovery.

Although the disasters of 2013 didn't have the gravitational pull that Superstorm Sandy had, the Oklahoma Tornadoes, The Rim Fire in California, and the Colorado flooding all caused significant damage and all received Major Disaster Declarations.

However, 2013 also had several events that didn't qualify for Individual and/or Public Assistance, adding new voices and national coverage to growing discontent on how exactly the declaration process works. While some sort of declarations were given to the Yarnell Fire in AZ, The Fertilizer Plant explosion in TX, and the November Tornado outbreak in Illinois, in each instance there was an outcry that more should have been done to support the communities and survivors of those events.

Even though the above events didn't meet designated thresholds that would have triggered the full breadth of federal assistance, a Bill (H.R. 3295) was introduced in the House of Representatives with the intent of amending the criteria under which resources are offered dubbed the: "Fairness in Federal Disaster Declarations Act of 2014."

This Bill, which was introduced on January 21st, would amend the criteria used to evaluate a request for a major disaster declaration by weighting the factors used to determine Individual and Public Assistance, as well as request that economic factors of the impacted locality and the state's financial situation be taken into account when determining eligibility.

When the Congressional Act of 1803 was passed, considered the first piece of disaster legislation, it provided assistance to Portsmouth New Hampshire, a town recovering from a major fire. Prior to that localities were left to fend for themselves in the wake of a diaster. The premise on which our Emergency Management infrastructure is based is that events are to be handled at the lowest level of government possible. By amending the rules on how federal assistance is meted out, would we be making more events eligible? Would it work against the goals of creating resilience and bolstering preparedness in communities? Would the Bill ultimately end up paying for deferred infrastructure improvements? Not only that, but who's paying for the additional dollars given to disaster survivors?

While the current criteria used to trigger federal assistance following an event may have its flaws, I believe more questions and a more thorough investigation of Bill H.R. 3925 will need to be undertaken as it seems to pose more questions than it answers.

It means nothing unless people act.

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Typhoon exposed limits of Warning System." In the article it talked about a new LIDR system that will replace the existing Doppler radar system in the Philippines used to do the same thing: forecast an incoming storm, but do so with added bells and whistles that will enhance early warning capabilities.

I find it strange that in the midst of ongoing recovery efforts, the government continues to invest in advanced weather forecasting technology, as if it were a limitation of technology that caused the loss of life and not a failure of the framework designed to prevent it. From everything that I've read and from the reports that have come out, the warnings weren't the problem. Days in advance of Yolanda making landfall, there were warnings from the government and PAGASA indicating that this wasn't going to be your average storm, and implored that people respond by evacuating. While the article acknowledges that community action based on the forecasts is needed, it feels like the upgrade to the LIDR system is spending money and resource on addressing something that wasn't broken to begin with, while failing to acknowledge where the real vulnerability lies--in connecting with and empowering communities to take action once information is known.

How is it that a country that averages 20 typhoons a year not know "the drill"? Leading up to Sandy's landfall, people didn't leave because they didn't believe the warnings would match the dire reality forecasted. After communities weather 1,2...or 20 storms, complacency, or hubris can affect their attitude towards the real danger these storms represent. However, it wasn't until I saw this video report from the Wall Street Journal that a new aspect of why people didn't heed to warnings as they should have came to light. As part of the warnings that came from PAGASA, the term "storm surge" was used to describe the tsunami-like wall of water that did so much of the damage; something many Filipino's didn't fully understand. One gentleman in the video goes as far as to call the term "english" and ignored the reality it represented.

While I have no doubt that confusion and unfamiliar terminology surrounding the most deadly aspect of Yolanda's impact played a role in the massive loss of life, I wonder why, given the history Filipino's have with enduring typhoons and the dangers they represent, more widespread proactive action wasn't taken as a precautionary measure.

As recovery gets underway, many are looking to understand where the breakdown occurred and why more action wasn't taken at the local level. If warnings were issued, and a storied history of Category 5 Typhoon's hitting the Philippines known, with Typhoon Bopha hitting last December, why wasn't more done to move people out of harm's way? And why is a technological upgrade seen as a move that will help mitigate loss of life when the reason people failed to leave had more to do with protection of personal property than skepticism surrounding Yolanda's forecasted impact?

