Return to Hazards Center Home Page
Claire Rubin opened the session. Three questions were asked of the discussants: 1) What do we currently know about the disaster recovery phase? 2) What don't we know, or what do we know and are not doing? 3) What main things should the new Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) sponsored project on establishing disaster recovery assistance teams attempt to do?
Rubin discussed her research on recovery. In a 1985 monograph which included the results of 14 case studies on disaster recovery, three determinants to a successful recovery were uncovered. These were: a) the ability to act or the political will on the part of the community's leadership, b) the administrative capability to meet the needs, and c) knowledge about emergency management and the disaster agent. She posed the question why recovery goes so badly in many communities, for example in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1989 following Hurricane Hugo. Rubin mentioned her experience in Homestead, Florida, after Hurricane Andrew and the difficulties of that recovery. Recovery is not easy nor is it systematic. Local governments still need help. Last year, the city council member from Grand Forks, North Dakota, underscored this with the question of why there could not be a SWAT team that could come into stricken communities to assist the local government leadership. Rubin concluded by reading the description of the new project on disaster recovery teams from PERI's newsletter PERISCOPE.
Clancy Philipsborn initiated the discussion about what we do know about recovery. He believes that, in essence, we know most about we need to know about recovery. We have not, however, communicated this knowledge effectively to practitioners. George Houston agreed, adding that recovery is a long term process and the success of recovery very much depends on the level of experience and training of local government personnel. Some jurisdictions never fully come back from a disaster. Chris Jonientz-Trisler underscored the natural tendency for communities to want to recover and rebuild quickly without thinking about the needs of long term mitigation.
In terms of what we don't know, Houston said there is not good recovery documentation over a five to ten year period. What kind of long term recovery issues should we be looking for? He also mentioned separately that he found the International City County Management Association's (ICMA) recovery matrix which was developed by Claire Rubin very helpful. The publication on recovery that includes the matrix is still available from ICMA. Jonientz-Trisler's perspective, from the federal level, is that the federal government doesn't have enough interaction with local governments to understand their priorities. Philipsborn commented that large businesses don't know enough about the work of contingency planners and the work of the general disaster management community.
In discussing the main things the new project should attempt to do, Philipsborn focussed on the local government needs that the teams should address. He mentioned a litany of issues including the following: organizational needs, political needs, issue identification, restoration, public communications, and finances, i.e. tracking expenses. He recommended that perhaps a city manager with disaster experience be on the team. He emphasized that the team's credibility would be very important. Jonientz-Trisler mentioned the importance of the teams' knowledge about the various FEMA and other agency programs and how they interface. Houston discussed his own experience in Portland and how invaluable the assistance from recovery experts was to him and the city. He recommended a mix of public and private sector team members. Further, team members should be highly competent and patient and be coaches. They should be focussed on assisting the local leadership through the maze of issues they need to address. The teams should be self sufficient, be able to talk to elected officials as well as to recovery/operational people, and provide direction as to what is going to happen next in the recovery process. The teams would be valuable in helping the locality interface with FEMA and other agencies, for example during the applicants briefing. Houston recommended that the teams have written recovery guides and field operating guidelines. He reiterated the importance that the teams be coaches/mentors to local government managers.
Following the discussants' presentations, Lucien Canton, City of San Francisco emergency manager, emphasized the political necessity for a local government to return to normalcy as quickly as possible. He also mentioned the importance of negotiation and facilitation skills.
Return to Hazards Center Home Page
Return
to Index of 1998 Session Summaries