Johnson: Local Recovery Management Framework

Johnson: Local Recovery Management Framework International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters August 2014, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 242–274. Developing a Local Recovery Management Framework: Report on the Post-Disaster Strategies and Approaches Taken by Three Local Governments in the U.S. Following Major Disasters Laurie A. Johnson Laurie Johnson Consulting | Research Email: [email protected] Comparative case studies of post-disaster recovery are limited, and even fewer have explored organizational approaches to disaster recovery, especially local governments. This paper describes research on the post-disaster strategies and approaches taken by three local governments in the U.S. following major disasters: Los Angeles, California (following the 1994 Northridge earthquake); Grand Forks, North Dakota (following the 1997 Red River flood); and New Orleans, Louisiana (following 2005 Hurricane Katrina). The management practices, recovery timelines, and resulting outcomes were examined for each city. This research proposes a local recovery management framework that can extend the Incident Command System (ICS)-based emergency management structure into recovery, helping to standardize recovery management practices and improve local government effectiveness in recovery. Such a model has diagnostic application to determine gaps in local government capabilities to manage post-disaster recovery and identify needed support and resources—both financial and technical; it can also serve as a framework for recovery exercises and training. Keywords: Local government, Public management, Disaster recovery, Recovery management, Recovery planning. Introduction When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast in 2005, there were a limited number of professionals in the U.S. who had faced the difficult task of managing local government recovery following a major, urban disaster. Professional societies, academic institutions, and federal and state agencies organized conferences and flew in teams of civic leaders, academics and practitioners to share previous experiences with their 242 Johnson: Local Recovery Management Framework counterparts in New Orleans and other devastated localities. The few academic papers, guidebooks and other potential training materials on local-level post-disaster recovery— like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/American Planning Association (APA) guide, Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction (Schwab 1998), were distributed broadly to local managers, academics and consultants. Some professionals and non-profit organizations offered their services pro bono, other professionals signed up with FEMA and its large-scale implementation of Emergency Support Function #14—Long-term Community Recovery Planning, and an army of consultants were hired by state and local agencies to assist (Olshansky et al. 2008). Previous disaster programs, organizational structures, and other “best practices” were quickly studied and applied anew. Again and again, local recovery management approaches were invented; many others unknowingly reinvented. In the U.S., organizational responses to disasters have been the subject of disaster research since the 1950s, but their focus has been mainly on the emergency period and less so on recovery; few studies have looked at recovery from the point of view of local government management (Drabek 2007; Tierney 1995). Also, given the infrequency of disaster events, there has been an inherent lack of systematic study to develop quantitative data as well as qualitative indicators of recovery (Miles and Chang 2006). Instead, researchers tend to “build up knowledge one disaster at a time” and studies often lack a common understanding with respect to disaster “origins, dynamics, and outcomes” (Tierney 2007:520). Furthermore, there is not yet a profession of local disaster recovery management in the U.S. Rather, the management of recovery tasks typically comes from several different parts of local government; and, for many involved; it is an extension of the chaos of disaster response. There are approximately 88,000 local-level entities—cities, counties, special districts, and tribal organizations—in the U.S. Local government is the level of government that most citizens interact with on a daily basis. “It employs more people, provides more direct services and is the most likely point of contact between government and citizens” (R. Cox in Newell 2004:1). The regulation of land use, building construction, and redevelopment, and the provisions of basic urban services (e.g. utilities, education, medical care, community centers) are all primarily the responsibility of local governments and other local-level entities (e.g. utility districts, schools boards, hospital districts). Research Methods and Approach This paper reports on research undertaken to help improve the ability of local governments to manage recovery following major disasters. In particular, the study questioned whether: 1) the Incident Command System (ICS)/National Incident Management System (NIMS) management framework used in the U.S. for emergency 243 Johnson: Local Recovery Management Framework response could be extended to help local governments transition into recovery and structure local recovery management; and 2) whether there were some strategic management practices that, if employed by local governments post-disaster, could enhance local recovery efficiency and effectiveness. The study approach was to first understand the state of knowledge and practice on disaster recovery management, and then to systematically examine the post-disaster strategies and approaches taken by three local governments in the U.S. that have faced significant disasters. The study aspires to: 1) advance the theoretical understanding of the urban disaster recovery process; 2) define recovery management strategies and principles to inform recovery policymaking; and, 3) enhance the capabilities and effectiveness of local governments to manage recovery following major disasters. The research was conducted over a two-year period between 2007 and 2009; however, it draws upon the author’s observation and participation in the post-disaster recovery planning and management of cities both within the U.S. and internationally over more than two decades. Literature related to urban disaster recovery from mainly the U.S. and Japan was first examined; it included research on disaster recovery management principles, strategies, and models; post-disaster recovery tasks and best practices; and models and methods for measuring recovery outcomes. A qualitative description of the historical evolution the U.S. disaster management system over the last century, and the regulatory framework of major national, state and local laws, policies and programs relevant to urban disaster recovery, was also prepared. These reviews drew upon three officially-recognized forms of disaster literature cited in the Handbook of Disaster Research (Rodriguez et al. 2007:xiv–xv): popular literature that includes newspaper and other forms of media reporting, as well as popular books on disaster events and lessons; official literature, such as official documents of governmental, quasi-governmental, and non-profit agencies; and, professional and scientific literature, primarily from the social, physical, and engineering academic and professional publications and meeting proceedings. The research also systematically examined the post-disaster strategies and approaches taken by three local governments in the U.S. that have faced major disasters. The case studies are the cities of Los Angeles, California (following the 1994 Northridge earthquake); Grand Forks, North Dakota (following the 1997 Red River flood); and New Orleans, Louisiana (following 2005 Hurricane Katrina). During the initial years following each selected case study disaster, the author was either directly involved in the recovery efforts, or conducting research in each locality. In Los Angeles, the author participated in several research studies following the January 1994 earthquake. In Grand Forks, the author worked for the first six months of the city’s recovery from the April 1997 flood as a consultant funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to assist the city in its recovery management and was a lead author of the city’s recovery plan. In New Orleans, the author performed research during the first year of the city’s 244 Johnson: Local Recovery Management Framework recovery following Hurricane Katrina, and then worked in New Orleans for six months helping to prepare the city’s recovery plan. The case study method employed in this research has limitations, particularly in limiting the reproducibility or universal application of any policy conclusions drawn from the cases. The cases selected for this study were all major disasters that affected significant physical, social, economic, and institutional elements of the cities studied, and thus, there will certainly be issues of scalability of the policy conclusions for more moderate events and in different political and policy settings. Nonetheless, case study research remains one of the best methods for understanding complex social phenomena such as public policy and administration in a real-life, post-disaster situations (Yin 2009). The detailed reviews of the literature related to urban disaster recovery and the U.S. disaster management system were included in the study to help provide policy and theoretical context for each case,

Load more