Technology is a tool. Higher resolution maps are great, early warnings with higher probabilities on storm impacts and locations are even better; however (insert broken record here) if the people who stand the most to gain (i.e. not die) from the information that these newfangled systems provide are not paying attention or don't care, then you might as well not have any warning system at all. The problem hasn't been the ability to forecast a storm--it's been communicating it in such a way that generates action and interest amongst the people who it will impact.

In Mississippi and Louisiana, people didn't leave when Katrina was bearing down because they didn't believe it was going to be as bad as the forecasts warned. In Galveston when Ike hit, people didn't believe that the island would be all but washed away. In New York, people heeded the warning when Irene blew ashore and when Sandy came, pushing a significant storm surge, people stayed and payed the price. In each of those instances we knew; we knew because history told us, the Army Corps of engineers warned us, and because modern day meteorology showed us where, when, and how severe. To continue to say that advances in severe weather forecasting are mitigating the loss of life and helping people be better prepared, at least where Typhoons and Hurricanes are concerned, is a load of crap. The technology currently used to forecast is sufficient, it's the ability of those whose responsibility it is to turn that information into action at a community level is where the challenge lies. While it's easy to point the finger, I recognize that motivating any large group of people to act is no small task...but when you have history, science, and the blunt trauma of reality on your side...I have to believe that more can and should be done.

Advanced systems and fancier graphics are great but when the dust settles and it's up to friends, neighbors, and search and rescue teams to shoulder the grim burden of counting the dead, the flashy 3D modeling doesn't mean a thing.

If disaster preparedness and risk reduction initiatives can't take hold in the Philippines, a country continually rocked by Earthquakes, Volcanic eruptions, and Typhoons...why would Anytown, USA devote one dollar more than was absolutely necessary to Preparedness if they haven't experienced a disaster in recent memory?

The unfortunate circumstances that have brought us to this moment are tragic...but lets not let this opportunity to champion the preparedness cause slip through our fingers. We need to be able to point to a success story...to be able to show the value in investing in education programs and Disaster Risk Reduction, if there is any hope of it taking hold in vulnerable communities around the world, especially those in our backyards.

9/11 Day of Service

I’m in NYC right now meeting with nonprofits involved in Superstorm Sandy recovery, lending a hand and providing perspective as it relates to their involvement in recovery efforts. This is a very apropos time to be blogging about volunteers, community preparedness, and disasters given my location and the significance of today.

While today’s tragic origins will not be forgotten, a hopeful spin has turned a day of remembrance into a day of action. What started in 2002 as a way to honor a family member who passed helping others get out of the towers, has grown into so much more. 9/11 has become a day of Service and National Remembrance used as a means of paying tribute to those who died, honoring those who bravely acted on behalf of others, and re-connecting with the sense of community we felt in the days and weeks that followed as we looked to do something, anything to help. 

For me, 9/11 was the first time I can clearly remember the palpable desire to do something, to be involved; I was comforted by the fact that I wasn't alone as I saw just how powerful well meaning individuals can be when united by a common cause.

Join the legions of people using today as an opportunity to give back...check out: http://www.911day.org/ for inspiration and ideas on what you can do and how you can do.

National Preparedness Month

September is National Preparedness month, a time to make sure that you have everything you need should an event impact your community; a time to go over the checklist of what to do, where to go, when to meet, emergency contacts, etc…It’s also an opportunity to create a kit and learn about what to do if this is something that you've put off.

During September I'm going to make an effort to focus content on preparedness, highlight resources, articles, and information to help grow your awareness of the potential threats in your area, as well as how to cope should an event strike.

But before sharing resources related to preparedness, I think it's important to share how success is being defined at a National level:

"A secure and resilient Nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk." (National Preparedness Goal, Pg. 1)

For more on the overarching plan and details surrounding each aspect of preparedness: Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery, see the full report below: 

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1828-25045-9470/national_preparedness_goal_2011.pdf

Let's get Ready...to get ready.

Disaster Response in the Digital Age

Have you ever seen a competition cooking show where each chef had to prepare a meal based on the same ingredients? The results are always diverse, utilizing different ingredients in ways unique to each Chef's background and training. While there isn't a TV showcasing the development taking place, we are experiencing something similar in disaster response, a renaissance if you will of application creation aimed at increasing efficiencies of response organizations active in disaster response and recovery.

This list represents a small fraction of the applications/companies with applications that have been created in response to the growing number of disasters and their impacts on communities. This list does not include the wealth of googledoc spreadsheets, excel files, or access databases that are created ad hoc to deal with the onslaught of information needing attention following an event.

