Some American towns prefer animals for their mayor.  See this update on Mayor Stubbs in Alaska, from the WSJ: Mayor of Alaskan Town Is a Cat; But With His Honor Less Frisky, Residents Ponder Succession

The Diva has two readers who have commented on the the recent major changes at the Red Cross.

See Joseph Martin’s posting in his blog. Joseph is an active volunteer in the Dallas area. His blog is titled: The American Red Cross Embraces the Disaster Cycle and Resilience;

Jono Anzalone works for the Red Cross; he is Division Disaster Executive, North Central Division (ID, MT, ND, SD, MN, WI, IL, NE, IA, KS, and MO) His comments are here:

 Clara Barton said it best; “I have an almost complete disregard of precedent, and a faith in the possibility of something better. It irritates me to be told how things have always been done. I defy the tyranny of precedent. I go for anything new that might improve the past.”   The Red Cross is continually working to improve the way we deliver our mission.  Beginning in 2012, we began an extensive effort to reassess and revise how we help people affected by disasters, gathering feedback from clients, volunteer, staff, government, non-government partners, and donors.

This resulted in the Red Cross taking steps to make our services more consistent across the country, putting more decisions in the hands of front-line workers who are closest to the people we serve, recruiting more volunteers and helping people and communities become better prepared.  It’s important to know that our basic Red Cross services are not changing; but we are making improvements to deliver them more efficiently and effectively in order to make the best use of our donor dollars.

Below are several principles we built re-engineering around, noting that our entire paradigm is based on client, then process, and finally, structure.  The results of re-engineering were budget neutral (i.e. no reduction in total disaster workforce), and overall, will push power to the edges; in the hands of those closest to the client.

We’re standardizing Red Cross services so they are more consistent across the country.
•    People look to the Red Cross for help and hope after a disaster, including shelter, food, relief supplies, emotional support and longer-term assistance to help them recover.
•    Red Cross must be there for them in ways that are predictable and repeatable in every community.
•    We are developing a national model of service delivery, based on the needs of those we serve, which will be delivered at the community level.

We’re allowing more flexibility at the local level to meet local needs.
•    Local Red Cross chapters are closest to the people we serve and know their needs best.

•    Under the new structure, these front-line workers will lead the disaster response while national headquarters in Washington, D.C., supports the work on the ground and mobilizes materials and staff nationwide when required to support the local teams.
.•    This will move decision-making closer to the action and help speed up our response and its effectiveness.•    Of course, with very large-scale disasters that affect multiple communities, local leadership will be supplemented with national resources.We’re making even greater use of local volunteers in disasters.
•    To expand our capacity to respond, we must expand our pool of volunteers to be our primary workforce.

•    We will also focus on using more local volunteers, which will help reduce travel time and costs.

•    Our goal is to create a better volunteer experience by matching the experiences of today’s volunteers with specific volunteer jobs, and speeding up the mobilization of volunteers—both those who are trained in advance and those who step forward for the first time during a disaster to serve their neighbors.

We’re building more resilient communities.
•    To help people affected by disasters, we must help individuals and communities prepare before disaster strikes. Studies have shown that $1 spent on preparedness saves $4 in response

.•    This means being active in all stages of the disaster cycle, from preparedness to response to recovery.

•    Red Cross will be a partner in building more resilient communities, whether it’s acting as a convener to help mobilize the community to deliver services, filling in the gaps, or supporting other organizations.

We will be monitoring our work to assess our progress in delivering high-quality services
•    We will measure how well these changes are working to ensure that we are delivering high-quality services. We will use specific metrics such as how long it takes to open a shelter in an affected community and the time needed for deploying volunteers to a disaster.
•    Success will be measured by the overall ability of the Red Cross to meet and exceed the expectations of our partners, volunteers, donors and the public—and most importantly, the people that we serve.

Rural California county faces levee dilemma

bout 400 homes and rich farmland in District-10 of Marysville, California risk being flooded should the levees protecting the area fail. The levees, stretching over twenty-eight miles, were built in the early 1900s. The area’s low population may be one reason why county officials have neglected making improvements to the levees in District-10. Local opponents of investment in shoring up the levees are worried that if the levees are improved and the area made safer, “It would open the door for more agribusiness type things, but it would also open the door for more subdivisions,” in the words of one of them.

a stretch of California levee in need of repair // Source: commons.wikimedia.org

About 400 homes and rich farmland in District-10 of Marysville, California risk being flooded should the levees protecting the area fail. The levees, stretching over twenty-eight miles, were built in the early 1900s. The area’s low population may be one reason why county officials have neglected making improvements to the levees in District-10.

