Quality vs Speed: Hitting the mark during rebuild

The joists are dry as are the studs, and the requisite inspections have been conducted which means that a once disaster affected house is one step closer to again becoming a home. This is where many families find themselves in the Mid-Atlantic region with organizations and contractors feeling the urgency to get the work done--quickly. While the ideal for every homeowner would be to hire a professional restoration / reconstruction contractor to bring their house back to pre-disaster conditions, many homeowner's face financial shortfalls that prevent this from happening. As a result, these individuals and families come to rely on donated materials and voluntary labor to help cover any gaps that exist during the repair/rebuild process. However, a unique confluence of factors: changing weather, a strain on human resources, and a lack of finances "to do it right," has created an environment where two schools of thought have emerged centering around the speed at which homes are completed vs the level of quality in the finished product.

Speed Demons
One side views quantity as its highest priority, rebuild as many homes as possible, as quickly as possible. In this scenario homeowners are framed more as victims needing saving than as equals in the process; having already dealt with so much: shady contractors, trying to unravel FEMA's grant programming, the permitting process, and insurance companies, the view is that any help given should be welcomed. After all, without the assistance of voluntary resources and donated material, the work done for homeowners in need may never take place. And because of that, the best efforts of those who came to help should be enough, regardless of the quality of the finished product.

Quality over Quantity
The opposing view asks what's the point of having "finished" 100 homes if the homes completed have problems, or because of the workmanship will need to be fixed in 3-5 years? Those who believe quality should not be sacrificed take a tougher stance, believing that homeowner's with need shouldn't be viewed as charity cases waiting for someone's best effort to come along to help them. They believe that the work done on behalf of an individual or family that has gone through the trauma of a natural disaster deserves the best possible and most professional result.

Who's Right?
This debate, like many that surround how best to approach holistic community recovery is one where there doesn't seem to be a "right" or "wrong" answer. Given that both have what they believe to be the best intentions of the homeowner in mind, it's difficult to declare one approach as wrong.

Another example of the quantity vs quality debate is in Moore, OK. After the EF-5 Tornado in May, a discussion around whether a change in building codes should be made so that all the homes rebuilt would be more resilient in the face of future events. While the approval of revised building codes remains unclear, the discussion spurred a push to rebuild back as quickly as possible and not for the obvious reason. If permits were pulled prior to any change in the building codes, homes could be brought back without having the added expense of being "Tornado-proofed". In Moore, speed was, and to a certain extent continues to drive recovery.

At a certain point though, especially in a place like Oklahoma where Tornados are a part of life, building back stronger to reduce the impacts of future events only makes sense. The quality of the structure and the steps taken to integrate better building practices may come with an upfront expense and take longer to institute, but the benefits of less property damage, cheaper and faster recovery, and a greater resilience in the face of future severe weather would be the benefits.

Having this debate is good because it advances the conversation on an important issue, but unfortunately it's happening in a vacuum, because when a family with no place to go has the option of having their home rebuilt to the way it was pre-event, and done so by a largely unskilled group of people as the quicker option, it's difficult to tell them that they should wait and potentially spend more money they don't have.

So what do you think? Is one approach more valid than the other? Is there a way we can find a middle ground that pushes build timelines while not sacrificing the quality of the finished product and do so without breaking the bank? And how would Long Term Recovery Committees/Groups work in this new hybrid model? Thoughts?

Coordinating Cleanup 1.0

Crisis Cleanup has a great logo

Nonprofits setting up operations in Colorado are abuzz with talk of Crisis Cleanup, the brain child of Aaron Titus, a guy who said "there's got to be a better way to organize some of the chaos of early recovery cleanup" (I made that quote up) and created a tool that's doing just that. He created a tool that works to advance how nonprofit organizations engage in cleanup activities following a disaster.

The cliff's notes version is that Crisis Cleanup is a google map populated with cleanup needs represented by pins dropped on the location of said need. Registered organizations can claim pins so that other responding groups don't accidentally send teams to a home that has already received help. There is a reporting aspect that accompanies this so that hours can be tracked and volunteer numbers logged, an innovative solution that helps manage the nonprofit aspect of early recovery cleanup following disasters.

I had an opportunity to be a user of the system after Hurricane Sandy as part of its beta testing during response and saw the potential. Since then the system has been implemented several times with what I hope are fixes and advances making it easier to use and more comprehensive from a data capture perspective.

Screen shot of the user interface -- Superstorm Sandy

With the system being used in Colorado to coordinate nonprofit cleanup activities, I'm interested in hearing from anyone who uses it to manage their infield work flow to get your thoughts on the system within the context of cleanup coordination.

And while I'm optimistic about how Crisis Cleanup can work to provide the autonomy nonprofits seek while working within a defined system, I feel that it's important to remember the need to be inclusive.

Spontaneous response in disaster and the substantial impact it has during early recovery activities is no longer an ignorable trend. Social media is being used to organize armies of volunteers to aid in response and recovery, and it's happening as I write this in Colorado. As a community of practice we must strive to include as many of these emergent groups as possible in response coordination. Not only is it key in working towards enacting the "all of nation" or "whole of community" approach to preparedness and response as outlined by Presidential Policy Directive 8, but its important for unity of effort to provide better coordinated service delivery to those affected.

As it stands the crisis cleanup tool is largely for vetted organizations, those with a response history or those who are "known" entities. And while I understand why the system is setup this way, to help ensure consistency in the work done on behalf of homeowners, I feel that there is a solution that can set an expectation as to the level of work needing to be done, while encouraging broader inclusion of locally responding groups.

All Disasters Are Local, a tired expression but one that holds truth; and while Crisis Cleanup has taken a monumental step in unifying early recovery cleanup from a nonprofit perspective, I believe that there is work to be done to ensure access to this tool makes its way down to the emergent groups on a local level. For it's those groups that have the biggest stake in ensuring that their communities make a full recovery and as such rightfully deserve to be included within the broader coordinated effort.

A tip of my cap to you Mr. Titus, I look forward to seeing how we can evolve the model moving forward.

Social media and Calgary Flooding

The hashtag #SMEM (social media emergency management) is flourishing on twitter. I've mentioned VOSTs (virtual operation support teams) that have formed in response to the need for remote support in communities overwhelmed due to infrastructure and personnel limitations. I've talked about the proliferation of technologies that organizations are utilizing and the questionable impacts they're having on nonprofit response, but I haven't talked about Canada. Canada got sucker punched earlier this year by unforeseen flooding, a north-of-the-boarder Sandy if you will. Well just as everyone went agog over the social media stats for Sandy here is the first consolidated dataset on social media use during the flooding in Calgary.

Social media and its ability to empower an organized voluntary response is no longer debatable...it's time we re-wrote some volunteer management annexes and figured out how to truly integrate local response (grassroots efforts) into the broader context of emergency management.

Thanks to Inbound Interactive for putting this together...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.