Crisis Cleanup
GRT Mobile Solutions
Project SGE 2.0
Palantir
Jointly.us
CERTify (an app for CERT Team coordination)
ArcGIS
WebEOC
Help Me Help
GeoOp (used by the SVA after the Christchurch Earthquakes)
HelpBridge
Crisis mappers
Ushahidi
Google Crisis Maps
Needmapper
Ready QLD (Queensland, Australia's app)
Recovers.org

While the creation of tools to help communities work with the myriad of groups that aid in response and recovery is great, and certainly welcomed, there is a growing concern that we're progressing too fast and not approaching this in a thoughtful or strategic manner. Just because you can go to an all you can eat buffet doesn't mean that you have to eat until you vomit right? Well the same idea applies--just because we can create an unlimited number of apps that marry GIS,workflow, and damage assessment data, doesn't mean we should...without first putting some parameters around what it is we're trying to accomplish and how these tools can help advance an overall plan. As it stands it feels like each response organization is using and in some cases pushing a unique application which can lead to competition for the one app to rule them all.

We're Not Speaking the Same Language
A consistent issue brought up after events is the lack of access to real-time information, data that can be used to help inform the decision making process during response and recovery. Due to privacy issues, organizations on the ground are reluctant to share information with one another or anyone else for that matter until after they've left. This is a problem, but it doesn't encompass the whole problem. Even if groups were better about sharing information, it couldn't be done easily because the applications that are currently being used don't "speak the same language." There are multiple apps doing the same thing but because of the way they've been built, they can't share info, and given that collaboration and cooperation are the cornerstones of successful response--this inability to share is becoming a problem. Everyone is pushing for faster and more efficient, which is great, but rare is the instance where all responding groups are using the same technological platform to work from so those gains in efficiency are marred when trying to work together.

It's understood that timely information is key to promoting a coordinated response effort, what isn't understood is what information we're talking about. I believe that the wealth of apps created to help communities is great, I just want to ensure that all of the apps created can "talk" to one another so that information can be shared in real time...that way, an established response organization and spontaneous groups are working with the same data sets. Experience tells me that no platform is going to be used 100% of the time by 100% of the groups active in response, if we know that then we should be working to provide a framework so that whatever applications are being used can easily interface with everything else out there to aid in response activities.

Disaster Data-Standard
In essence what I'm talking about is the creation of a disaster data standard. Core data sets that can be the foundational elements of any application mobile or otherwise, think of it like a disaster API. If the foundation upon which all the apps are built is the same, then communication and the sharing of info should no longer be an issue. It turns out that I'm not the only on who's been thinking this way, Nethope, a tech focused nonprofit has spearheaded something called the Open Humanitarian Initiative, a broad-ranging effort with the goal of creating a unified data set that will aid in the delivery of disaster response in the information age. This presentation gives you a more detailed view of what their aim is:

Open Humanitarian Initiative - 2013 Plan from Gisli Olafsson

Technology is a tool, not a solution
In the midst of the conversation on the mass proliferation of technology and how it can impact disaster response, it's important to remember that technology is only as powerful as those who wield it, and that during times of crisis people tend to go with what's easiest and most comfortable. While the agencies responding may be well versed in the latest and greatest, if all disasters begin and end at the local level, it's important that those who will be there long after the National groups have left are comfortable with whatever system has been left for them, if they're not, a new system will be cobbled together and people will start over.

Access to reliably accurate and timely information is essential to gaining situational awareness following a disaster. When every responding organization holds a different piece of the puzzle to gaining situational awareness, efforts are hampered and gaining unity of effort becomes exceedingly difficult. But don't take my word for it, the former Minister of Science and Technology of South Africa said it much better in 2005 at the Southern African Telecommunications Networks and Applications Conference :

“The tsunami that devastated South Eastern Asian countries and the north-eastern parts of Africa, is perhaps the most graphic, albeit unfortunate, demonstration of the need for global collaboration, and open ICT* standards. The incalculable loss of life and damage to property was exacerbated by the fact that responding agencies and non-governmental groups were unable to share information vital to the rescue effort. Each was using different data and document formats. Relief was slowed, and coordination complicated.” 

*Information and Communications Technology 

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.

