Single Point Coordination for Disaster Recovery Rev. Dr. L. George Abrams

Single Point Coordination for Disaster Recovery Rev. Dr. L. George Abrams

Long Term Recovery Group (LTRG) Picture an Ideal LTRG Broad Representation What if????? Small # of cases From a Small disaster Or a few remaining cases after LTRG closes from lack of funding. Technology Management Memberships Donations Case Volunteer Management Fundraising Management Resource Directory Long Term Recovery Committee Needs Assessment Social Events Public Affairs Grievance Committee Policy Advocacy

Case Management Materials RECOVERY Money Personnel

Single Point Coordination Examples The Spokane Case Study The Rochester Case Study The Spontaneous Model Case Study The Existing Agency Model and Case Studies I don t give a fig for simplicity this side of complexity. However, I would give all I own for simplicity on the far side of complexity. Felix Frankfurter, U. S. Supreme Court

Single Point Model Characteristics Uses an existing 501(c) (3) organization. Borrows meeting space Manages only a few cases (4 to 100) Creates a very small Steering Committee. Chair, V. Chair, Secretary, Case Worker 4-7 members Utilizes Volunteer/paid part-time case worker Find people with demonstrated organizational skills Provide case work training Becomes operational within one week

Single Point Model Characteristics Continued Receives financing from Disaster Funds Churches, not-for-profits, government funds, Treasurer is provided by non profit organization. Contains only a few key organizations at the table. Has case managers in close communication with key staff from other organizations. Makes extensive referral to existing organizations Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, Lutheran Social Services, etc.

Single Point Model Characteristics Continued Has No: office, web site, business cards, telephones, computers, etc. Is capable of expanding in size as need arises Works both Federal and Non-federal disasters Responds to cases referred from County Emergency Management. Word of mouth is very effective. Networks with other organizations to find resources and cases.

The Spokane Case Study Record-breaking snowfall, December 2008 Request from Spokane County Emergency Management. Estimated half a dozen cases Inland North West VOAD Organized about 20 years ago. Relatively small organization

Spokane Long Term Recover Committee (LTRC) VOAD plan called for formation of a separate organization to go operational No Budget LTRC formed at one two-hour meeting. Chair, V. Chair, Secretary. Used Red Cross 501(c) (3) Used Highline United Methodist Church for Fiscal Agent Met at Red Cross Office

Partner Organizations on LTRC Seventh Day Adventist Salvation Army Catholic Charities United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) Borders Books Highline United Methodist Church

Case Worker Sharon Andrews Red Cross Case Worker. Trained by UMCOR Well known to VOAD Paid by UMCOR

Case Work Activity Reviewed 88 cases 50% were Business Cases 30% needed help with Insurance and Insurance Appeals 15% financed own repairs (emotional support) Opened 10 cases Spent money on 3 hardship cases

Summary of Case Work Repaired snow damaged roof Repaired snow damaged air conditioner Assisted in paying for foundation for a new manufactured home. Helped clients make insurance appeals Referred 7 cases About 75 hours of case work

Rochester Case Background Dec. 2007, One of the largest floods in W. Washington (500 year event) Interstate 5 under 12 15 feet of water. 1000 residents flooded in Centralia/Chehalis Presidential Declaration, January 6, 2008 West Lewis County LTRO opened 5 months later. What happens to the clients during the 5 months?

Rochester UMC Reached out to their neighbors who were struggling to recover. Brett DeMond, a retired fish biologist, stepped forward to do volunteer case work. She was trained by UMCOR in March 2008 as a Case Worker.

PNW Conference Disaster Coordinator Contacted Rochester UMC about hiring Brett as a Case Worker. Her nursery business was suffering due to her 20 to 40 hour weeks as a volunteer. Church Personnel Committee met and approved the addition to their staff. Approved the use of church s 501(c) (3) Church s Liability coverage Contacted church treasurer about accounting for case management funds.

