Return to Hazards Center Home Page
The panel looked at the process of long-term recovery at the community level. The questions considered by the panelists were: 1) What types of recovery problems do local communities find the most difficult? 2) What government programs have proved most helpful for recovery? 3) Which disaster victims and community sectors are left out of the recovery process?
Laurie Johnson presented her hypothesis that communities need to be empowered immediately after an event if they are to meet their long-term goals. She based her findings on recent experiences as a HUD Recovery Team member for Grand Forks, North Dakota, floods and research she is conducting on Loma Prieta and Northridge, California earthquakes. Her findings suggest that communities are able to transition from response to recovery if they are empowered by other levels of government and their own capabilities to manage their recovery. If they engage in post-disaster management planning, they may be able to overcome community pressure and the culture of local government to solve only short-term recovery issues.
Marsha Hilmes shared her experiences with the 1997 Spring Creek flood in Fort Collins, Colorado, which was a 500-year event. She suggested that the ability to coordinate the recovery and thoughtful decisions made prior to the event are the keys to successful recovery. Her community is still in the process of recovering from this event which she believes takes a long time, especially emotional recovery. Fort Collins had less loss of life and property due to decisions made prior to the flood. For example, the city made a trailer park in the flood plain into a park prior to the flood. The city's comprehensive plan adopted prior to the event is guiding the recovery, and she emphasized that prior mitigation planning and actions are "paying off" in the recovery stage.
Andrew Coghlan drew on his experiences with numerous disasters in Australia especially the recent Port Arthur mass killings which emotionally impacted a community and the nation. He suggested that in all types of disasters, community involvement and leadership are the bases for successful recovery. He especially stressed the complex nature of recovery which all organizations must recognize in order to be effective. The Australians set up community recovery committees which handle all aspects of the recovery, and thus are empowered to manage the recovery. After disasters, Australian national government assigns a community development officer to the affected area whose role is to support the community recovery committee and act as an advocate with other levels of government and other organizations.
Mike Armstrong did an excellent job of bringing his experiences serving local government, as FEMA Region VIII Director, and as the Director of the FEMA Mitigation Directorate to address the above questions which he reduced to what is difficult, what is helpful, and who gets left behind. He believes that complex federal programs requiring local government staff time and Congressional approval are difficult for communities trying to recover. Those programs that have flexible rules are the easiest for local governments to utilize. The populations that are left behind are generally poor and under represented such as minorities and rural and tribal populations. He discussed FEMA's plans for improving long-term recovery assistance by bringing the responsibility under the Mitigation Directorate and convening a meeting with other federal agencies to improve the federal government approach.
The discussions and questions following the presentations were thoughtful and stressed the need for:
Return to Hazards Center Home Page
Return
to Index of 1998 Session Summaries