We Can't do it Alone = We Need a Plan

I came across this post on Bill Driscoll Jr.'s tumblr blog recently and it communicates the need for unified approach to how non-profits engage in disaster work. Bill is the Executive Director of Nechama, The Jewish Response to Disaster...I encourage you to give it a read:

Longform: We Can’t do it Alone = We Need a Plan

http://billdriscolljr.tumblr.com/ 

The reality of disaster recovery is that no one person, government agency, or voluntary organization can do it alone. This staggering and sobering realization for survivors and responders alike, comes consistently post disaster.

Recently the concern and potential complications created by the threat of augmenting Federal disaster funds had been consistently in news. Federal budget negotiations seemed to be fixated around disaster recovery dollars. While Federal support can be critical to disaster recovery for both individuals and municipalities, many disasters in the United States go “undeclared”, meaning that they are smaller in size and do not meet the criteria for a Presidential declaration and the accompanying Federal support. We do know the answer to the questions “what if FEMA support isn’t available?” and “what would the recovery look like?”

When a disaster goes “undeclared” and does not generate a Presidential declaration, the burden of recovery falls on individuals themselves, any insurance settlement, available state programs and available charitable or voluntary organization support.  That said, even in a Federally declared disaster area, non governmental organizations (NGOs) and community based organizations, faith based or not, still provide many of the missing pieces of a disaster survivor’s recovery.  FEMA’s own “sequence of delivery” literally begins and ends with voluntary agencies. [See herehttp://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/regions/regioni/sequence2008.pdf]

Amidst the recent budget posturing in Congress, FEMA released the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF), which details “the plan” for future Federal support to state recovery operations. A clearer and updated national plan for the delivery of government related disaster recovery operations is a welcome and important addition to the disaster response and recovery community. That said, no sooner than we can pat those on the back that participated in and crafted the NDRF do we need to focus on what still lacks within this dedicated and passionate community (Full disclosure: I participated in a stakeholders session). The disaster recovery community is comprised of not only government responders but an inspired lot of nonprofit and faith based NGOs.

There is no equivalent to the NDRF for the NGOs active in disaster work and yet this is the part of the community that most consistently engages to help survivors post disaster. The needs that are generated by disaster (even those that do not receive official Federal designation) compel most NGO operations to action, many of which are volunteer and donor driven.

For me, someone that is engaged in disaster response and recovery on a daily basis in the charitable and nonprofit sector, the lack of a consistent field-wide plan or framework is apparent at every disaster event I deploy to. There continues to be lack of consistently agreed upon or valuable structure for NGO coordination both from a distance and on the ground. I believe focusing on an NGO-centric complimentary plan to the National Disaster Recovery Framework needs to be a top priority for the entire disaster response and recovery community. The discussion, research and development of  a “parallel” plan began a few years ago but the process to create what is known as the  “National Nonprofit Relief Framework” has been stuck in neutral. Its originally targeted release date of December 2010 has come and gone. The BP oil spill in 2010 and 2011’s six months of what seemed like nonstop tornadoes, floods, and tropical storms have played a major role in the stall. We as a community have been quite busy…

Many NGOs that are national in scope and have disaster related programs are members of coalitions like National Voluntary Organizations Active (National VOAD) in the hopes that greater communication will lead to collaborative partnerships. National VOAD and the numerous related state level forums are fantastic and beneficial but they are by design, right or wrong, not operational in nature. The members’ relationships and values within the National VOAD community, however, can and will help spawn a renewed effort for a nonprofit relief / recovery framework. Tremendous amounts of aid and hope are delivered by a diverse group of VOAD and NGO partners at each disaster. The potential to do more by strategically pooling resources under the framework of a tactically coordinated plan will only serve to grow the efficiency and effectiveness of our already impressive community. The potential growth is exciting. 

I hope the NDRF completion brings new light and enthusiasm to complete, “whole community” planning through renewed focus on the means by which nonprofits and NGOs collaborate in disasters alongside resources brought to bear by Federal down to local level government.

As expressed by the outpouring of charitable giving by donors following tragedy and disaster, we collectively seem to understand the norm that donated dollars are different than Federal ones and can be utilized and dispersed for varied and perhaps no less effective reasons. Simply no one agency whether or public or private can do it alone. As such we should be constantly driving toward enhancing and improving the way we coordinate and collaborate pre and post disaster.

We in nonprofits are at the mercy of proving that donations are being spent effectively and efficiently.  In order to improve our current collective measures we should move with vigor toward a comprehensive and consistent recovery coordination framework so we are better prepared the next time disaster strikes our country.

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. 