The Appeal Democrat reports that that populated areas are given priority when it comes to flood protection. Former Yuba County supervisor Don Schrader, a resident of District-10 who recently announced his plan to run for a seat on the Board of Supervisors next year to represent the 5th District, is bringing attention to the twenty-eight miles of levee he says need improvement.

“Yuba County has ignored everything north of Marysville for years,” Schrader told the Appeal Democrat. “It’s an issue that is absolutely critical to Yuba County.”

Roughly forty District-10 farm-related businesses have a total value of $170 million, according to estimates by Agricultural Commissioner Luis Mendoza. Losing the agribusinesses to flooding would damage the county’s farming industry. “A levee break in District-10 would be devastating to the county agricultural economy,” said Schrader. “It would be an exorbitant cost to rebuild those businesses.”

Mendoza acknowledges the importance of keeping the agribusinesses in District-10. “It is important to do what we can to protect those facilities up there in the District-10 area,” he said. “There is a lot of commodities and a lot of shipping and drying up in that area.” The value of crops from District-10 averages $41 million annually. The figure increase substantially when shipping and drying facilities in the district are factored in.

Schrader is asking the County Board of Supervisors to fund an inundation study and a survey of the levees to determine their condition.

Supervisor Hall Stocker, representing District-10, is concerned that upgrading levees would open the door to residential development. “Agriculture is the number one economic asset in Yuba County and District-10 is a big part of that,” Stocker, who often opposes building subdivisions on farmland, told the Appeal Democrat. “It would open the door for more agribusiness type things, but it would also open the door for more subdivisions.”

District-10 carries a natural resources land-use designation, which requires that four out of five members of the Board of Supervisors vote to revoke it in order to allow residential development. Schrader does not anticipate that existing agribusinesses would sell their land for development if the levees were shored-up. “We are not trying to fix the levees so we can build homes,” he said. “We would be doing it so we can protect businesses.”

The NAS recently released this draft summary of a workshop: Engaging the Public in Critical Disaster Planning and Decision Making.  [ August 23, 2013]

NEW:  There was no podcast or audio recording of the event last night, but Prof. Galloway was kind enough to make his slides available.  I had asked the sponsors for some record of the event and they graciously and promptly replied.
Download the slide set here.

________________________________________________

If you live in the Washington DC area, this talk may be of interest. Dr. Galloway is a good speaker.

Wednesday, October 9, 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Is Community Resilience Real or Fiction?

Everyone has a story to tell about their experience of a natural or human-made disaster. Why do some communities bounce back and others do not? Is building community resilience possible or just wishful thinking? Mix it up with disaster expert Gerald Galloway (University of Maryland) and join a lively discussion about community resilience. No preparation or expertise required—bring your questions and ideas!

The study, which is 43 pages, is titled:At the Crossroads of Long-Term Recovery: Joplin, Missouri Six Months after the May 22, 2011 Tornado. The authors are David M. Abramson and Derrin Culp, at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness, Earth Institute l Columbia University, New York. (Release date 15 September 2013). Part of the abstract follows:

* * *  the tornado displaced one third of the city’s population. They observed a favorable foundation for recovery, including limited physical damage to critical infrastructure or the city government’s fiscal base, minimal political conflict over the direction and control of recovery, a history of prior collaborative efforts across diverse sectors, and a highly involved and visible governor. The study documents several quick critical decisions that set a positive recovery trajectory and a FEMA-supported long-term recovery planning process. It notes that six months after the tornado, Joplin’s leadership faced hard decisions about how to apply federal and state redevelopment support and private philanthropic donations, deal with long-term community mental health issues, maintain a high level of citizen involvement, and sustain the cooperative atmosphere that had defined the first six months of recovery.

Thanks to Laurie Johnson for sending me the link.  In her cover note Laure commented:

Amongst the valuable information that they distilled from their extensive interview efforts, is an acknowledgment that recovery planning (and the formation of the Citizens Advisory Recovery Team (“CART”) within two weeks of the tornado, and which received technical, logistical and operational support from FEMA) is one of four critical actions and accomplishments that they conclude oriented Joplin towards a positive recovery trajectory.

It’s also a nice read.

I have not read it all fully, but I would like to highlight it as a useful model of a recovery case study. Recently, I have been discussing what constitutes a case study with several writers of government guidance and I recommend this example.