Rochester Case Work Handled 50 cases The church hired Susie Hawes, a second part time case worker, to help with cases. Provided over $500,000 in assistance Used $ 23,000 of UMCOR money. Church raised additional $19,672. Coordinated with over 20 organizations. Including materials, finances and volunteer labor. Transferred remaining cases to Lewis Co. LTRO when it became operational in May 2008. Took back 44 cases when LTRO closed in Feb.2010 Remained operational with UMCOR, CRWRC funds and UMVIM teams until September 2012.

Spontaneous Case Background December 2007 flooded the Boistfort Valley, Lewis County. Isolated by mountain range Independent people 54 Dairy farms flooded. Over 1,000 Dairy cattle drowned Command Center set up by fire department in Adna, Washington.

Adna Command Center Few if any preexisting social service agencies in the valley. Volunteer Coordinator provided task lists for any volunteer teams coming to help. Donations Coordinator encouraged people to donate to disaster recovery. Hired a case worker, Susie Duran She was trained by UMCOR in March 2008.

Adna Command Case Worker Ran short of money in September 2008. CM agreed to join with Lewis County LTRO in exchange for case work salary Susie D. was working 20 hours/week/$15/hour. Susie Duran was the lead case manager at Lewis County LTRO until February 2010. She continued as case manager for Rochester UMC Single Point Recovery until Sept. 2012

Existing Agency Case Studies (examples in Washington State) White Pass Community Coalition Associated Ministries of Pierce County Hope Source in Ellensburg First Presbyterian Church of Republic, WA. Ferry County LTRG

Characteristics of Existing Agency Models Large Faith-based or Social Service Organization (for that area) Well Established and Connected in the Community Has a 501 (c) (3) Agrees to coordinate all Disaster Cases in that community. Often add Disaster Recovery to their list of services Has their own case worker(s)

White Pass Community Services Coalition Programs Housing Utility Assistance Transportation Domestic violence Sexual assault advocacy

Associated Ministries of Pierce County Disaster Response Domestic and Family Violence Housing and Shelter Services Emergency food Hilltop Action Coalition Open Hearth Ministries Asset Building Coalition Severe Weather Assistance Psychotherapy

Hope Source (Kittitas County) Emergency shelter Energy assistance Food banks Youth recreation scholarships Transportation Life Skills Coaching

Taylor Bridge Fire LTRG Taylor Ridge Fire, August 2012 60 homes destroyed Some are Summer Homes HopeSource (Community Action Program) Formed Task force for 60-90 days Received training Formed LTRG in October 2012

First Presbyterian Church, Republic Washington Ferry County Hurricane Force Winds July 2012 10 houses destroyed, 20 damaged. FEMA PA for power line repair. Long Term Recovery meeting at Presbyterian Church. Elected officers of LTRG 10 days after the disaster. Hired Case Manager. UMCOR Case Management Training 2 months later. Financial Assistance from UMCOR and PDA Currently working 10 cases.

Advantages of Single Point Coordination Easy to mobilize if you know how. Representative of the community Low overhead (office space provided) Can expand as number of cases increase Have a 501 (c) (3) Case Worker may already know clients Less Fraud, and more client trust. Community steps forward to help. Case Worker is able to help client sooner

Advantages of Single Point Coordination (Continued) Liability insurance for case worker agency volunteer Registered with State as Non-Profit. Cases referred from County Emergency Management and other response groups. Can quickly expand as case load builds Committee learns as it works (OJT)

Disadvantages to Single Point Coordination May require Agency Board approval May overlook organizational details. May not operate under established protocols, Duplication/verification of benefits. Fewer out-of-county dollars available. Not enough national organizations at the table May have a do it ourselves mentality Limited resources

Disadvantages Continued May be dominated by the non-profit. May inherit preexisting bias/prejudice May become a closed system. The Non-Profit may choose to not work with outside organizations. They are used to doing all their own work. Out of State resources may be ignored.

Conclusion Single Point Models should not be overlooked. Use Strength Based Perspective Start with existing strengths (resources) and expand Imposing a new model on a county may slow down the organizational process. Generally easier to organize Adaptable and flexible Faster response for clients Needs to be connected to National Resources.