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.

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 Waffle House Index and Business Continuity

There are a lot of interesting relationships out there that seem to have no connection at face value--however, if you dig deeper you find interesting connections. The guys over at www.freakonomics.com/ are really good at finding these connections if you want to learn more. Some examples: skirt length and economic health or the amount of bacon consumed and how fat I get.

However, given that we like to talk about disasters, I'm referring to Administrator Fugate's now famous Waffle House Index. Long story short, this "index" uses Waffle House as a measure of a disasters impact on a community and it comes in three tasty levels that determine severity:

• Green: Waffle House is open and serving a full menu = minor damage and minor impacts
• Yellow: Waffle House is open but serving a limited menu, usually meaning the use of generators to get food into stomachs based on a limited food supply = issues with infrastructure / access and major impacts
• Red: Waffle House is closed = not good, area is unsafe to return

If you've never had the good fortune of eating at a Waffle House, you should remedy that because you're doing your waistline and arteries a disservice. Background: located throughout much of the south, especially the gulf coast states, they are as ubiquitous as Starbucks and known for always being open, 24/7/365. The combination of their geography and their business model, to be open as quickly as possible should they have to close the doors, makes them the perfect litmus test to gauge the impacts of an event in an area. 

It's a good menu...

Which brings me to my point, resilience on a personal level is at the crux of community recovery--if people don't rebuild, there is no community to come back to. However, just as important but less talked about is business resilience. Waffle House makes keeping the doors open a priority, as a result they need to be prepared when disaster strikes given where many of them are located--it's almost become a part of their organizational culture by default. Given that fact, duplication of supply chains and the ability to source things locally in order to get the doors open and butts in the seats as quickly as possible, is part of owning/running a Waffle House franchise. Along with Waffle House, Lowe's, Walmart, and Home Depot all strive to maintain a similarly high standard post-disaster. Given that these giants of industry have solid continuity planning integrated into their organizational culture...why is it that those models and procedural know haven't trickled down to help prepare small to medium-sized enterprises (SME)? 

We talk about whole of community but with the focus being on the individual/family. We need to push the availability of resources for small and medium-sized business as well...groups like the Small Business Administration and the Economic Recovery Support Function are some help to SME's, but in today's world of millions of messages being thrown around, the importance of business preparedness is diluted or lost.

The only reason people were able to get their hash browns covered, smothered, and chunked 3 days after Irene went through the mid-atlantic region in 2011, was because the Waffle House puts an emphasis on being ready...how many other businesses can claim the same?

Just how valuable are those volunteer hours?

Just as important as technology is in helping to bring people together to capture the outpouring of support in coordination and communication following disasters, are the people who drop what they're doing to help--the Volunteers.

Volunteers are a lifeline following an event, they do everything from feeding to working at points of distribution, to mobilizing cleanup operations, as well as advocate for those who may not have a voice. Their actions save affected homeowners time and money through sweat equity in cleanup activities and voice unmet needs that traditional emergency management may not be able to identify. But beyond the direct benefit homeowners receive by welcoming groups of volunteers into their homes / onto their properties, is the potential financial benefit that the impacted municipality can reap if the Volunteer hours and tracked and properly reported.

The reimbursement of Volunteer hours for work done on private property is something that few people know about, and fewer people understand. But given the potential for offsetting some of the financial burden incurred by communities cleaning up, one would think that this would be common knowledge--as far as I know...it is not.

The process of reimbursement for Volunteer hours after a disaster has long been a question that many national non profits and community based organizations have asked, but due to the ambiguity surrounding whether the work Volunteers do qualifies for reimbursement has been difficult to get a straight answer to. The stories of the millions of dollars Volunteers saved the city of Joplin through meticulous hours tracking and reporting are the stuff of legend, but yet when I have asked for guidance on the process, who to talk to, and ultimately who had the authority to make that determination, I've gotten a variety of answers.

The question(s)
Who can responding organizations go to prior to engaging in cleanup activities to get a clear answer on whether or not the hours worked on private property by Volunteers are eligible for municipal reimbursement under the Stafford Act? In addition, if hours are applicable, what metrics need to be tracked for reporting and who does that reporting go to?

Cost Share
Often referred to as "the soft match," a community can apply the documented value of Voluntary labor for certain activities against the amount they owe the Federal government to offset costs. As an example, if the Federal government is covering 75% of the costs and the municipality 25%, then Voluntary hours could be applied to reduce the financial burden owed by the city. If you want more info on this check out FEMA's Public Assistance Applicant Handbook page 6.

This is a great way to communicate and reinforce the natural desire people have to help a community in need, and to promote the value of affiliating Volunteers with organizations who can provide this added benefit to an impacted municipality. However, the fact remains that few know or understand how to navigate this process, and the perceived nuance that pervade the mechanics of securing a designation and all the requirements that go with it only add to the mystery.

While I could write a lot on the subject, the bottom line is that after reading through FEMA's:

• Debris Removal from Private Property Policy Statement
• Key Sections of the PA Applicant Handbook
• Relevant Sections of the Stafford Act

And speaking with FEMA and reps from impact municipalities, I still don't feel I know what the triggers are to start this process, who on the ground makes that determination (because in my experience it's not the FCO as some of the documentation indicates), if the act of bringing debris to the curb of private property (the majority of the activity Volunteers engage in) is covered, who ultimately to report the information to, and whether or not there is a template that exists that you can give to community's to help them jump start the process.

While this is an esoteric topic, the benefits of gaining clarity around the issue could be far reaching. As previously stated, with the proliferation of spontaneous response groups sprouting up after events, untold numbers of Volunteer hours are going un-reported. If there was a concise way to show the value in following guidelines on tracking Volunteer hours, I believe it would work to bring more groups to the table around a common cause--helping individuals and families while also advancing the goal of community-wide recovery.

If anyone has or can gain insight based on the linked documents, please leave comments...as I am by no means the expert, just someone who knows the importance of gaining clarity around this issue.

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.

The Languages of Disaster

A series of these maps are making the rounds on the internets illustrating the regional differences in vocabulary...the bottom line being, different parts of the country use different words for the same thing: soda = pop / hoagie = sub / sneaker = tennis shoe / etc...























The same can be said for how we talk about disasters, the nomenclature we use is as varied and idiosyncratic as the communities we help. The two camps that exist in the disaster world are those in the traditional emergency management infrastructure and those who are not.

Traditional emergency management is based on the tenants of the command and control structure of NIMS and ICS, and within that camp there's SEMS, the foundational "language" on which NIMS is based. Within this acronym-laden alphabet soup lives a language / structure with it's own HR procedures, protocols, ways of conducting field ops, and ways of requesting assistance from neighboring jurisdictions.

The other camp are the non-profit organizations and everyone else, including people holding positions within local gov't, all of whom speak their own language or are making it up as they go as it relates to response and recovery activities. This is not to say that some of the national organizations / city governments don't have personnel who aren't "versed" in NIMS/ICS, but it's usually only a small percentage and ends up reinforcing a divide between established response organizations and those emergent groups who only stand up after an event.

One of the hurdles that exists in bridging this gap is that a NIMS org chart looks like this:

Nice. Organized. Clear Delineation of Roles and Responsibilities

And a non-profit org chart is more like this:

Too many jobs for too few people

And the org chart for spontaneous groups look like this:

There isn't one

State and Local Emergency Management Agencies speak NIMS/ICS because there are funding strings attached, the non-profit world usually receives their funding from private sources and are beholden to a different set of requirements--none of which have anything to do with ensuring NIMS/ICS compliance.

When NIMS/ICS aren't part of the daily operational vernacular, there are going to be problems in level setting expectations and creating a common place to start from following an event, especially when trying to bring the various players together to create a unified and cohesive response effort.

To help create consistency in operations from a county, state, and federal perspective, a series of frameworks have been created: The National Prevention Framework, The National Mitigation Framework, The National Response Framework, and The National Disaster Recovery Framework. While the debate rages on about whether or not the federal gov't has too many or not enough frameworks, the fact remains that they exist and provide a roadmap in which roles and responsibilities are outlined.

If you turn to the non-profit sector or beyond you'll find that no such guidance exists. National VOAD has consensus and guidance documents but nothing that sets forth expectations around roles and responsibilities following an event, leaving the door open for a re-interpretation of how things should go every time disaster strikes.

The command and control mentality only works to a point, but if the whole of community and community resilience talk is to be anything more than words, a common language and common ground need to be found to bridge the gaps that currently exist. If we don't speak the same language, working together will continue to be a struggle fraught with the same mis-interpretations and mis-understandings that have plagued response for as long as I've been a part of it.

Innovation + Civic Engagement = Secret Sauce

Who doesn't love a Venn diagram?

Secret Sauce...that's what we're all after right? Finding the balance, the intersection between civic engagement and innovation, where capable, hungry individuals and organizations are working to streamline access to new and exciting ways to help their communities in both times of disaster and not.

The fluid nature of innovation and the reactive spikes in civic engagement following disasters makes harnessing the confluence of these two elements difficult. However, I believe what happened following Hurricane Sandy is a great example of Secret Sauce in action; where volunteerism and civic engagement fueled by new tech platforms aided community-wide response and recovery activities. At the time it was messy and chaotic, but the new ideas and perspectives on how to approach many of the challenges that continue to pervade response and recovery, were a welcomed breath of fresh air.

Because the life cycle of a technology employed in response is so short, it's almost guaranteed that the next time it's used, lessons learned from its previous deployment will have gone into creating version 2.0. While creating newer and more efficient applications and systems is good, I believe the key to retaining the secret sauce is to maintain a technology's simplicity while enhancing its functionality. Of course that's easier said than done, but it's important to remember that during times of disaster people revert to what they know and what's easiest, which is why you see so many people doing coordination with a pen and legal pads.

The confluence of motivated people and new technology rallying around a common cause is rare, but we have the good fortune in disaster response to have an abundance of both. I believe the key to ensuring that every community gets their own brand of Secret Sauce is to aggressively promote innovation while nurturing and rewarding civic engagement that promotes community cohesion.

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.

Volunteers in Disasters

The impact of non-profits, or more specifically, VOADs (Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster) and their role in expediting a community’s recovery by leveraging their proficiency in the response/recovery time frame is undeniable; their depth of experience and breadth of resource can be the difference between weeks and months of recovery time. Oftentimes those resources brought to bear are volunteer-based.

However, not all of the resources brought to bear come in an organized fashion. Overwhelmingly compelled by the desire to do something, individuals and groups show up in droves with no previous response experience and jump in, these individuals are called Spontaneous Unaffiliated Volunteers (SUVs) and they continually challenge those responsible for volunteer coordination and management during response and recovery.

This influx of individuals wanting to help is well documented, so much so that guides have been created to help responding communities deal with the surge: "Managing Spontaneous Volunteers In Times of Disaster: The synergy of Structure and Good Intentions," but even with the historical data foreshadowing the surge, leveraging this pool of energy and desire to help continues to challenge those of us in response.

As someone who got their start and discovered their passion through volunteering, listening / reading to this news story gave me pause: "In the Face of Disaster, Certification Makes The Difference." The longstanding line from the response community to the world at large has been to pre-affiliate, get trained so that you can confidently and productively put that training to use after the next disaster strikes. With the understanding that all volunteers come with needs: food, housing, and productive work in a community, coupled with the shift that's taking place in how volunteers organize following disasters, the pre-affiliate message to me seems stale.

In the report it states: 

"Volunteers are always appreciated, but it's the certified ones that make the real difference."

I guess I'm unclear about what making a real difference means. Don't get me wrong, I believe that as many people who can align themselves with an organization prior to a disaster, the better. But to say that those who don't pre-affiliate but deploy anyway don't make a "real" difference does a disservice to the time, dedication, heart, and often tears that are shed as those SUV's help homeowners cleanup following an event.

The challenges associated with volunteers following a disaster are not black and white, there are liability issues, safety issues, logistical and coordination issues, reporting issues, etc...and because every jurisdiction seems to work from a slightly different playbook trying to address them or create standards to mitigate their impacts becomes exceedingly difficult. 

With the 'whole of community' and 'community resilience' rhetoric being pushed from a federal level, coupled with the local movement that's taking root in communities following disasters, the time is now to have a real conversation about changing views on SUVs and learning from their substantial impacts. Groups like: Occupy Sandy, Staten Island Strong, Respond and Rebuild, Rockaway Help, Southeast Nashville Flood Recovery, opokrelief are great places to start that dialogue.

As someone who began their career in disaster response and recovery as a SUV, the pejorative view that continues to pervade the response community regarding SUVs is something that I believe continues to limit the speed and cohesion of response efforts. There is no doubt that VOAD groups make a considerable impact in mass care activities, but as technology continues to increase connectivity and social platforms make the dissemination of needs easier and faster, a rethinking of how to better incorporate local groups, comprised almost entirely of SUVs, will have to be addressed to ensure that the 'whole of community' is being engaged in response activities.